Malkin Hits Bottom, Crashes Through, Plummets Unabated
The whole immigration drama, these past few weeks, has revealed quite a bit about the WingNet’s true priorities. Here’s Malkin to spell it out plainly:
A strike against Sanctuary Nation
By Michelle Malkin · June 15, 2007 07:48 PMThere was a glimmer of hope on the shamnesty landscape today in the House. Stalwart immigration enforcement proponent Tom Tancredo won approval–by a significant margin–of his amendment banning DHS funds for renegade sanctuary cities. From Rep. Tancredo’s website:
U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) amendment to cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Bill (H.R. 2638) for cities that employ a sanctuary policy passed the House with strong bipartisan support today; 234 to 189.
“The times, they are a changing,� said an exuberant Tancredo, who had introduced the same amendment several times in the past with far less support. “This should also serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the House, it is in serious trouble.�
The Amendment would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, among other programs.
It’s a step in the right direction. The Democrat support for the bill–234-189, with no fewer than 49 Democrats voting in favor–is a good sign. Is it a sign of things to come as the second Senate showdown looms next week?
We’ll see.
In the meantime, sanctuary cities are on notice: Defy immigration law, risk your homeland security funding. Too bad the White House refuses to send that message.
Try to imagine that the doyenne of right-wing security paranoia, our shrill chanteuse of the Terror Threat of the Week, can say, in plain English and to a clear sky, that counter-terrorism funding including first-responder grants should be taken away from cities (the list also includes Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Portland, and Long Beach) that allow illegal immigrants to speak to the police without being reported to immigration authorities.
As in, if something were to happen, too-bad-so-sad, and it seems we’ve learned an expensive lesson, haven’t we?
Above: 2006 called. It wants its looming threat of terrorist Armageddon back.
Somewhere, as well, there must be an issue that would have Malkin gaily suggesting that undocumented Hispanics be allowed to flood over the borders if her wishes aren’t gratified. We’ve seen what she is; we’re only curious about the price.
Jeesus Gawd. Fucking Thugs. Well, it’s true, Hatred has its own self-referential requirement. It is truly an uncompromising philosophy.
But you know, there is a kind of perfect logic here. A sort of mirror-image consistency that must be recognized, even as it must be reviled. Truly, what would you have the malkin thing say? Honestly. Its not that FEAR and HATE inform her positions, or fuel her comments, nor drive their hatred. It is a perfect storm of bloodlust, hatred and fear, the classic combination of popular anger, nationalist energy, and nativist terror that the Repubs have created. And now it wants to eat them.
Resident evil, motherfuckers. You think Laura or Tancredo’s wife is your Alice? Sorry. When they eat you, when the only sad fucker left at the podium at the RNC in a couple years is a Klansman with a Likudnik and you’re still trying to tell real genuine thinking people that the path of hatred, fear, xenophobia and racism is somehow the best way to approach the challenges of the next century, just in order to hand more free money to your friends, supporters, fellow travelers and family??
Look, it’s come down to two choices. Either we come together and find a sustainable, successful path, or we fall into irrevlevance and criminality. I don’t want to participate in the deathwatch for American Democracy. What are we willing to do to save this thing?
mikey
Why is it that every other emission from the WingNet seems to evoke that one Monty Python’s Flying Circus sketch? I mean, were those lads really that visionary?
Am I the only one who isn’t getting the style sheet when reading this site today?
Am I the only one who isn’t getting the style sheet when reading this site today?
Nope. I’m missin’ the theme too.
No.
No style sheet here either and the site loads like a snail.
Is it fixed?
It’s fixed, Gavin.
See, I’m not useless after all.
Well, it *was* better….
Stylesheet’s back, but it’s started loading slowly again.
Have you been redoing things in Lolcode or something?
Fully back.
Did Chaz see your ip in the logs and launch a pre-emptive attack?
As for MM….
She’s crossed into the Pammy zone full-on. It was inevitable, if one is going to pretend she wasn’t there from the beginning.
Good work, Gavin!
Hell, if the sanctuary cities start letting gay illegal immigrants get married, Michelle’ll probably be trying to bomb us herself.
Maybe somebody can slap a Malkin head on the old “Bush In Freefall” animation.
