Stinky letter from Peter King to Newsday:

[annabanana]

I know that the part I highlighted in red is WRONG.. But does anyone here have the legislative particulars to help me craft a reply? Was there competing legislation at the time?

Newsday sings a false note

Newsday is becoming less coherent and increasingly vacuous as it careens from issue to issue. A case in point is your editorial "Officially, English" , regarding singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in a foreign language.

First you grudgingly acknowledge that I was "at least partly right" in calling for our national anthem to be sung in English. That was nice of you, since my position is entirely in keeping with our traditions and represents the belief of the majority of Americans.

Bowing to shameless political correctness, however, Newsday goes on to question my motives by resorting to shabby ad hominem attacks (jingoistic) and an ultimate non sequitur (a felony provision in the immigration bill).

If Newsday believes it is jingoistic to protect our national anthem, that is your prerogative. I am content to let the people decide who is right on that.

As to Newsday's continued distortion of the immigration bill, let me say it again for the slow learners on your editorial board - 191 Democrats voted to retain the provision making it a felony to stay in the country illegally; 156 Republicans, including myself, voted to make it a misdemeanor. Clearly it is the Democrats and their accomplices on the Newsday editorial board who have the "explaining to do."

Newsday says the nation is "divided" over the immigration issue and that we would "benefit ... more efforts to find common ground." Maybe Newsday could start by telling the truth, at least some of the time.

Rep. Peter King

(R-Seaford)

Washington

[EarlG]

1. See number 8 here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/241

[annabanana]

3. thank you thank you

I had forgotten how clearly you laid that out. I borrowed (more than a bit, I confess...though not word for word) from your paraphrasing in my LTTE. Even so, it may be a bit dense for their "Letters" department. We'll see.

[babylonsister]

2. Appears to be more distortion by the repugs; Sensenbrenner's

original bill included the felony provision, which is what Dems voted on; (and why isn't this stuff easier to find?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101643.html

snip//

The bill, written by House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), was passed in a matter of hours, nine days before Christmas. Just seven amendments were allowed to come to a vote, none of them fundamentally altering the legislation.

Sensenbrenner's committee bill included the felony provision, but when he took it to the House floor Dec. 16, he offered an amendment to downgrade the offense of being an undocumented worker from a felony to a misdemeanor.

The Democratic leadership pushed its members to vote against the amendment, and 191 Democrats did. Only eight Democrats voted with Sensenbrenner.

"It was an ugly bill in most respects, the felony stuff, the wall and no amendments," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who tried to add a guest-worker provision but was not allowed a vote. "The leadership saw this more as a statement than a policy, but I think in the end we would have been better off had we been more deliberative."

snip//