HILLARY HAD NO ROLE IN IRISH PEACE, DESPITE BILL’S CLAIMS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Foxnews.com on December 21, 2007.
Recently, as only Hillary can do, she claimed that she was “deeply involved in the Irish peace process.” Bill has also picked up the theme, citing her “independent” role in resolving the century-old conflict as “experience” with which to justify a White House run.
How odd that Hillary forgot to mention her pivotal role in Ireland just four years ago, when she wrote her $8 million memoir, Living History. There, she told a very different story.
Her first mention of Ireland was in a discussion of Bill’s October 2004 trip:
“The trip highlighted Bill’s milestones in foreign affairs. In addition to his pivotal role in easing the tensions in the Middle East, he was now focusing on the decades Long Troubles in Northern Ireland.” (Emphasis added)
No memories of her own involvement in the Irish “troubles.”
Ireland next appeared in Hillary’s memoirs in 1995, when the Clintons visited Belfast and Dublin. According to Hillary, while Bill met with the “various factions” of Irish politics, Hillary met with women leaders of the peace movement. Rather than discuss the difficulties of the peace process, Hillary focused on a teapot used by the women:
“They poured tea from ordinary stainless steel teapots, and when I remarked how well they kept the tea warm, Joyce insisted that I take a pot to remember them by. I used that dented teapot every day in our small family kitchen in the White House...”
Other than to describe the women’s fear when their sons left the house and their support for a ceasefire and an end to the violence, Hillary doesn’t cover much policy.
She then describes a visit to Derry to meet John Hume, the charming Nobel Peace Prize winner, where “tens of thousands thronged the streets in the freezing cold to roar approval of Bill and America, and I was filled with pride and respect for my husband.” (Emphasis added)
After Derry, the Clintons went to Belfast to light the Christmas tree in front of City Hall. Following the ceremony, they attended a reception.
No mention of Hillary’s deep involvement.
From Belfast, the Clintons flew to Dublin, where Hillary addressed a group of women from both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. According to her recollections, she “praised the bravery of Irish women who had stood up for peace.”
After meeting the Irish president, the U.S. ambassador, Ted Kennedy’s sister, and the Nobel Prize winning poet Seamus Heaney, Bono and the Clintons went shopping and tried to trace Bill Clinton’s mother’s genealogy.
Not exactly heavy-duty diplomacy.
Hillary returned to Ireland in 1997 where she attended a dinner in Dublin for Prime Minister Ahern and then flew to Belfast where she gave a speech in honor of the late Joyce McCartan, a respected promoter of peace and the women who had given Hillary the stainless teapot a few years earlier. Hillary brought the teapot back to Ireland with her as a tribute to the women of Ireland who sought peace. Hillary also attended a roundtable discussion with young Catholic and Protestant representatives.
In describing August 1998 in her book — the month when Ken Starr granted Monica Lewinsky immunity — Hillary lists world events, such as the end of the Soviet Union, and free elections in South Africa. She also mentions in passing that: “The peace talks and cease-fire were successful in Ireland.”
End of story. Nothing about her role in that process.
Later, she describes the setback to the peace process in Omagh, Northern Ireland, where a car bomb killed 28 people and injured hundreds of others, “damaging the peace process that Bill had worked so long and hard to nurture with Irish leaders.” (Emphasis added)
Hillary does recall that in her meetings with women in Ireland, she’d spoken with them about the troubles and how to find a way to “achieve peace and reconciliation.” But she turns that into a discussion of her own personal problems with Bill and Monica, “Now that’s what I had to try to do in the midst of my own heartbreaking troubles.”
Hillary makes one last mention of Ireland in her book, citing the important role of her husband and former Sen. George Mitchell in the peace process.
That’s it.
Bill’s memoirs are also totally devoid of any memories of any role at all by Hillary in the peace process. Other than the Christmas tree lighting and attending receptions and meeting celebrities — Bono, Seamaus Heaney, etc. — there is nothing substantive about Hillary.
In elaborating on her so-called role in the Irish peace process, candidate Hillary now says:
"And I know it’s frustrating. It took years before the Catholics and the Protestants before Sinn Fein and you know, the DUP would even talk to each other … I mean George Mitchell sat at a table sometimes for hours and nobody would say a word or if they would they would say: 'would you tell him this?' Or 'here's what I think'. And that went on for years. But eventually there were breakthroughs. You could build enough trust and connection."
So what does that have to do with her and what was her deep involvement in the Irish peace process? Hillary never explains.
But Bill Clinton said, as he desperately tried to help Hillary overcome her new found deficit in Iowa, that an unnamed man had said that Hillary had played "an independent role in the Irish peace process.”
Clinton offered no explanation of who the anonymous man was or what exactly this “independent” role was for Hillary.
But Bill does describe his own role — and Hillary was nowhere to be found:
"Good Friday was one of the happiest days of my presidency. Seventeen hours past the deadline for a decision, all the parties in Northern Ireland agreed to a plan to end 30 years of sectarian violence. I had been up most of the night, trying to help George Mitchell close the deal. Besides George, I talked to Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, David Trimble, and Gerry Adams twice, before going to bed at 2:30 a.m. At five, George woke me with a request to call Adams again to seal the deal.”
Hillary apparently slept through the night — perhaps dreaming her Walter Mitty dream of delivering the peace agreement single handedly.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
MAKE OR BREAK IN MICHIGAN
MAKE OR BREAK IN MICHIGAN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on December 19, 2007.
The Jan. 15 Michigan primary is now looking like the big "elimination round" in the '08 GOP contest - the contest that could bring us down to the final two contenders.
In the semi-finals, to be held in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney will face Mike Huckabee to see who's tops among the party's right, while Rudy Giuliani battles John McCain for the more moderate slot.
Huckabee and Romney are likely headed for a split decision, with the former winning Iowa (where he now leads 34 percent to 23 percent) and the later winning New Hampshire (where he now leads, 32-11).
