In a special report to the Cybercast "News" Service, Jeff Johnson writes that it was the "Frank Amendment" that was the culprit.
The setting is the Congressman's election campaign.
A Republican candidate for the Massachusetts congressional seat currently held by Democrat Barney Frank is reigniting debate over whether changes to U.S. immigration laws Frank sponsored made it easier for the 9/11 hijackers to enter and remain in the United States. Frank continues to deny the charge, but GOP challenger Chuck Morse accuses Frank of opening the "turnstiles of terrorism" by denying immigration officials the power to bar or remove non-U.S. citizens from the country based on their ideology.It should be noted that according to this article the Frank Amendment became law in 1990. More than a decade before 9/11. It should also be noted that the article also says:
Cybercast News Service has learned that while Frank has routinely claimed he advocated the changes because immigration law was "unduly restrictive on political grounds," the avowed homosexual lawmaker spent ten years fighting to change the statute primarily to eliminate a long-standing ban on homosexual foreigners entering the U.S.
But Frank points to an exchange between 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and himself during Kean's appearance before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security on Aug, 17, 2004, that, Frank argues, proves him blameless.So even though the law predates 9/11 by a little more than a decade and even though one of the heads of the 9/11 commission is quoted as pretty much repudiating this crap, it's still Barney Frank's fault.
FRANK: "Can I just say here that the key point here is under the statutes, as they now exist, those people were excludable if the right procedures had been followed?"
KEAN: "That's exactly right."
Frank also defends the new law, noting that it does allow State Department officials to deny entry to any alien "who a consular official knows or has reasonable ground to believe has engaged, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization, in a terrorist activity or is likely to engage after entry in a terrorist activity."
Why? Because he did it for gay rights.
"[I]n a law inherited from the early fifties ... Congress instructed the Executive Branch to exclude from America people whose political views we found offensive," Frank contends. "The amendment we adopted dropped from the law the authority to exclude people because their views would be politically unpopular, but continued to allow exclusion of people who would commit acts of violence, terrorism, etc."So there you have it. If only the "avowed homosexual lawmaker" Barney Frank hadn't passed that god-awful amendment to protect the rights of those sodomites (non-American sodomites), all those evildoers would not have been able to slip in and kill 3,000 of our people on 9/11.
But in his contribution to the pro-homosexual political how-to book "Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy, and Civil Rights" entitled "American Immigration Law: A Case Study in the Effective Use of the Political Process," Frank offered a different explanation for his ten-year-long effort to limit the grounds on which citizens of other countries could be denied entry into the United States.
"Interestingly, it is both the least well known of all the legislative battles that supporters of gay and lesbian rights have fought, and it is also the one that was the most successful," Frank wrote. "... in 1990, I had the enormous satisfaction of sponsoring a successful amendment to American immigration law that repealed the homophobic [sic] provisions of that statute in all of its permutations."
And you thought it was the abortionists who did it. Or was it the secular humanists?
More mental crap from Wingnuttia
No comments:
Post a Comment