Santorum says....

[xoxoxoBruce]

I got this email today;

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
As you may know, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, on May 25, 2006. I voted against this legislation because I do not believe this is the right way to reform our immigration system.
As the son of an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, I understand the important and valuable contributions legal immigrants have made and continue to make to our country. I have great respect for those who have legally come to our nation seeking a better life for their families.
However, I firmly believe that the safety and security of our country must be our first priority. Who is traveling across our borders and why they are doing so is as important as any issue we currently face. It is a complicated issue with far reaching implications that will impact our national security, our economy, and our culture.

Securing our border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. An immigration policy that does not control who is entering our nation is not an immigration policy at all. The best way to do this is by strengthening and supporting our Border Patrol, both through greater numbers and technological advancements. To this end, I cosponsored and voted for a successful amendment introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to construct 370 miles of triple-layer fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along our southern border.

I also cosponsored an amendment offered by John Ensign of Nevada that provides reimbursement for the temporary use of the National Guard to secure the borders of the United States. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the governor of any state may order the use of the National Guard to provide "command, control and continuity of support" such as ground and airborne reconnaissance, logistical, tactical and administrative support, communications services and emergency medical services. I was pleased to see both of these amendments pass as they are solid first steps towards border security.

However, the main reason that I voted against S. 2611 is that this bill gives amnesty to the immigrants who came to this country illegally. I believe those who have entered this country illegally must return to their native land and move through the legal process just like everyone else. The idea that those who have been here illegally for an arbitrary number of years should be able to stay in America simply by paying back taxes is an insult to all those who have waited patiently and lawfully for their chance to come here and pursue the American dream.

There were many opportunities to improve this legislation throughout Senate debate, and I was disappointed that the majority of my colleagues did not truly hear the call of their constituents to oppose amnesty. I cannot support an amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates of the size of the illegal-immigrant population in the U.S. in 1986 placed the total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million. Providing amnesty to one million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the course of 20 years. Amnesty simply fails the test of history.

S. 2611 also threatens the health of our nation's social safety net-Social Security-by adding millions of new beneficiaries to an already burdened program. I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would have prevented illegal immigrants from getting Social Security benefits based on their illegal work history, often with an invalid number. Unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues voted to kill this amendment. By doing so, the Senate has rewarded illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries, who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system.

America is a nation of immigrants, a nation that derives much of our strength from those who come here to live the American Dream. However, the immigrants who have contributed so much to the character of our nation came here legally. We devalue their sacrifices and hardships if we fail to ask the same of today's immigrants. I will continue to oppose any legislation that provides amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.

I'm voting against him in November.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'm voting against him in November.

Wow...there's a newsflash. :-) Did you ever vote for him before?

Seriously, he is an asshole. But not because he voted against S.2611.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Wow...there's a newsflash. :-) Did you ever vote for him before?

Seriously, he is an asshole. But not because he voted against S.2611.

Well apparently he's an asshole who doesn't like his views to be questioned.

Now I don't know what the publicity hack overheard to order the eviction, but:

a) It wasn't her or Santorum's bookstore. If anything, only a store employee should have been able to order their eviction.

b) Don't advertise a discussion if you're not going to accept opposing views.

If the woman heard that they planned to be disruptive, she should have spoken to a store manager. If she just got the impression that they were going to ask difficult questions, she should be sued. In general, before evicting someone it is better to wait until they are disruptive. If everyone who just seemed suspicious was automatically ejected from stores (insert racial profiling joke here).

I love the backpedaling here. Apparently, noone was responsible. Not Santorum, not the bookstore, not the 'family institute'.

In general, bookstores and libraries take the first amendment pretty seriously, considering that is the basis for their existence. I am surprised the store went along with this. I actually shop at that Barnes and Noble and after reading this I will stop in and register my disapproval.

Women, ordered to leave signing, to sue


The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of several women tossed from a book signing for Sen. Rick Santorum.

By Randall Chase

Associated Press

DOVER, Del. - The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a group of women who claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were ordered to leave a book signing event featuring Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.).

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, claims that two of the women were arrested for trespassing last year and three others, from Delaware County, were threatened with arrest because of their political views.

According to the lawsuit, the women went to a Barnes & Noble store at Concord Mall in Wilmington to challenge Santorum at an event advertised as a book signing and discussion of his book, It Takes a Family.

The women were ordered to leave by a uniformed state trooper providing security at the event after a member of Santorum's promotional team overheard them talking before the senator arrived, according to the lawsuit.

"The advertisements said 'book signing and discussion,' not 'discussion only if you agree with the senator,' " said Julia Graff, staff attorney for the Delaware chapter of the ACLU, which joined with the Pennsylvania ACLU chapter in filing the lawsuit. "The trooper denied these women their right to share their views with an elected official. This is precisely the kind of conduct the First Amendment was designed to guard against."

Robert Traynham, a spokesman for Santorum, referred calls to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a nonprofit educational organization and conservative think tank in Wilmington that published It Takes a Family.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Well apparently he's an asshole who doesn't like his views to be questioned

Again..I carry no brief for Santorum. But a "booksigning and discussion" is a private retailing event to promote book sales, not a town hall forum. I suspect someone planning to use a booksigning for "It Takes A Village" as a platform to advertise their opposition would have recieved the same treatment at the hands of the bookseller.

In fact when Gwennie worked at Borders I seem to recall something very similar going on at a booksigning for Terrell Owens.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wonder if he was afraid to hold it in Pennsylvania?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I wonder if he was afraid to hold it in Pennsylvania?

The publisher is based in Wilmington, although the suit was filed by ACLU of PA. With this having actually happened in August 2005 I have to think the timing is motivated by the election, although Santorum isn't being sued, the cop hired by his publisher and a Jane Doe are the defendants. The crowd that was dispersed was high-school kids; Galpernin and Rocek were 18 and 19. Complaint here (PDF)

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Again..I carry no brief for Santorum. But a "booksigning and discussion" is a private retailing event to promote book sales, not a town hall forum. I suspect someone planning to use a booksigning for "It Takes A Village" as a platform to advertise their opposition would have recieved the same treatment at the hands of the bookseller.

In fact when Gwennie worked at Borders I seem to recall something very similar going on at a booksigning for Terrell Owens.

And again I will reiterate that it wasn't his property to make that decision. And I would like to hear about any conservative hecklers who were denied entrance to a 'liberal' event 'before' they started causing trouble.

So far the vast majority of people in 'free speech' zones and ejected from events have been those confronting conservatives.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

And I would like to hear about any conservative hecklers who were denied entrance to a 'liberal' event 'before' they started causing trouble.

Maybe not as many conservatives think heckling is a useful tactic.

In any event, the event was run by the publisher, and it's their employees are who's being sued, not Santorum.

I wonder what would have happened if some Pink Pistols had showed up? I understand at least one of the kids was wearing a pink triangle.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So far the vast majority of people in 'free speech' zones and ejected from events have been those confronting conservatives.

I think that is a function of which outfit is running the government and which outfit is pissed off. We should remember that Clinton started this nonsense.

[MaggieL]

So a failure at implementation excuses bad intentions? The point was that the Clinton administration was every bit as anxious to preserve their technical ability to wiretap all phones.

I do agree that we all owe a debt to PGP inventor Phil Zimmerman. Phil made sure that strong crypto was available to everyone by defiying the Clinton adminsitration's "munitions export" prosceution...but PGP predated the Clipper Chip by several years; you can't call it "the end result" of the Clipper Chip.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

So a failure at implementation excuses bad intentions?

So a pervasive program of warrantless wiretapping is excused by the bad intentions of a previous administration?

[tw]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

So a pervasive program of warrantless wiretapping is excused by the bad intentions of a previous administration?

The Clipper chip was a way for people to use encryption AND for government to only break that encryption with judicial review. As I recall, the codes to use that Clipper chip back door were to be held by two separate groups. Both codes were necessary to use the back door. Both codes could only be obtained under court order.

Meanwhile, George Jr promoted bugging anyone - unrestricted use of electronic information - especially without judicial review. That is the difference. Whereas Clinton's administration worried about individual rights, instead, the George Jr administration is about more power- America be damned. It is even why they had no problem outrightly lying when they knew full well that the van was not for biological weapons. When they knew - no doubt what so ever - that those aluminum tubes were not for WMDs. When they invented the entire Niger uranium story. When they have no regrets about international kidnapping and torture.

The Clipper chip was about national security with strong judicial review. Unrestricted wiretapping is only about more power to the White House - American rights are irrelevant and should be trampled as necessary. Major difference. George Jr's administration is about violations of American principles for the greater glory of his administration. BTW, that was also an underlying principle of Nixon's administration.

Reason an implementation fails is because intentions were bad. The strategic objective was flawed. Therefore attempts to implement that strategic objective were also flawed. A principle found in Vietnam and Misson Accomplished wars as well as in technical solutions such as the Clipper chip and Sony's spyware. Just another example of why 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile, George Jr promoted bugging anyone...

Support for this assertion, please?

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Support for this assertion, please?

A previous post quoted from the Wall Street Journal on the 904th. Unrestricted bugging of international calls. These are only some their actions only because patriotic Americans leaked that reality. What has echelon been doing lately? Why is the European Parliament getting into a war with the George Jr administration over privacy and human rights? Do you remember Nixon? Same principles promoted by his AG and other top administration people with same total disrespect for American privacy and constitutional protections.

Show me any other presidency - other than Nixon's - that would even invade nations on lies. Even lie about the lies. That would torture and kidnap all over the world and lie about that. This administration has no respect for fundamental American rights. That fact is not even debateable.

Which returns to a previous and simple question. How do we differ in what should be purpose of government?

[Undertoad]

The notion at the time was that they would make PGP illegal, in order for Clipper to make any sense at all -- since there was no reason whatsoever for the government to require an expensive circuit with their own back door if stuff could be encrypted cheaply with a free algorithm.