On the centrist court, Rudy has a slender lead over McCain in Iowa (10-6). But the Des Moines Register endorsement of the Arizona senator could pare Giuliani's slim support base. In New Hampshire, McCain holds a tight 19-17 lead over Giuliani as they battle for second place.
Fred Thompson and the other wannabes will likely drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire (except, of course, for crazy Ron Paul, who will never give up the ghost). Then, it will all come down to the third state to vote - the Michigan primary, a week after New Hampshire.
Huckabee will enter Michigan seeking to recapture the momentum he'll have gained after Iowa and lost in New Hampshire. He'll be facing a rap that he could only win in a small farm state like his own after he campaigned there nonstop for months, almost never going home. If he loses Michigan, he'll be gone.
Romney will try to prove that his New Hampshire victory wasn't simply a favorite-son triumph. With two-thirds of New Hampshire watching Boston TV, the win there by the former Massachusetts governor in the first primary will be suspect. The ghost of Paul Tsongas, the Bay State senator who won New Hampshire in 1992, then faded, may haunt Romney's campaign. He'll will labor under the rap that he can't win road games.
Odds are that the winner of Romney vs. Huckabee will face off against Rudy or McCain on Super Tuesday.
In Michigan, Giuliani will seek to show that he loses only in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire and that he can win in a major industrial state. McCain will try to capitalize on his strong showing in New Hampshire to survive and fight on.
In Michigan, Rasmussen is the only pollster with current data. In a Dec. 4 survey, he had a three-way tie: Huckabee at 21 percent; Romney, 20, and Giuliani, 19. (McCain's at 8 percent.)
Romney has an advantage in Michigan, where he's campaigned arduously. His father was governor there and is still fondly remembered.
(The Democratic primary in Michigan doesn't matter because Hillary Clinton is the only major candidate on the ballot. Obama and Edwards both pulled out in fealty to Iowa and New Hampshire, which resented Michigan's decision to hold an early primary.)
After Michigan comes Nevada on Jan. 19. The last two polls (American Research Group and Mason Dixon), taken in early December, show an average of a close three-way contest - Romney at 25 percent, Giuliani at 21 and Huckabee at 20 percent, with McCain trailing at 7.
Then, the race moves to South Carolina, where Huckabee now leads with 24 percent followed by Romney at 17 percent, Rudy at 15 and McCain at 11. (Thompson, should he live so long, is now at 16 percent in the first southern contest.)
But the top two in Michigan are likely be the finalists that will do battle in Florida on Jan. 29 and in the rest of the country on Feb. 5.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on December 19, 2007.
The Jan. 15 Michigan primary is now looking like the big "elimination round" in the '08 GOP contest - the contest that could bring us down to the final two contenders.
In the semi-finals, to be held in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney will face Mike Huckabee to see who's tops among the party's right, while Rudy Giuliani battles John McCain for the more moderate slot.
Huckabee and Romney are likely headed for a split decision, with the former winning Iowa (where he now leads 34 percent to 23 percent) and the later winning New Hampshire (where he now leads, 32-11).
On the centrist court, Rudy has a slender lead over McCain in Iowa (10-6). But the Des Moines Register endorsement of the Arizona senator could pare Giuliani's slim support base. In New Hampshire, McCain holds a tight 19-17 lead over Giuliani as they battle for second place.
Fred Thompson and the other wannabes will likely drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire (except, of course, for crazy Ron Paul, who will never give up the ghost). Then, it will all come down to the third state to vote - the Michigan primary, a week after New Hampshire.
Huckabee will enter Michigan seeking to recapture the momentum he'll have gained after Iowa and lost in New Hampshire. He'll be facing a rap that he could only win in a small farm state like his own after he campaigned there nonstop for months, almost never going home. If he loses Michigan, he'll be gone.
Romney will try to prove that his New Hampshire victory wasn't simply a favorite-son triumph. With two-thirds of New Hampshire watching Boston TV, the win there by the former Massachusetts governor in the first primary will be suspect. The ghost of Paul Tsongas, the Bay State senator who won New Hampshire in 1992, then faded, may haunt Romney's campaign. He'll will labor under the rap that he can't win road games.
Odds are that the winner of Romney vs. Huckabee will face off against Rudy or McCain on Super Tuesday.
In Michigan, Giuliani will seek to show that he loses only in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire and that he can win in a major industrial state. McCain will try to capitalize on his strong showing in New Hampshire to survive and fight on.
In Michigan, Rasmussen is the only pollster with current data. In a Dec. 4 survey, he had a three-way tie: Huckabee at 21 percent; Romney, 20, and Giuliani, 19. (McCain's at 8 percent.)
Romney has an advantage in Michigan, where he's campaigned arduously. His father was governor there and is still fondly remembered.
(The Democratic primary in Michigan doesn't matter because Hillary Clinton is the only major candidate on the ballot. Obama and Edwards both pulled out in fealty to Iowa and New Hampshire, which resented Michigan's decision to hold an early primary.)
After Michigan comes Nevada on Jan. 19. The last two polls (American Research Group and Mason Dixon), taken in early December, show an average of a close three-way contest - Romney at 25 percent, Giuliani at 21 and Huckabee at 20 percent, with McCain trailing at 7.
Then, the race moves to South Carolina, where Huckabee now leads with 24 percent followed by Romney at 17 percent, Rudy at 15 and McCain at 11. (Thompson, should he live so long, is now at 16 percent in the first southern contest.)
But the top two in Michigan are likely be the finalists that will do battle in Florida on Jan. 29 and in the rest of the country on Feb. 5.
Fence funding hoax exposed, but bill passes?
Fence funding hoax exposed, but bill passes?
From: Steve Elliott (alert@grassfire.net)
Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance 12/20/2007
Despite the best efforts of thousands of grassroots citizensacross the country, last night Congress passed the omnibusConsolidated Appropriations bill with the border fence-guttingHutchison amendment. It took a very deceptive, clandestine effort to sneak theFence Act-gutting amendment through Congress. In fact, without the efforts of Grassfire.org team members,I am convinced this Amendment would have sailed through withoutany knowledge of what they were doing and without any opposition.
