According to this Redstate Action Alert, Democrats have slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Why we care is because the bill has an amnesty provision in it. Here’s an overview of that provision:

Blue card status:
Authorizes the granting of temporary “blue card” status to an alien who pays a $100 fee, and who DHS has determined to:

• have performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days (one work day is defined as 5.75 hours, so this is the equivalent of 21.5 40‐hour work weeks, or less than half of a standard 50‐week work year), whichever is less, during the two‐year period ending December 31, 2006;
• have applied for blue card status during the 18‐month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month after enactment;
• have not been convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor involving bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property exceeding $500; and
• be otherwise admissible (with specified waivers available);

• Caps the number of aliens to be granted blue card status in the five years following enactment at 1.5 million;
• Requires each employer of a blue card alien to annually provide a written record of employment to that alien and to provide a copy of that record to DHS (lest the employer be fined up to $1,000 per violation), but sunsets that obligation six years after enactment; and
• Requires DHS to provide each blue card alien with a secure, biometric identification document (e.g., encrypted identification strip, biometric identifiers).

Do we really want to reward people for breaking the law? If you’re opposed to rewarding illegal behavior, call your senator at (202) 224-3121.

It’s time that we reminded the politicians that We The People oppose this ban in huge numbers.

Technorati Tags: Amnesty, Farm Bill, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Larry Craig, Illegal Immigration, We The People

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has some explaining to do after it was revealed that he’s maintained strong ties with Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, aka FARC. I’m not an international law student but I’d have to think that supporting a terrorist organization whose sole intent is to overthrow the democratically elected government of another country is an act of war. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Interpol on Thursday endorsed the authenticity of computer files seized in a rebel camp, announcing that Colombia did not tamper with documents indicating Chavez sought to finance and arm the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Venezuelan officials set up contacts with Australian arms dealers and arranged for missile training in the Middle East, according to the documents, which were on computer hard drives seized by Colombia and obtained by the Washington Post.

Not surprisingly, Chavez responded disdainfully:

“Do you think we should waste time here on something so ridiculous?” he told reporters in Caracas.

Chavez has denied providing the FARC material support, but did not address the issue directly on Thursday. Instead, he called Interpol’s secretary general, Ronald Noble, “a tremendous actor,” “Mr. Ignoble” and an “immoral police officer who applauds killers.”

The answer to Chavez’ first question is simple: Yes. (continue reading post »)

The indispensable Instapundit has posted a link on Fred Thompson’s latest role. The news couldn’t be better for movement conservatives. Fred Thompson lost the battle for the GOP presidential nomination but he’ll win the war for movement conservatives in his new job:

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today…and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That’s what I’ve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that’s what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine.

I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles — smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.

Rest assured that Fredheads across the nation will tune into Fred’s exclusive columns because they’ll want to hear Fred’s articulation of genuine conservative principles. (continue reading post »)

I’ve always assumed that Democrats boycotted the debates that Fox News sponsored because they wanted to stay of the right side of their Nutroots friends. I’m now willing to entertain the notion that there might be another reason. When the Obama campaign sent Dr. Susan Rice out to defend Sen. Obama, they really stepped in it. I offer as proof this video of her appearance on America’s Election HQ:

Just prior to this interview, Bill Hemmer pointed out that Obama’s campaign website said this about Iran: (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, I predicted that Democrats would throw a hissy fit over President Bush’s statement. Here’s what I said yesterday:

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States” and would “embolden” terrorists.

In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president’s first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”

“The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East,” he said in the Roosevelt Room. “And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

Now Nancy Pelosi is saying that his comments are “beneath the dignity of the office.” (continue reading post »)

The need for rebuilding the party has never been more apparent. According to this AFP article, shaken Republicans are now turning to John McCain as their savior. The AFP article calls it ironic. I’d prefer the adjective pathetic to describe this news:

Soul searching Republicans are turning to an unlikely savior, one-time party heretic and now presumptive White House nominee John McCain, as they try to stave off an electoral disaster. Stung by the Democratic seizure of three staunch conservative seats in Congress, Republican lawmakers fear a shellacking in November’s general election, after losing control of both chambers of Congress in 2006.

The rise of McCain as their champion is not without irony, since the 71-year-old Arizona senator has quarreled with his own party for years on issues as diverse as immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming. But it is precisely that independent streak that is drawing Republicans to his coattails, hoping he can cleanse them of the stain of gridlocked Washington.

This is what happens when Washingtonian idiots misread elections. It’s also what happens when spineless people are put in charge. As I said here, it’s time to rebuilding from the state up. It’s one thing to unite around the Republican presidential nominee; it’s another to view him as the GOP’s savior. (continue reading post »)

I’ve been pondering this after reading about the NRCC lost 3 straight special elections. The answer is now clear. It’s time to stop pussyfooting around. It’s time to start rebuilding. I’m not worrying about Minnesota House seats. John Kline and Michele Bachmann will be fine. Erik Paulsen should keep MN-3 in GOP hands. What I’m worrying about is having leaders who don’t give a damn about Reagan’s principles. It’s been fashionable this year to dismiss Reagan. Ed Rollins started it. Mich Daniels told us to get over Reagan.