God, I could watch that thing all night. It never gets old.
What happened to all those fuckers with the FDNY/NYPD ballcaps?
Sophist, FCD said,
What happened to all those fuckers with the FDNY/NYPD ballcaps?
The same thing that happened to San Fran after they decided they didn’t like military recruiters trolling HS and College campuses.
You’re only an American and deserve our protection so long as you agree with us and don’t dissent on letting us do whatever we want. Like Simba said; if you DO, well, gosh, sure would be a shame if anything were to happen to your nice little city…
ROFL I cant help it I love the title, I’m from aus, malkin is such a serious moron, you can’t get any dumber than this woman….
So now immigrants won’t talk to police, including about stuff like terrorism. But if you think about it, why would immigrants be able to tell us anything about terrorists, anyway? They don’t even love freedom.
Aside from the cruelty, and the Republicans-undermining-national-security-again, there’s also the non sequitur aspect. Your city won’t ban smoking in bars, so forget your Head Start funding. You don’t facilitate open adoptions, so no highway funding for you.
What Malkin (and Tancredo) reveal here is that they don’t take protecting us against terrorism seriously. They think of it as just an excuse to pass out the sugar to the people who will play ball. What they consider a serious matter is keeping out the brown people.
I think it’s a great idea. The naughty cities lose money for cops and soldiers and spies in your cupboards and the sanctuaries become even safer for us legal immigrants.from the Constitutional Galaxy.
If we can convince the Tancredo/Malkin Honky Schlong team to cut off highway and FDA funds, we might even get a cleaner environment and safer food for these havens.
“…the old “Bush In Freefallâ€? animation.”
Awesome, and a great application of computer technology.
It took me a minute to figure out that I could help him through some of the jams.
How did this happen? Why did 49 Democrats vote for this idiotic amendment? Anything proposed by Tancrendo has to be both stupid and cruel.
Isn’t collective punishment against the Geneva Conventions? Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that I need to update to Circumstantial Morality 2.0, in which the Conventions, since they insist we are held to the same considerations we demand, are quaint and irrelevant.
Why did 49 Democrats vote for this idiotic amendment?
Blue Dogs, who can show this vote to their constituents as proof of their being tough on something or other and who know the amendment won’t make it through conference committee.
So let me get this straight: Terrorism is a major threat to America, but it’s OK to leave major cities vulnerable to terrorism if they don’t play along with your immigration policies? Is that it?
Is there any way that we can encourage the media to present this action in that light, because frankly, I don’t see any other way it can be presented.
Both SFPD and the DA say that they can’t protect the immigrant communities if the people are more afraid of them than they are of the predators and thugs. This is, of course, rejected by the Malkin thing by dint of it’s rationality…
mikey
counter-terrorism funding including first-responder grants should be taken away from cities (the list also includes Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Portland, and Long Beach) that allow illegal immigrants to speak to the police without being reported to immigration authorities
You know, I’m not a professional pundit or anything, but let me try to follow this:
1) Fighting Teh Evil Terrorists is the A-number-one priority in the US, dwarfing all other social needs.
2) The terrorists a trying to sneak into our country through the porous Mexican border along with all those icky illegal aliens.
3) Illegal aliens might have some leads on the terrorists, because they were smuggled into the country together.
4) Illegal aliens want to live in the US, not kill people (or be killed), so they would be inclined to rat out the terrorists.
5) Illegal aliens don’t dare go to the police with their info on the terrorists because they will be arrested and deported.
6) As part of their crime-stopping programs, some cities promise not to arrest illegal aliens who come to the police with useful information.
So, given this situation, the Very Serious Terrorist Fighting Party comes up with the idea of punishing those cities who are most likely to catch any terrorists that come in through Mexico.
This makes perfect sense because…no, wait…it’s consistent with their terrorist fighting rhetoric because…no…
Nope. I got nothing.
Hell, if the sanctuary cities start letting gay illegal immigrants get married, Michelle’ll probably be trying to bomb us herself.
D., D., D.! You say that as though Malkin were a prole who did things herself which were obviously intended to be done by lower-class minions or something!