+ + Hoax exposed But thanks to you, the Fence Funding Hoax has been exposed.Over the past 48 hours, members of Congress and the media haveused OUR talking points
on this issue -- stating plainly thatthe omnibus bill would "gut" the
Secure Fence Act, "eliminate"the double-layer fence requirement, and give DHS the authorityto not even build a fence! ed, the cat is out of the bag!
We have once and for all exposed the funding tricks thatCongress uses
to NOT secure our borders, and the Americanpeople will not be fooled again. For example, last night, Glenn Beck led off his TV show withthe fence
funding hoax. The story was covered by the AssociatedPress, Lou Dobbs, Washington Times and many other outlets. EvenSam Brownback said reducing the border
fence was "uncacceptable." I have listed links to several of the news
reports on the
Funding Hoaxhere: http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111
+ + The battle ahead...
I know you share my frustration -- my anger --that Congress succeeded
in gutting the Secure Fence Act's specificrequirements. This entire episode leaves me more distrusting of our electedofficials. (Even many of our "friends" on the Hill voted for this bill.We suspect many were totally unaware of the Fence Funding Hoax.) But it also makes me more convinced that the real solution tothe illegal invasion crisis ultimately rests with grassrootsAmericans like you and me. Let's face facts: No politician is going to secure our borders.Only a massive effort by grassroots Americans can make it happen.That will be our challenge in 2008 -- to move from defense tooffense in the struggle to stop the illegal invasion.
+ + You did the impossible in 2007! For now, on behalf of the entire Grassfire.org team, please acceptmy deepest thanks for all you have done this year. You did somethingthat pundits said was impossible -- you stopped the Bush-KennedyAmnesty push. You stopped the other amnesty bills that cropped up.These efforts are still resonating through the halls of Congressas politicians fear a similar backlash from the American people. Thank you so much for all you have done and continue. And may youhave a wonderful Christmas season with family and friends. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance
P.S. I would very much enjoy reading your comments on this update,as well as your thoughts as we finish this year and move aheadinto next year. Please go here: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/20389/?src=111
From: Steve Elliott (alert@grassfire.net)
Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance 12/20/2007
Despite the best efforts of thousands of grassroots citizensacross the country, last night Congress passed the omnibusConsolidated Appropriations bill with the border fence-guttingHutchison amendment. It took a very deceptive, clandestine effort to sneak theFence Act-gutting amendment through Congress. In fact, without the efforts of Grassfire.org team members,I am convinced this Amendment would have sailed through withoutany knowledge of what they were doing and without any opposition.
+ + Hoax exposed But thanks to you, the Fence Funding Hoax has been exposed.Over the past 48 hours, members of Congress and the media haveused OUR talking points
on this issue -- stating plainly thatthe omnibus bill would "gut" the
Secure Fence Act, "eliminate"the double-layer fence requirement, and give DHS the authorityto not even build a fence! ed, the cat is out of the bag!
We have once and for all exposed the funding tricks thatCongress uses
to NOT secure our borders, and the Americanpeople will not be fooled again. For example, last night, Glenn Beck led off his TV show withthe fence
funding hoax. The story was covered by the AssociatedPress, Lou Dobbs, Washington Times and many other outlets. EvenSam Brownback said reducing the border
fence was "uncacceptable." I have listed links to several of the news
reports on the
Funding Hoaxhere: http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111
+ + The battle ahead...
I know you share my frustration -- my anger --that Congress succeeded
in gutting the Secure Fence Act's specificrequirements. This entire episode leaves me more distrusting of our electedofficials. (Even many of our "friends" on the Hill voted for this bill.We suspect many were totally unaware of the Fence Funding Hoax.) But it also makes me more convinced that the real solution tothe illegal invasion crisis ultimately rests with grassrootsAmericans like you and me. Let's face facts: No politician is going to secure our borders.Only a massive effort by grassroots Americans can make it happen.That will be our challenge in 2008 -- to move from defense tooffense in the struggle to stop the illegal invasion.
+ + You did the impossible in 2007! For now, on behalf of the entire Grassfire.org team, please acceptmy deepest thanks for all you have done this year. You did somethingthat pundits said was impossible -- you stopped the Bush-KennedyAmnesty push. You stopped the other amnesty bills that cropped up.These efforts are still resonating through the halls of Congressas politicians fear a similar backlash from the American people. Thank you so much for all you have done and continue. And may youhave a wonderful Christmas season with family and friends. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance
P.S. I would very much enjoy reading your comments on this update,as well as your thoughts as we finish this year and move aheadinto next year. Please go here: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/20389/?src=111
Thursday, December 20, 2007
new crack down on illegal immigration in Missouri
Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri is working hard to crack down on illegal immigration in his state. His latest set of proposals include banning sanctuary cities in Missouri, imposing sanctions against contractors who hire illegal aliens and requiring public employers to verify a worker's legal status. Governor Matt Blunt joins us tonight.
see loudobbs.com on CNN or online.
see loudobbs.com on CNN or online.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
WHY ARE THE WHEELS COMING OFF THE CLINTON BANDWAGON?
WHY ARE THE WHEELS COMING OFF THE CLINTON BANDWAGON?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Foxnews.com on December 14, 2007.
In Iowa and New Hampshire — the first two tests for the presidential nominating process — Hillary Clinton is faltering badly.
When you average all the polls in Iowa, her lead has dwindled and is now eradicated:
Hillary vs. Obama in Iowa
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 30 23 +7
1st half Nov. 28 22 +6
2nd half Nov. 26 28 -2
December 28 30 -2
And, Hillary has suffered an even greater slippage in New Hampshire, where the last poll, by Rasmussen, has Obama ahead by three points. Here are the averages of all the polls for these time periods:
Hillary vs. Obama in New Hampshire
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 41 22 +19
1st half Nov. 36 23 +13
2nd half Nov. 34 23 +11
December 31 29 +2
But curiously, Hillary remains in the national lead and her margin has not dwindled appreciably:
Hillary vs. Obama National
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 47 21 +26
1st half Nov. 45 23 +22
2nd half Nov. 45 23 +22
December 45 24 +21
Hillary Clinton is tanking and Obama is surging in New Hampshire, gaining a net of 17 points. In Iowa, Hillary is dropping and Obama is also moving up, gaining a net of nine points. But nationally, there is almost no change since November 1. Throughout the country, Obama has gained only five points in three months.
