.
"Rubio continues to dominate the Fox airwaves,
thereby crowding out strong expressions of anti-amnesty sentiment."...
5/24/13, "Marco Rubio’s embarrassing appearance on Fox, Part Two," Powerline, Paul Mirengoff
"In a post below,
I noted that during his appearance tonight on Sean Hannity’s program,
Marco Rubio failed to defend his immigration bill, even though the
format of the show was highly favorable to the Senator from Florida.
Here is what happened.
Hannity asked a central question that has become even more pressing
in view of recent Obama administration scandals, particularly the one
involving the IRS. That question, in essence, is: given that current
immigration law isn’t being enforced, and given what we know generally
about how government operates, how can we have any real confidence that
the border security provisions of Schumer-Rubio will be carried out
effectively?
Rubio did not respond by arguing that his bill will ensure border
security. Instead he responded by saying, more than once, that if it we
can’t write a law that ensures border security, it won’t pass — and
shouldn’t.
There are obvious problems with this shocking answer. First, it isn’t
necessarily true. Second, it’s an admission that Rubio is advancing a
bill he can’t say will be effective, and thus an admission that he has
abdicated his responsibility as a legislator.
We cannot depend on Congress to reject immigration reform legislation
that won’t bring about effective border enforcement. Why not? Because
Democrats are committed to amnesty with or without border security, and
thus will vote virtually unanimously for immigration reform legislation
that doesn’t secure the border.
This means that such legislation can be enacted even if only about 10
percent of Republicans in the Senate and the House support it. Does
anyone believe that congressional Republicans are 90 percent fool-proof
on immigration reform (or anything else)? I don’t.
Second, and more fundamentally, how can Rubio write and sponsor
legislation on such an important issue when he (1) cannot say that the
legislation will be effective (indeed, he basically said it won’t be
effective under a liberal Democratic administration such as the one we
have now) and (2) concedes if it isn’t effective it shouldn’t pass?
Rubio acts as if the legislation is someone else’s thought experiment,
not his own handicraft.
President Obama is famous for detaching himself from the policies
carried out by those who work for him. But I doubt even Obama would
detach himself from legislation that he wrote.
Since Rubio seems agnostic about the enforcement provisions of his own bill, maybe he should vote “present.”
Rubio knows, as we all do, that the bill’s enforcement provisions
could have been significantly stricter in a number of respects. He even
said on Hannity’s program that Congress should look at ways of better
ensuring that enforcement occurs.
So why didn’t Rubio include such provisions in the bill that he
drafted? He knows that the Democrats can’t attain their holy grail of
amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegals without Rubio’s
participation.
It is simply unconscionable that Rubio agreed to sponsor legislation
the efficacy of which he cannot vouch for, on the theory that other,
more responsible legislators will make sure the legislation won’t pass
if it’s deficient. His stance is only marginally more responsible than
Nancy Pelosi’s view that we should pass Obamacare so we can find out
what’s in it.
Frankly, I don’t believe Rubio won many converts for his bill tonight. If anything, he may have lost some backing.
Unfortunately, though, Rubio continues to dominate the Fox airwaves,
thereby crowding out strong expressions of anti-amnesty sentiment.
Absent those strong expressions in large media outlets like Fox,
Schumer-Rubio’s chances of passage are good, notwithstanding Rubio’s
supposed confidence that Congress would never pass a bad immigration
bill." via Free Republic
==============================
Murdoch is an open borders activist as is his friend Bloomberg. Billionaires like Murdoch and Bloomberg badly want to silence the irritating American middle class. Open borders will accomplish this:
Feb. 2, 2013, "Immigration Reform: Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News Factor," ABC News, D. Dwyer
"In the brewing battle over a path to citizenship for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, Fox News Channel is uniquely positioned to play a make-or-break role. The question is, will it?...
Murdoch, Australian born and a naturalized U.S. citizen, has become an
outspoken advocate for immigration reform and mass legalization of the
country's undocumented immigrants, partnering with New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg in this cause...."[Fox host] Sean Hannity is in favor, did an 180 degree turn. You're
looking at [Fox host] Bill O'Reilly, who endorsed [Sen.] Marco Rubio's
principles overwhelmingly."...
==============================
The above ABC News article may be in error when it says Fox News stopped George Bush's amnesty plan in 2006 and 2007. Talk radio has been blamed/credited for that. On 6/15/2007 GOP parasite Trent Lott (now a lobbyist) told the NY Times it was talk radio that was the problem for Bush's immigration bill:
6/15/07, “Senate Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill,” NY Times,” R. Pear, J. Zeleny
.
“The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the (immigration) bill, said:
“Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
Further into the conversation Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the (immigration) bill.”"...
===========================
Ed. note: I recall at that time hearing one prominent talk radio host suggesting people call Washington if they wanted to stop the Bush bill. The host wasn't Rush Limbaugh by the way. Rush carried water for George Bush (which he freely admitted) and wouldn't have done that. I remember a caller to Limbaugh at the time even excitedly said something to the effect that, "We did it, Rush, and you helped! Thanks so much!" And Rush said to the caller, no, it wasn't me, I didn't get involved in that at all.
Democrats will stay in power as long as Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are in power. Fox News-style Establishment Republicans are at best no better than democrats. Typically they have no ideology at all except making money and being big shots. Democrats and Fox News silence the GOP grassroots. Commenter notes Fox News initially backed the Tea Party but dropped it like a hot rock after Nov. 2010:
"27
posted on Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:29:45 AM
by greene66"
"Fox was really doing a decent job in covering the tea parties,
border issues, grassroots concerns, etc.,... right up until right after
the 2010 midterms. Then something happened. It dropped all that like a hot rock. It became entirely beltway-centric, and nothing much more than
a mouthpiece for the GOP-Establishment crowd. “Karl Rove Central.” No
more tea party acknowledgement. The treatment of Palin turned sour
(didn’t air her key speeches while CNN and MSNBC did; spotlighted only
the most negative polls, etc). It was all a very, very noticeable
change.
I stopped watching at that point. Used to have FoxNews on all the
time, like it were the default position on my tv-set. Nowadays, I might
catch 30-minutes of it per month, at most."
.
===============================
The entire political class needs to be overthrown:
5/24/13, "WOLF: Tyranny in our time," "Americans must repudiate the political class," Washington Times, Dr. Milton R. Wolf
"King George’s
assault on the Americans’ natural freedoms was oppressive, intolerable
and deserving of a revolution. The truth is, the intrusion, restriction
and outright harassment that our government subjects us to today is far
beyond what the colonists faced from their tyrannical king. If it was
tyranny in 1776, then, by God, it is tyranny today....
This is not
simply a scandal, as some call it. A scandal implies a failure of the
system. This is the system. This is a political class wielding the goliath power of the most intrusive and most feared government
agencies at their disposal in order to intimidate, silence and control
the citizenry. It is an unmasked assault on the First Amendment, on the
Constitution
and on America itself, and it must not stand....
Make
no mistake, however. Both parties have luxuriated in the drunken power
of government, at our expense."...
===============================
Ed. note: Without enforceable borders you're obviously not a country.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment