It was close, entirely too close. By a vote of 53-46, the U.S Senate refused to limit debate and effectively kept the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill from going to the floor for passage.
It could easily have gone the other way, and undoubtedly would have were it not for the efforts of talk radio, the blogosphere - and thousands upon thousands of everyday Americans. All across our nation, concerned citizens called their senators and told them no – no to amnesty, no to rewarding lawbreakers, no to “z-visas” and no to being told they didn’t matter. Ultimately, several wavering lawmakers listened to their constituents and said no as well.
It wasn’t just “conservatives” who said no. According to a Rasmussen poll, only 22% of Republicans, and 23% of Democrats were in favor of this bill. Further, only 20% of those who described themselves as conservative, 32% of liberals, and 18% of moderates were in favor. The public clearly smelled a rat, and that rat was a group of elitists who kept telling us this “comprehensive immigration reform” bill wasn’t amnesty, when that is exactly what it was. With an arrogance unprecedented in our nation’s history, the president, members of his administration and a number of senators tried to shove a horrible, destructive piece of legislation down our throats.
With such stunning public opposition, why were so many of our elected leaders willing to ignore our wishes? Why was this bill so important that they were willing to employ such strong-armed tactics to affect its passage? What agenda is at work when the vast majority of us, who want only for our immigration laws to be enforced, are maligned as “racists”? It’s bad enough that liberals like Teddy Kennedy spout such nonsense, but when supposedly “conservative” senators like Lindsey Graham start painting those in opposition to amnesty as “bigots”, you know that something else is at play.
Is it as simple as Democrats seeking to gain new voters and Republicans seeking to supply cheap workers for big business? That is certainly part of the equation, but there is something lurking in the background that is far more sinister. Consider some remarks made by Lindsey Graham recently in front of the National Council of La Raza (“the Race”). First of all, why is any U.S. senator, let alone a Republican from a conservative southern state, being honored by a group with known ties to MEChA, and other radical elements of the “Reconquista” movement? Does Senator Graham believe that a large portion of the western U.S. belongs to Mexico?
The La Raza 2007 Capital Awards was the venue for Graham’s despicable “bigots” comment. Graham should be ashamed of employing the same tactic to shut off debate that is the trademark of such race hustlers as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Graham should know this is a dishonest way of attempting to silence the opposition. He should also know that it no longer works. The overwhelming majority of the American public has no problem discerning legal immigrants from those here illegally. It has nothing to do with any particular race or group – just whether someone obeyed the law to get here or not. So Senator Graham (and being from South Carolina myself I feel especially compelled to say so), on behalf of all of us, take your “bigots” remark and stuff it.
Worse than the “bigots” remark though was something Graham said that perhaps shines the real light on all of this:
“An American is an idea. No group owns being an American”.
What happened to citizenship? Obeying the laws? Speaking English? Assimilating into our unique American culture? In fact, what about borders Senator Graham – do you believe in them, or are they too, just an “idea”?
Graham probably revealed more in those two sentences about the real agenda of the amnesty crowd than could be explained in a single column. When you consider that President Bush, Teddy Kennedy, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are all allies for amnesty, one begins to understand that the real goal is globalism. When being an American is just an “idea”, it means that America itself is also just an idea – a place with no borders – and no national sovereignty. Enter the North American Union…
The political divide of the future may indeed no longer be that of conservative versus liberal, certainly not in the conventional sense. No, the battle from here forward is likely to be drawn between traditionalists - those who believe in the sovereign, constitutional republic given to us by our founders; and the globalists – for whom such things as national borders, languages, cultures and governments are irrelevant.
As we once again celebrate Independence Day, we may take heart in a victory won by the people against amnesty. We must also realize it is but one battle, one that doubtless will be fought many times. Benjamin Franklin may not have been a fortune teller, but he saw with great clarity how hard it would be, when he said after being questioned at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 about what system of government our new nation would have, “a republic, if you can keep it”. More than 200 years later, we’re still trying to keep it.
© 2007 Chip McLean - All Rights Reserved
Chip McLean is the editor/publisher for Capitol Hill Coffee House. Chip is a former broadcaster.
His interest in politics began at the age of eight, when his parents took him to a Barry Goldwater rally during the 1964 presidential election. In addition to his work at CHCH, Chip’s columns have appeared in a number of online conservative publications.