Why the difference?
Obviously, New Hampshire and Iowa are markedly different states with little in common demographically. But, what they do have in common is prolonged exposure to the candidates and to their paid media advertising. These two states have been through what we will all go through before Election Day. They have seen Hillary and Obama campaign day after day. They have watched the candidates — with the advertisements on television, heard them on radio and have focused on the more intensive news coverage they are receiving in the local media. The conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him.
In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.
What is Hillary doing wrong and what is Obama doing right?
A trip to youtube.com or to the Web site of each of the candidates shows in an instant the difference in the ads the two campaigns are running. Obama's send goose bumps up your skin while Hillary's leave one flat. Obama speaks and demonstrates his charisma. Hillary’s platform style is no match for the Illinois senator and most of her ads feature a voice over doing the speaking for her.
In their campaign themes, Hillary stresses her experience while Obama focuses on the need for change. Hillary seems determined to appropriate her husband’s record, while Obama mocks the idea of going back to an alternation of the Bushes and the Clintons, a latter day American Hatfields and McCoys.
Now, in desperation, Hillary and her minions are attacking Obama with shots that will only arouse voter sympathy for him and backlash against her. Hillary asks, “When did running for president become a qualification to be president?” and her aides distribute evidence that Obama wanted to run for president in kindergarten to defuse the attack that Hillary and Bill have always planned on a regal, dynastic succession. More recently, a top Hillary campaign aide spoke of the need to investigate Obama’s drug use in high school where he has admitted to using cocaine.
None of these shots are going to knock anybody out or even down, but Hillary keeps up the pattern of personal, irrelevant negative attacks.
The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.
Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Foxnews.com on December 14, 2007.
In Iowa and New Hampshire — the first two tests for the presidential nominating process — Hillary Clinton is faltering badly.
When you average all the polls in Iowa, her lead has dwindled and is now eradicated:
Hillary vs. Obama in Iowa
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 30 23 +7
1st half Nov. 28 22 +6
2nd half Nov. 26 28 -2
December 28 30 -2
And, Hillary has suffered an even greater slippage in New Hampshire, where the last poll, by Rasmussen, has Obama ahead by three points. Here are the averages of all the polls for these time periods:
Hillary vs. Obama in New Hampshire
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 41 22 +19
1st half Nov. 36 23 +13
2nd half Nov. 34 23 +11
December 31 29 +2
But curiously, Hillary remains in the national lead and her margin has not dwindled appreciably:
Hillary vs. Obama National
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 47 21 +26
1st half Nov. 45 23 +22
2nd half Nov. 45 23 +22
December 45 24 +21
Hillary Clinton is tanking and Obama is surging in New Hampshire, gaining a net of 17 points. In Iowa, Hillary is dropping and Obama is also moving up, gaining a net of nine points. But nationally, there is almost no change since November 1. Throughout the country, Obama has gained only five points in three months.
Why the difference?
Obviously, New Hampshire and Iowa are markedly different states with little in common demographically. But, what they do have in common is prolonged exposure to the candidates and to their paid media advertising. These two states have been through what we will all go through before Election Day. They have seen Hillary and Obama campaign day after day. They have watched the candidates — with the advertisements on television, heard them on radio and have focused on the more intensive news coverage they are receiving in the local media. The conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him.
In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.
What is Hillary doing wrong and what is Obama doing right?
A trip to youtube.com or to the Web site of each of the candidates shows in an instant the difference in the ads the two campaigns are running. Obama's send goose bumps up your skin while Hillary's leave one flat. Obama speaks and demonstrates his charisma. Hillary’s platform style is no match for the Illinois senator and most of her ads feature a voice over doing the speaking for her.
In their campaign themes, Hillary stresses her experience while Obama focuses on the need for change. Hillary seems determined to appropriate her husband’s record, while Obama mocks the idea of going back to an alternation of the Bushes and the Clintons, a latter day American Hatfields and McCoys.
Now, in desperation, Hillary and her minions are attacking Obama with shots that will only arouse voter sympathy for him and backlash against her. Hillary asks, “When did running for president become a qualification to be president?” and her aides distribute evidence that Obama wanted to run for president in kindergarten to defuse the attack that Hillary and Bill have always planned on a regal, dynastic succession. More recently, a top Hillary campaign aide spoke of the need to investigate Obama’s drug use in high school where he has admitted to using cocaine.
None of these shots are going to knock anybody out or even down, but Hillary keeps up the pattern of personal, irrelevant negative attacks.
The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.
Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Fighting Border Criminals from Gov
Fighting Border Criminals
Friday, December 14, 2007
Dear Friends,
I want to share with you a great example of how Arizona is working to tackle border crime, even as the federal government continues to push off confronting the problems of the border.
Arizona’s Department of Public Safety has begun using high-tech license plate readers to track and seize stolen vehicles. Vehicle theft and stolen license plates are key tools that smugglers use to carry illegal cargo – whether drugs or human beings.
One DPS officer in particular, Officer Dave Callister, has shown what hard work and an innovative approach can do to fight these border criminals. Officer Callister works with mobile license plate readers, devices that were originally designed for low-speed environments. Officer Callister worked to make these readers function on highways. Over a period of 16 months, Officer Callister recovered 75 stolen vehicles and 140 stolen license plates – helping to bring the fight to criminal rackets that thrive off our porous borders.
Continued smuggler and gang activity is one of greatest costs of the federal government’s inaction on comprehensive immigration reform and serious border security measures. Years of federal neglect have left our borders porous as criminal syndicates – including human smugglers, drug smugglers, and street gangs – have thrived in this lawless environment.
But all across Arizona, we’re not waiting for federal action to crack down on border crime – instead, Officer Callister is but one example of how we’re utilizing innovative law enforcement technologies to fight gangs and smugglers.
We have introduced new tools to prosecute border smugglers, created new laws that allow police to attack border criminals by seizing their assets, and cracked down on border gangs. In the past few months, we have entered into important agreements with law enforcement in Mexico to share information in the fight against meth traffickers. Last week, I also signed an agreement with the federal Department of Homeland Security that helps create a secure form of voluntary ID that will be less susceptible to fraud – which will help in the fight against border criminals who use identity theft as a tool to commit crimes.
The border presents a host of tough issues, and political deadlock often leaves problems such as border crime unaddressed. In Arizona, however, we’re working hard to take concrete action on these public safety problems that have an impact on Arizonans’ lives.
As always, I appreciate your input, and encourage you to call my office at 602-542-1318 if you have questions or thoughts to share. Or, please visit our Web site at www.azgovernor.gov for information and news in state government.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Friday, December 14, 2007
Dear Friends,
I want to share with you a great example of how Arizona is working to tackle border crime, even as the federal government continues to push off confronting the problems of the border.
Arizona’s Department of Public Safety has begun using high-tech license plate readers to track and seize stolen vehicles. Vehicle theft and stolen license plates are key tools that smugglers use to carry illegal cargo – whether drugs or human beings.
One DPS officer in particular, Officer Dave Callister, has shown what hard work and an innovative approach can do to fight these border criminals. Officer Callister works with mobile license plate readers, devices that were originally designed for low-speed environments. Officer Callister worked to make these readers function on highways. Over a period of 16 months, Officer Callister recovered 75 stolen vehicles and 140 stolen license plates – helping to bring the fight to criminal rackets that thrive off our porous borders.
Continued smuggler and gang activity is one of greatest costs of the federal government’s inaction on comprehensive immigration reform and serious border security measures. Years of federal neglect have left our borders porous as criminal syndicates – including human smugglers, drug smugglers, and street gangs – have thrived in this lawless environment.
But all across Arizona, we’re not waiting for federal action to crack down on border crime – instead, Officer Callister is but one example of how we’re utilizing innovative law enforcement technologies to fight gangs and smugglers.
We have introduced new tools to prosecute border smugglers, created new laws that allow police to attack border criminals by seizing their assets, and cracked down on border gangs. In the past few months, we have entered into important agreements with law enforcement in Mexico to share information in the fight against meth traffickers. Last week, I also signed an agreement with the federal Department of Homeland Security that helps create a secure form of voluntary ID that will be less susceptible to fraud – which will help in the fight against border criminals who use identity theft as a tool to commit crimes.
The border presents a host of tough issues, and political deadlock often leaves problems such as border crime unaddressed. In Arizona, however, we’re working hard to take concrete action on these public safety problems that have an impact on Arizonans’ lives.
As always, I appreciate your input, and encourage you to call my office at 602-542-1318 if you have questions or thoughts to share. Or, please visit our Web site at www.azgovernor.gov for information and news in state government.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Thursday, December 13, 2007
BILL HURTS, NOT HELPS, HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN
BILL HURTS, NOT HELPS, HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on December 7, 2007.
Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are very high so Hillary figures he can be of great help to her on the campaign trail. So far, so good — but then they extrapolate that view and conclude that he would be a good person to make her negative attacks on opponents, to answer charges against her and to take the media to task for their coverage. And that’s where they are wrong.
Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years. His book Giving, although largely a payoff to those who have given to him or to his wife’s campaign, portrays him as a philanthropist par excellence. Combined with the kudos for his role in helping tsunami and Katrina victims, and his annual September conference to organize and help to third world countries, he is acquiring the statesmanlike reputation that eluded him when he was a working politician.
But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.
He and I spoke right before the 1994 Congressional elections about where he could campaign to help to re-elect Democrats. He had just returned from the signing of the peace accord between Jordan and Israel and his approval ratings, for once, were pretty high. “You should go back to the Middle East,” I told him.
“But you don’t understand, my ratings are high now because of the trip to the Middle East and I can do candidates a lot of good,” he answered.
“No, you’ll lower your ratings because you won’t appear presidential as you campaign and you’ll end up doing the candidates for whom you campaign more harm than good,” I replied.
Bill couldn’t help himself. He ran out and campaigned all over the U.S. for the congressmen and senators who had backed his economic package and anti-crime bill, and most of them ended up losing in the GOP sweep of 1994. In the meantime, he lowered his rating by 10 points by campaigning and seeming political.
When Bill takes the stump for Hillary and speaks in bland generalities, he does her some good and no harm. But when he emerges as a cut and burn politician, flipping and flopping over his past position on Iraq and attacking media coverage of Hillary, he lowers his ratings and ends his usefulness to Hillary’s campaign.
The best thing for Bill to do is to stay home. Or better yet, leave the country on some charitable or philanthropic mission while his wife runs for president. His job is to keep his own ratings high. Her job is to exploit those ratings for her own advantage, no matter how little she deserves them.
Hillary’s entire campaign, like her whole legal and political career, is entirely derivative of Bill’s. By using her lynchpin as a bludgeon to hammer her opponents, he destroys his effectiveness and hurts her own campaign.
That is not to say that left to her own devices, Hillary will do herself any good. She seems incapable of waging an effective negative campaign. She hits Obama with stupid charges like her campaign’s comment about his kindergarten remarks or throws pitty-pat punches that do no real damage like her attack on his health care proposal. Absent real dirt, Hillary is facing an almost impossible task in trying to besmirch Mr. Clean, and as she tries, she undermines both the perception that she is a winner and the idea that she is an effective fighter.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on December 7, 2007.
Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are very high so Hillary figures he can be of great help to her on the campaign trail. So far, so good — but then they extrapolate that view and conclude that he would be a good person to make her negative attacks on opponents, to answer charges against her and to take the media to task for their coverage. And that’s where they are wrong.
Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years. His book Giving, although largely a payoff to those who have given to him or to his wife’s campaign, portrays him as a philanthropist par excellence. Combined with the kudos for his role in helping tsunami and Katrina victims, and his annual September conference to organize and help to third world countries, he is acquiring the statesmanlike reputation that eluded him when he was a working politician.
But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.
He and I spoke right before the 1994 Congressional elections about where he could campaign to help to re-elect Democrats. He had just returned from the signing of the peace accord between Jordan and Israel and his approval ratings, for once, were pretty high. “You should go back to the Middle East,” I told him.
“But you don’t understand, my ratings are high now because of the trip to the Middle East and I can do candidates a lot of good,” he answered.
“No, you’ll lower your ratings because you won’t appear presidential as you campaign and you’ll end up doing the candidates for whom you campaign more harm than good,” I replied.
Bill couldn’t help himself. He ran out and campaigned all over the U.S. for the congressmen and senators who had backed his economic package and anti-crime bill, and most of them ended up losing in the GOP sweep of 1994. In the meantime, he lowered his rating by 10 points by campaigning and seeming political.
When Bill takes the stump for Hillary and speaks in bland generalities, he does her some good and no harm. But when he emerges as a cut and burn politician, flipping and flopping over his past position on Iraq and attacking media coverage of Hillary, he lowers his ratings and ends his usefulness to Hillary’s campaign.
The best thing for Bill to do is to stay home. Or better yet, leave the country on some charitable or philanthropic mission while his wife runs for president. His job is to keep his own ratings high. Her job is to exploit those ratings for her own advantage, no matter how little she deserves them.
Hillary’s entire campaign, like her whole legal and political career, is entirely derivative of Bill’s. By using her lynchpin as a bludgeon to hammer her opponents, he destroys his effectiveness and hurts her own campaign.
That is not to say that left to her own devices, Hillary will do herself any good. She seems incapable of waging an effective negative campaign. She hits Obama with stupid charges like her campaign’s comment about his kindergarten remarks or throws pitty-pat punches that do no real damage like her attack on his health care proposal. Absent real dirt, Hillary is facing an almost impossible task in trying to besmirch Mr. Clean, and as she tries, she undermines both the perception that she is a winner and the idea that she is an effective fighter.
THE OPRAH FACTOR: A BIG BOOST FOR OBAMA
THE OPRAH FACTOR: A BIG BOOST FOR OBAMA
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHill.com on December 12, 2007.
The era of celebrity endorsements ended some time ago. We no longer buy the shaving cream that Derek Jeter tells us to use; nor do we vote as some Hollywood actor suggests. We have come to assume that political endorsements are often the product of partisan loyalty rather than any particular standard of merit and that commercial testimonials come only in exchange for cash.
But Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is truly unique and will have a profound impact on the presidential race. She transforms a candidacy into a movement and will increase his momentum from a growth curve to a surging wave.
It is not just that people trust what Oprah says. Her endorsement is important because of who she is and what message her support sends to those like her. As the most famous black woman in the world, she is a cultural icon. And as a figure who effortlessly crosses the racial divide, she has a special role in a presidential primary that pits the first woman against the first black to contest for president with a serious chance of victory. In this environment, Oprah’s demographic is her message.
Oprah sends a message to all American women that it is OK not to vote for Hillary and one to African-Americans that they need to vote for Obama. Were Oprah seen primarily as a black leader, her endorsement of a candidate of her own race running against one of her own gender wouldn’t mean that much. If her reputation were one for putting her race constantly ahead of her gender, her endorsement of Obama would seem automatic. But that is not who Oprah is.
She is iconic to women of all races; to them she’s a woman who is black, not a black who is female. So her refusal to endorse a fellow female seeking the presidency is tremendously significant to women voters. She sends a message by her unusual intervention in a political contest in which a woman is running. It reads: A woman, yes. This woman, no.
Oprah’s embrace of Obama’s message of change stamps his campaign mantra as legitimate and turns experience into a disqualification rather than an attribute for Hillary. That this much-admired woman would turn against Hillary in order to seek change in Washington lifts Obama to JFK proportions even as it pins on Hillary — to her detriment — the Nixon slogan of 1960: “Experience counts.”
But to black voters, Oprah’s endorsement, precisely because it flies in the face of her gender, is especially significant. The message it sends to African-Americans is: It’s time. Her foray into politics to endorse Obama makes it clear that his candidacy has special relevance to all black men and women everywhere. It is not so much that she has reached into politics to back Obama as that the senator’s candidacy has such meaning for any citizen who is black that it reaches into Oprah’s life and demands that she come forth to support it. Her endorsement seems to suggest that just as anti-Catholic bigotry went away when John Kennedy was elected, so racism may fade in the aftermath of an Obama presidency.
Oprah’s backing also helps tilt the balance of power to Obama and away from John Edwards. Two challengers would have much less chance of beating Hillary than one would in a straight-on battle. But Obama and Edwards sound so much alike that it is hard to distinguish for which one to vote. Oprah’s endorsement almost anoints Obama as the challenger.
Finally, we must recognize that this is truly the first Christmas campaign, conducted not only against the harsh backdrop of news coverage but on a stage also festooned with holiday cheer. Now, in addition to the flag as a prop for campaigning, we have reindeer and Santa. Oprah is from the world of Christmas — mystical, cheerful, appealing, even beguiling. She is no policy wonk but is cast well as a black, female St. Nick bringing joy to the world. Her endorsement softens Obama, wraps him up, and makes of him a Christmas present to America.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHill.com on December 12, 2007.
The era of celebrity endorsements ended some time ago. We no longer buy the shaving cream that Derek Jeter tells us to use; nor do we vote as some Hollywood actor suggests. We have come to assume that political endorsements are often the product of partisan loyalty rather than any particular standard of merit and that commercial testimonials come only in exchange for cash.
But Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is truly unique and will have a profound impact on the presidential race. She transforms a candidacy into a movement and will increase his momentum from a growth curve to a surging wave.
It is not just that people trust what Oprah says. Her endorsement is important because of who she is and what message her support sends to those like her. As the most famous black woman in the world, she is a cultural icon. And as a figure who effortlessly crosses the racial divide, she has a special role in a presidential primary that pits the first woman against the first black to contest for president with a serious chance of victory. In this environment, Oprah’s demographic is her message.