Dan Someone is correct that the ramifications of this idiocy need to be widely known. Especially since most Americans do not favor draconian immigration laws.
But I thought the Very Serious Terrorist Fighting Party (nice) had allready abandoned San Francisco to The Terrorists over military recruiting. And gay marriage. How many times can Baghdad-by-the-Bay be put outside the circle of trust?
So you boys got wood for Mz Malkin?
I think that’s a bit sad. I wouldnt care if she twat popped fresh-picked olives from the teak poop deck of the most expensive inflatatble yacht ever built… into my icy martini.
She’s still a tool, doesnt believe a word of what she’s saying. Its all about the Paris Hiltonesqe fame with her.
“I wouldnt care if she twat popped fresh-picked olives… into my icy martini.”
Oh, Bartender!
RubDMC said,
June 17, 2007 at 21:11
“I wouldnt care if she twat popped fresh-picked olives… into my icy martini.�
Oh, Bartender!
Friend, if you are interested in a malkin popped oiives in an icy gin and you can get said Malkin to pop said olives, and you have a bar of some kind , then lets make some money.
Otherwise, stop fucking around.
Interesting approach, Randall: If you [RubDMC] do all the work, I’ll take some of the earnings!
By the way, is there any reason you’re focusing on the Malkin thing as opposed to the Tancredo lunacy for which she was merely the mouthpiece?
Isn’t collective punishment against the Geneva Conventions? Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that I need to update to Circumstantial Morality 2.0, in which the Conventions, since they insist we are held to the same considerations we demand, are quaint and irrelevant.
They came out with a patch that gets rid of that nasty residual guilt you may experience after the upgrade, too. Hooray for Progress!!
So does that mean that Michelle Malkin will never visit a sanctuary city? Will she cajole or plead to any of her friends or family members who live in sanctuary cities to leave them? If not, then she is knowingly putting them at risk. She has the moral conscience of a chain saw.
Well, guess I’m the only one on this page that thinks it’s ridiculous to throw wide open our borders to whomever wants to saunter across. I guess Tancredo’s point (I don’t even know who Malkin is) is that there’s no sense in wasting Homeland Security funds on a city that is welcoming people who’ve already demonstrated they have no respect for our laws and have come from who knows where for who knows what purpose, since those cities are facilitating the possible entrance of terrorists into our country.
And, if it matters, I’m no conservative and no xenophobe; I was at a counter-demonstration against the klan and some skinheads just this past weekend, where at least one .40 caliber pistol was confiscated. And I worked for two weeks in Mississippi rebuilding, and on Katrina relief with the Red Cross. I don’t ever want to look at that kind of destruction again, whether due to Republican neglect or terrorist actions.
I won’t bother detailing all the reasons to resist illegal immigration, and, btw, maybe give some Haitian, Darfurian or Iraqi immigrants a chance. Can’t really see your point at all.
Don’t bother flaming me; I followed an errant link to get here, so I probably won’t see your responses.
oh piffle, Mr. Mayer. Them illegals n terrists ain’t saunterin’ across the border! They’re crawling and scurrying and sneaking and such. So you needn’t worry your pretty little head.
Even granting your premise (and it’s a damn stupid premise), this makes absolutely no fucking sense. These cities are more likely to have terrorists in them, so the logical thing to do is divert their DHS funds to places where terrorists are less likely to be. Huh?
Too much stoopid. My head, she asplodes!
This Malkin thing is like a virus. Someone invent a vaccine, please!
My first thought upon reading this was: “America is finished.” I don’t mean we’re all gonna die tomorrow; I mean that the core principles and ideals which infomred the very founding of this Republican are now (obviously) dead.
Remember the inscription, penned by poet Emma Lazarus, on the base of the Statue of Liberty? “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breath free….”
Well, the hell with THAT sh*t.
Hell, maybe we could sand it smooth and inscribe soemthing a bit more syncrhonized with the times. Like: Give us your Internet billionaires, your Chinese arbitragers, your Australian wingnut hatemongers yearning to.”
Yeah, um, except …
Are there actually any sanctuary cities?
Tancredo’s own site says “cities like Denver and San Francisco who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens … ”
I know Denver isn’t a “sanctuary city,” and I doubt any others are, either.