The day the Republican Party forgets about what Ronald Reagan stood for is the day that the Republican Party becomes Liberal Lite. Some think it’s already there. I’m not sure I’d disagree, though I’m not that fatalistic.

The good news for Minnesotans is that we’re building a strong farm team here. There are other glimmers of hope elsewhere, too. Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are helping rebuild the party. What we need is someone with a Reganite vision of conservatism. That person must have a confidence that liberty and prosperity are the cornerstones of Reagan’s conservatism. That person must be an optimist. That person must be a leader with well-thought through convictions.

It’s always been my contention that people didn’t understand Reagan’s greatness. Tip O’Neill and others thought of him as an “amiable dunce.” Far from it.

We don’t need another Reagan. We just need a true conservative leader. We need someone who doesn’t pick RINOs when he can have a conservative.

Technorati Tags: Reagan, Conservatism, Leadership, Special Elections, RNC

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Tuesday, President Bush sat down for an interview with Politico.com and Yahoo, the first presidential interview with online new services. One of the things he commented on was Jimmy Carter’s destructive (my word, not his) role in the Middle East. Here’s what President Bush said:

He criticized former President Jimmy Carter for suggesting an approach to Middle East involvement that Bush described as “if you want to be popular in the Middle East, just go blame Israel for every problem.” “That will make you popular,” he said. “Popularity is fleeting. … Principles are forever.”

This is more than a characterization of Carter’s mindset. It’s the Democrats’ approach to foreign policy. Their’s is a let’s do what’s popular while it’s popular approach.

Bill Clinton stayed with Somalia until it became unpopular. Then he made the mistake of listening to John Murtha who said military victory wasn’t possible. We’ve heard that before, haven’t we? Here’s something else President Bush said during the interview:

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States” and would “embolden” terrorists.

In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president’s first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.” (continue reading post »)

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 

This Washington Times editorial higlights the problems Barack Obama is having with Jewish voters. It’s bad enough that Sen. Obama has a problem with that voting block. What’s worse for Sen. Obama is that John McCain knows it and is exploiting the situation:

On Friday, Robert Malley, an Obama advisor, resigned from the senator’s campaign as reports surfaced that he had met with the terrorist group Hamas. Last month, Hamas political advisor Ahmad Yousef said on WABC Radio in New York that he hoped Mr. Obama would be elected president. Mr. McCain said Hamas would never want him to be president, “so if Mr. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

Mr. Obama sternly rejected the Hamas endorsement, but the latest Gallup polls suggest he has a significant and growing problem in keeping Jewish voters in the Democratic fold. The latest Gallup polls show that in a contest with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama would secure 61 percent of the Jewish vote to the Republican’s 32 percent. In 2004 and 2006 elections, by contrast, Jewish voters favored the Democratic Party by a 75 percent to 25 percent margin. This suggests that support for the Democratic Party standard-bearer among Jews could be approaching its lowest levels in decades. The Republicans’ best showing was achieved by Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he won 40 percent of the Jewish vote. (continue reading post »)

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 

I’ll give Juan Williams credit for talking about the Obamessiah’s race-related problems. It’s something that Democrats better come to grips with. Here’s the heart of Juan Williams’ article:

Hillary Clinton, down to her last straw, is making the case that she is the better candidate to run against the Republicans because, unlike Barack Obama, she can win white Democrats.
She is right. But because she is daring to touch the hot button of racial politics, she is being told to shut up or risk being charged with exploiting racial tensions for political advantage.
The facts are stubborn, however. Since his phenomenal win with 33% of the white vote in nearly all-white Iowa, Obama has been unable to get a firm grip on white Democrats. He has won a majority of these voters in only six states, the biggest of which is his home state of Illinois. Clinton has defeated Obama among white voters in key states such as California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Exit polls show Clinton winning an overwhelming average of 57% of white Democrats since the February Super Tuesday elections.
If you think none of this is a real issue for Democrats as they try to win the White House, then listen to Republican guru Karl Rove. Citing Obama’s inability to get more than 30% of Catholics or working-class white voters in a big state such as Pennsylvania, Rove recently wrote: “Defections like this elect Republicans.”
And now we are heading into a general election with an even larger group of white voters in play, key independents and suburbanites in “toss-up” districts that swing between Republicans and Democrats.

It would be wrong to think that this problem is all because of Jeremiah Wright. I think Obama’s problem stems as much from his SF fundraising speech as it stems from Jerremiah Wright. The combination of the Wright videos and the fundraising speech are a toxic mix that’ve sucked the air out of Obama’s campaign, especially with white voters. (continue reading post »)