Oprah sends a message to all American women that it is OK not to vote for Hillary and one to African-Americans that they need to vote for Obama. Were Oprah seen primarily as a black leader, her endorsement of a candidate of her own race running against one of her own gender wouldn’t mean that much. If her reputation were one for putting her race constantly ahead of her gender, her endorsement of Obama would seem automatic. But that is not who Oprah is.
She is iconic to women of all races; to them she’s a woman who is black, not a black who is female. So her refusal to endorse a fellow female seeking the presidency is tremendously significant to women voters. She sends a message by her unusual intervention in a political contest in which a woman is running. It reads: A woman, yes. This woman, no.
Oprah’s embrace of Obama’s message of change stamps his campaign mantra as legitimate and turns experience into a disqualification rather than an attribute for Hillary. That this much-admired woman would turn against Hillary in order to seek change in Washington lifts Obama to JFK proportions even as it pins on Hillary — to her detriment — the Nixon slogan of 1960: “Experience counts.”
But to black voters, Oprah’s endorsement, precisely because it flies in the face of her gender, is especially significant. The message it sends to African-Americans is: It’s time. Her foray into politics to endorse Obama makes it clear that his candidacy has special relevance to all black men and women everywhere. It is not so much that she has reached into politics to back Obama as that the senator’s candidacy has such meaning for any citizen who is black that it reaches into Oprah’s life and demands that she come forth to support it. Her endorsement seems to suggest that just as anti-Catholic bigotry went away when John Kennedy was elected, so racism may fade in the aftermath of an Obama presidency.
Oprah’s backing also helps tilt the balance of power to Obama and away from John Edwards. Two challengers would have much less chance of beating Hillary than one would in a straight-on battle. But Obama and Edwards sound so much alike that it is hard to distinguish for which one to vote. Oprah’s endorsement almost anoints Obama as the challenger.
Finally, we must recognize that this is truly the first Christmas campaign, conducted not only against the harsh backdrop of news coverage but on a stage also festooned with holiday cheer. Now, in addition to the flag as a prop for campaigning, we have reindeer and Santa. Oprah is from the world of Christmas — mystical, cheerful, appealing, even beguiling. She is no policy wonk but is cast well as a black, female St. Nick bringing joy to the world. Her endorsement softens Obama, wraps him up, and makes of him a Christmas present to America.
Monday, December 10, 2007
CNN reports that Senator Mccain misses 54 % of his votes in the senate ?
CNN reports that Senator Mccain misses 54 % of his votes in the senate ?
whos's he working for? the people of Arizona ?
after he loses another bid for the presidential nomination, who will replace him in the senate.
whos's he working for? the people of Arizona ?
after he loses another bid for the presidential nomination, who will replace him in the senate.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Would-be burglars shot by Houston man were in the US illegally
Would-be burglars shot by Houston man were in the US illegally
I’m sure you’ve heard some of the story, but in case not, last month Pasadena, TX man Joe Horn shot and killed two men who were breaking into his neighbor’s property. The entire incident was recorded, as he was on the phone with 911 when he exited his home to shoot the two men.
It turns out that the would-be burglars were in the US illegally, and both were known criminals.
Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz were both from Colombia. Dejesus spent six years in a Texas prison for drug dealing, then was deported. Obviously, he came back illegally. Ortiz was arrested by Houston police on a drug charge. We don’t know much more about him, because Houston is a “Sanctuary City” and does not cooperate with Homeland Security or with the press in matters involving criminal aliens.
That last sentence probably answers why they weren’t deported again: Houston’s sanctuary policies.
And they were already being watched by the Texas Department of Public Safety during their most recent illegal stay in the US for allegedly using fraudulent documents to obtain valid Texas drivers licenses.
According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.
Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.
Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.
But that’s not all.
A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.
How many more of these stories do we have to hear before Washington gets a clue and secures the border? Too many.
I’m sure you’ve heard some of the story, but in case not, last month Pasadena, TX man Joe Horn shot and killed two men who were breaking into his neighbor’s property. The entire incident was recorded, as he was on the phone with 911 when he exited his home to shoot the two men.
It turns out that the would-be burglars were in the US illegally, and both were known criminals.
Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz were both from Colombia. Dejesus spent six years in a Texas prison for drug dealing, then was deported. Obviously, he came back illegally. Ortiz was arrested by Houston police on a drug charge. We don’t know much more about him, because Houston is a “Sanctuary City” and does not cooperate with Homeland Security or with the press in matters involving criminal aliens.
That last sentence probably answers why they weren’t deported again: Houston’s sanctuary policies.
And they were already being watched by the Texas Department of Public Safety during their most recent illegal stay in the US for allegedly using fraudulent documents to obtain valid Texas drivers licenses.
According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.
Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.
Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.
But that’s not all.
A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.
How many more of these stories do we have to hear before Washington gets a clue and secures the border? Too many.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 28, 2007.
As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And he can win in Iowa.
When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one.
Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.
But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medical spending,” he says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money.
So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa, most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP contest, giving Rudy a big boost.
And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, sweeping the early primaries, Giuliani will have a very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It can be done, but it’s tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney.
In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations, their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to win.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 28, 2007.
As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And he can win in Iowa.
When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one.
Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.
But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medical spending,” he says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money.
So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa, most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP contest, giving Rudy a big boost.
And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, sweeping the early primaries, Giuliani will have a very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It can be done, but it’s tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney.
In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations, their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to win.
Monday, November 26, 2007
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTS HILLARY CLINTON?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTS HILLARY CLINTON?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on November 21, 2007.
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand."
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.
But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.
Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.
Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.
All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.
The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.
Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.
Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.
President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on November 21, 2007.
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand."
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.
But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.
Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.
Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.
All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.
The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.
Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.
Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.
