Today’s Senate vote against the sovereignty of this nation shows how far we have fallen from the government which the founders envisioned.

Let’s review. A government report said the Senate amnesty bill would only reduce illegal immigration by 25 percent. A reputable think tank analyst found that the legislation would cost $2.6 trillion in retirement costs alone, hastening the collapse of the Social Security system.

Polls consistently showed that American citizens are against the Senate amnesty bill. Phones were ringing off the hooks in Senate offices against the legislation. Constituents were contacting their Senators in enormous numbers that they wanted the horrible bill put down. A caller to the popular John and Ken Show today said he contacted Rep Pence’s office which said that not one constituent who had called supported the bill.

The Senate bill will be a boon to terrorists also. That’s because national security takes a back seat to the demands of amnesty supporters. Elite Washington has apparently decided that the consequence of a few nuked cities is an acceptable price to pay for slave-cheap labor from the third world.

Furthermore, the years of reticence to speak out on this issue from bogus accusations of racism appear to be over. Citizens see the American nation is under attack as never before and are responding in anger.

It was all out there in the open. The elites wanted open borders and the resulting slave-lite labor. The American people made it clear they want immigration to be under control and sovereignty maintained.

And yet. Only 35 members of the Senate voted against amnesty by voting against cloture.

What does this tell you about the state of representative government today?

It is hanging by a thread. Only a handful of Senators oppose the globalist scheme to destroy American borders and sovereignty. The majority serve the corporations that plan a business-run planet of the future, where annoying ideas of the rights of citizens have been eliminated. In the post-national feudal globalist future, we will all be happy consumers! Let’s go shop!

Americans have little noticed the gradually increasing power of corporations in running the country. As a result, business interests may now feel that are so entrenched and strong that they no longer need to hide their influence over government institutions. The current bill may be a milestone by Senators becoming so arrogant that they don’t feel the need to respond to constituent concerns. Anyway, with both political parties on board for the erasure of borders, for whom will citizens vote?

However, this struggle is anything but over, even in the corrupt Senate. Another cloture vote will occur on Thursday. The unholy deal could still totter and fall in the secret backrooms from which it came. Still more noise from us pitchfork types wouldn’t hurt.

The House is far more in touch with public sentiment than the House of Lords, er Senate. Rep. Ed Royce noted on the John and Ken radio show today that a meeting of the Republican conference today voted against the Senate bill, 114 against versus 23 for.

But we must conclude that the Senate no longer even pretends to represent the well being and desires of the American people.

From the 6/26/07 NYT:

Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally
By NICHOLAS WADE

Historians often assume that they need pay no attention to human evolution because the process ground to a halt in the distant past. That assumption is looking less and less secure in light of new findings based on decoding human DNA

People have continued to evolve since leaving the ancestral homeland in northeastern Africa some 50,000 years ago, both through the random process known as genetic drift and through natural selection. The genome bears many fingerprints in places where natural selection has recently remolded the human clay, researchers have found, as people in the various continents adapted to new diseases, climates, diets and, perhaps, behavioral demands

A striking feature of many of these changes is that they are local. The genes under selective pressure found in one continent-based population or race are mostly different from those that occur in the others. These genes so far make up a small fraction of all human genes. ..

Even more strikingly, Dr. Williamson’s group reported that a version of a gene called DAB1 had become universal in Chinese but not in other populations. DAB1 is involved in organizing the layers of cells in the cerebral cortex, the site of higher cognitive functions

Variants of two genes involved in hearing have become universal, one in Chinese, the other in Europeans

The emerging lists of selected human genes may open new insights into the interactions between history and genetics. “If we ask what are the most important evolutionary events of the last 5,000 years, they are cultural, like the spread of agriculture, or extinctions of populations through war or disease,” said Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford. These cultural events are likely to have left deep marks in the human genome

A genomic survey of world populations by Dr. Feldman, Noah Rosenberg and colleagues in 2002 showed that people clustered genetically on the basis of small differences in DNA into five groups that correspond to the five continent-based populations: Africans, Australian aborigines, East Asians, American Indians and Caucasians, a group that includes Europeans, Middle Easterners and people of the Indian subcontinent. The clusterings reflect “serial founder effects,” Dr. Feldman said, meaning that as people migrated around the world, each new population carried away just part of the genetic variation in the one it was derived from

The new scans for selection show so far that the populations on each continent have evolved independently in some ways as they responded to local climates, diseases and, perhaps, behavioral situations

The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups

“There are difficulties in where you put boundaries on the globe, but we know now there are enough genetic differences between people from different parts of the world that you can classify people in groups that correspond to popular notions of race,” Dr. Pritchard said

David Reich, a population geneticist at the Harvard Medical School, said that the term “race” was scientifically inexact and that he preferred “ancestry.” Genetic tests of ancestry are now so precise, he said, that they can identify not just Europeans but can distinguish between northern and southern Europeans. Ancestry tests are used in trying to identify genes for disease risk by comparing patients with healthy people. People of different races are excluded in such studies. Their genetic differences would obscure the genetic difference between patients and unaffected people. [More

For almost a decade, I’ve been pointing out that we know with tautological certainty that extended families exist, extended families of whatever size you wish from the tiny to the vast. And we know with as close to absolute certainty as anything can be in the human empirical world that some big extended families have a certain degree of coherence and endurance because their ancestors were not randomly outbreeding but tended to inbreed so some degree — if you go back 1,000 years, there are 1 trillion openings in your family tree but there weren’t 1 trillion people alive. So a lot of your ancestors did double duty, to say the least. So, nobody is randomly descended from the entire human race. Even if you are Tiger Woods’ daughter, you can still divvy up your ancestry into Thai, Swedish, etc

Now, what you want to call these partly inbred extended families is a subjective semantic issue. “Racial groups” strikes me as the most obvious, but if Dr. Reich wants to call them “ancestral groups,” well, swell, that’s a useful term too

The point is that partly inbred extended families exist and they are important.

Nicole Gaouette writes at Common Dreams and the Los Angeles Times:

Conservative anger at the Senate immigration bill is at such a pitch that even Republican lawmakers are feeling the heat. Groups like NumbersUSA have been channeling that grass-roots fury and, in doing so, have leaped in size and are playing a larger role in the immigration debate than ever before.

Most polls show that though Americans are concerned about border security, a majority favor finding a way to allow most now in the country illegally to gain legal status.

My own reply at Common Dreams:

There were problems with this article that are common in Corporate Media coverage of immigration.

Skepticism around immigration is present in both parties-and on both sides of the political spectrum. The wealthy tend to support looser immigration policy-and that has reflect in strong institutional support for loose immigration policy.

The claim that most Americans support amnesty is also questionable. The only choices in those polls are typically a rapid, potentially disruptive deportation or amnesty. Many other polls show that most Americans want less immigration. However, there are quite a few Americans that want less immigration that are quite concerned that the price of enforcement of immigration regulations doesn’t fall solely on poor people. It is time to consider a wider range of options for containing immigration-including improving the jobs situation in Mexico and use of financial incentives to help illegal immigrants to return to their home countries.

This is a problem that won’t just go away. This issue goes far deeper than simply activism on the part of a few vocal organizations.

It should be noted the LA Times is a publication dependent on corporate advertising. One of the big beneficiaries of the recently proposed legislation are employers that get a de facto amnesty. There are now over $250 Billion in uncollected employer fines for immigration violations.

I would point VDARE.com readers to the lengthy comment by mrivera, which was especially interesting.

NYT readers put a couple of articles on the recent Norwegian study showing a small average advantage in IQ for elder brothers at the top of the Most Emailed articles list for much of last week. So, the Times responded to public interest by publishing a third article on IQ: “Study on I.Q. Prompts Debate on Family Dynamics.” And now the new article is the most emailed of the day!

Hey, wait a minute, I thought that IQ was a discredited, obsolete, fraudulent, racist concept yada yada yada … This reminds me of 2002 when the NYT editorial board thought IQ tests were great when the Supreme Court mandated their use to save low IQ murderers from the death penalty.

A number of people around the web seem to think that the GOP is committing suicide with its vote to let the bill move forward.

The fact that most of these people wouldn’t vote Democrat either means that a third party option is looking more probable.

Instapundit:

R.I.P. G.O.P.: Out in the car I heard a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh talking about the immigration bill moving forward. I think the Republicans’ situation is looking pretty grim, and I wonder, what impels them to make such a self-destructive
move? Limbaugh was wondering too.

Dan Riehl:

Having voted Republican in every election for the past 30 or so years, it is increasingly difficult to comprehend how I am going to be able to pull the lever for a candidate aligned with that party in the future, unless or until they get their act at least halfway together.Riehl World View I’ve Had It With Republicans

A Myspace Blog in New Jersey:

thats it man, game over man, game over!

Current mood: angry

Throw away your birth certificates, social security cards, licenses and anything else that proves you are you. They are no longer needed. You can create a totally new and false identity.
The next time I am sick I am going to the hospital emergency room with no identification to get my free medical benefits since I haven’t had them and can’t afford them for almost 3yrs now. Not like I haven’t tried either, but no one wants to hire you anymore when they can just contract you.

As friend said to me after reading this news article “Bush is dead to me now”. The only thing I was giving him credit for was protecting us after 9/11. That there hasn’t been another attack on US soil. That will change now. The boarders will blown wide open the second this passes.

Brenda Walker was just included in one of the “Top 10 Most Offensive Quotes” by a group of left-wing churchmen who have issued a press release.

“Indecent Proposals: Top 10 Most Offensive Quotes” from Anti-Immigrant Groups
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Members of Congress Urged to Disavow Virulent Rhetoric from Extremist Groups As Reform Effort Nears Homestretch

Chicago - Today, the Center for New Community, a faith-based human rights group that tracks anti-immigrant activity, released “Indecent Proposals: Top 10 Most Offensive Quotes from Anti-Immigrant Leaders.” The list captures some of the most offensive rhetoric being propagated and endorsed by anti-immigrant groups and their supporters on talk radio.

My writings were ignored. I also missed earlier out on being named one of the “Worst People In The World” by Keith Olbermann or saying that the Virginia Tech students should have fought back. (John Derbyshire got that one.)
I’d like to remind you that I did make the New Republic’s hit list, ratified by the Wall Street Journal, for saying that in the aftermath of 9/11, it was really dumb for President Bush to have an Arab bodyguard. Professional jealousy aside,here’s the quote Brenda won with:

2.) “Mexican men have a reputation for leering and worse at little girls, which shouldn’t surprise us, since sex with children is socially acceptable in Mexico.”[2]

Brenda Walker, California anti-immigrant leader and publisher. From VDARE.com article titled “Top Ten Reasons Why the US Should Not Marry Mexico,” January 1, 2007.

While they omitted the links on “leering” and “worse“ in the press release, they did provide a link to the original article, [VDARE.com 01-17-07 - Top Ten Reasons Why the US Should Not Marry Mexico]and here’s the context of what Brenda was saying, the paragraphs that follow it:

Fifteen-year-old girls have a ceremony called a Quinceañera which announces their availability to become wives, mothers and girlfriends. In America, children of that age are expected to complete three more years of high school, to be followed hopefully by a college education. But in Mexico, young girls are considered available, according to law and custom.

A 2005 news report from North Carolina found that "Culture might be factor in sexual abuse", [By Annette Newell, News 14 Carolina, June, 21, 2005] referring to Hispanic men’s propensity to prey upon little girls. The story tip-toed around the obvious fact that foreigners bring their cultures with them, ranging from tasty cuisine to child sex abuse.

An example: Mexican Diego Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10-year-old girl in West Virginia, with a not-uncommon excuse that child sex is normal among his people.

"In the pueblo where I grew up girls are usually married by 13 years old….I was unaware of the nature of the offense or that it was a bad crime", said Lopez through the translator. [Illegal Immigrant Pleads Guilty To Sexual Assault, WTOV9 2/28/06]

The point here is that Mexican standards regarding the age of consent are different than those of most Americans.

Here’s a chilling comment from Human Rights Watch, about Mexican rape victims who are unable to get abortions.

Therefore, abortion is illegal in cases of pregnancy through incest, as defined by Mexican law, since the law defines incest as consensual sex, not rape. In most of Mexico, the age of consent for sexual activity is 12, and only in Mexico state is it over 14. This means that the crime of statutory rape in much of Mexico only applies to girls who in many cases are too young to become pregnant.[Mexico: Rape Victims Denied Legal Abortion (Human Rights Watch, 7-3-2006)]

I’m looking for news of it now. Updates will be coming in–watch this space.[UPDATE] It’s actually 64-35. Please note that it’s not Amnesty that’s passed, but a procedural vote to allow the bill to be revived.

UPDATE:Watch C-Span here, live, with Lou Dobbs.

This is the vote in favor of going forward with the bill–the people who changed their vote include a bunch of Republicans–and Jim Webb, who ran against Amnesty when he was running for the Senate.

Here’s the roll of shame. The cloture vote on June 7th went 45-50; Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, actually switched from yes on that vote to no today. Which means the amnesty wing picked up a cool 20 yeses in the interim: Bennett, Bingaman, Bond, Boxer, Brownback, Burr, Coleman, Collins, Domenici, Ensign, Gregg, Kyl, Lott, McConnell, Murkowski, Pryor, Snowe, Stevens, Warner, Webb.

The [italics]indicates Republicans, my friends. Sixteen of them — 15 no/yes switches plus Brownback, who didn’t vote on June 7th.

[Hot Air Blog]

In the meantime, the Whitehouse Press Secretary has issued a statement saying the President “misspoke” on amnesty. Apparently President Bush’s endless quest to define amnesty had caused a slip when he said

“You know, I’ve heard all the rhetoric - you’ve heard it, too - about how this is amnesty. Amnesty means that you’ve got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that.”

The Press Secretary says that

This has been construed as an assertion that comprehensive immigration reform legislation before the Senate offers amnesty to immigrants who came here illegally. That is the exact opposite of the president’s long-held and often-stated position.

Of course it’s the exact opposite of the “president’s long-held and often-stated position.” It also happens to be true. The short definition of amnesty is letting the criminals get away with it. That’s what will happen here if this monstrosity makes it all the way through the Senate and House.

TheHill.com - Immigration bill survives key vote 64-35

By Klaus Marre
June 26, 2007
The comprehensive immigration reform bill survived a crucial procedural vote Tuesday and took a large step toward Senate passage.

The push for the bipartisan legislation, which is backed by President Bush, appeared to be stalled earlier this month. But a compromise was reached after the bill was pulled following a failed cloture vote on June 7 and breathed new life into the effort.

Senate conducts pivotal immigration vote
Staff and agencies
6 June, 2007

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate conducted a pivotal vote Tuesday on whether to jump-start a stalled bill for giving legal status to millions of immigrants now in the U.S. unlawfully.

“We‘ll be moving our attention to the House after the Senate passes this comprehensive piece of legislation,” he told business leaders and representatives of religious, Hispanic and agricultural communities.

Conservative critics who paint the measure as amnesty for lawbreakers said their efforts to stop the legislation were gaining momentum.

The legislation faces still more trials, even if it scales its initial obstacle. Votes still loom on amendments that could alter key parts of it. Another make-or-break test vote could come as early as Thursday.