President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration Reform
Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration Reform
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Ron Paul Campaign Announces New Arizona Leadership
Ron Paul Campaign Announces New Arizona Leadership
Roy Miller, Karen Johnson To Serve As Ron Paul 2008 Arizona Co-Chairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jesse Benton
September 27, 2007 202-246-6363
ARLINGTON, VA – As national support for his 2008 presidential campaign continues to grow,
Republican Congressman Ron Paul is pleased to announce the campaign appointments of Roy
Miller and Karen Johnson as Arizona co-chairs.
Roy and Karen both have extensive Arizona policy backgrounds.
Roy Miller earned his M.B.A. from Arizona State, and retired as a colonel after serving six years
as an active duty Air Force pilot and twenty-five years as an Air Force Reserve member. In the
Arizona Republican Party, he held the offices of precinct committeeman and platform and
resolutions chairman. Roy co-founded the Goldwater Institute and served as its executive
director, and also founded the Arizona Economic Forum. While on the staff of the Arizona
Corporation Commission, he authored a series of policy papers that were instrumental in
Arizona’s intrastate transportation deregulation.
State Senator Karen S. Johnson represents the 18th Legislative District in Arizona. She serves in
the State Senate as chairman of the Education Committee, K-12, and is a member of the Natural
Resources & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees. In the past, she worked
as the Arizona state campaign director for Pat Buchannan, office manager for Supervisor
Freestone in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and an assistant to David Schweikert,
Majority Whip in the Arizona State Legislature. In the Senate, Karen prioritizes lowering taxes
for individuals, families, and small businesses, and constructing a new East Valley and statewide
freeway system.
“With the addition of Karen and Roy, Dr. Paul’s campaign is poised to make a strong impact in
Arizona,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “With their impressive backgrounds and
experiences, they will be instrumental in spreading Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity,
and peace.”
The Arizona Presidential Preference Election is slated for February 5, 2008.
Roy Miller, Karen Johnson To Serve As Ron Paul 2008 Arizona Co-Chairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jesse Benton
September 27, 2007 202-246-6363
ARLINGTON, VA – As national support for his 2008 presidential campaign continues to grow,
Republican Congressman Ron Paul is pleased to announce the campaign appointments of Roy
Miller and Karen Johnson as Arizona co-chairs.
Roy and Karen both have extensive Arizona policy backgrounds.
Roy Miller earned his M.B.A. from Arizona State, and retired as a colonel after serving six years
as an active duty Air Force pilot and twenty-five years as an Air Force Reserve member. In the
Arizona Republican Party, he held the offices of precinct committeeman and platform and
resolutions chairman. Roy co-founded the Goldwater Institute and served as its executive
director, and also founded the Arizona Economic Forum. While on the staff of the Arizona
Corporation Commission, he authored a series of policy papers that were instrumental in
Arizona’s intrastate transportation deregulation.
State Senator Karen S. Johnson represents the 18th Legislative District in Arizona. She serves in
the State Senate as chairman of the Education Committee, K-12, and is a member of the Natural
Resources & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees. In the past, she worked
as the Arizona state campaign director for Pat Buchannan, office manager for Supervisor
Freestone in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and an assistant to David Schweikert,
Majority Whip in the Arizona State Legislature. In the Senate, Karen prioritizes lowering taxes
for individuals, families, and small businesses, and constructing a new East Valley and statewide
freeway system.
“With the addition of Karen and Roy, Dr. Paul’s campaign is poised to make a strong impact in
Arizona,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “With their impressive backgrounds and
experiences, they will be instrumental in spreading Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity,
and peace.”
The Arizona Presidential Preference Election is slated for February 5, 2008.
Help Wanted: replacement senator for the state of Arizona
Help Wanted: replacement senator for the state of Arizona
After Senator John Mccain loses yet another presidential bid who's going to replace him as senator for Arizona ?
most recent pools shoes him dead last at 6% in Iowa
www.mccainalert.com
more news on shithead Mccain
After Senator John Mccain loses yet another presidential bid who's going to replace him as senator for Arizona ?
most recent pools shoes him dead last at 6% in Iowa
www.mccainalert.com
more news on shithead Mccain
Friday, November 23, 2007
Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal
Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean
Today John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
Clinton leads the field in seeking earmarks.....
Clinton leads senators seeking presidency in use of earmarks
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
Hillary slippage in Iowa
WHAT IOWA SLIPPAGE MEANS FOR HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
John Mccain polls dead last in Iowa at 6%
John Mccain polls dead last in Iowa at 6%
about time, who's gonna replace him in the senate now ?
www.mccainalert.com
about time, who's gonna replace him in the senate now ?
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Border fence funding hoax exposed?
Border fence funding hoax exposed?
Grassfire.org Alliance We have the "smoking gun" on why the government
isn'tbuilding the double-layered fence mandated by law.
Please read below and forward to your friends.
As we reported to you last week, our government has built just fivemiles of the 854 miles of double-layer border fence mandated bythe Secure Fence Act of 2006. This outrageous fact begs a question... Why? If the law mandated a double layer fence covering 854 miles,then how come such little progress has been made? + + Border fence funding hoax of 2006 and 2007 Grassfire.org's research staff has blown the lid off a deceptiveand convoluted border fence funding sham being perpetrated onthe citizens of our nation. Warning -- reading this report will enrage you. It willinfuriate you. Go here to access the full report: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
As you will see in this report, Congress and the Administrationare pretending to support a real border fence but then workingbehind the scenes to ensure that the Secure Fence Act is neverreally implemented. It happened last year, and as I write, Congress is trying to repeatits Border Fence Funding Hoax on us again! Here's how... As you may know, last week an amendment providing $3 billion forborder security was stripped from the DOD appropriations bill. We fully expect that bill to be added to the DHS funding billin the next few days. But even if they pass the $3 billionfunding amendment, DHS may not be required to use any of thatmoney for the border fence. Not ONE DIME! That's because of another amendment by Sen. Hutchison that saysDHS does not have to build the fence! Sen. Hutchison's staff toldus this amendment (also removed from DOD appropriations) will alsobe re-attached to the DHS appropriations bill. + + Action Items: Help expose the Funding Hoax ed, I need your help to expose Congress’ Fence FundingHoax. We need to flood every House and Senate office with faxesdemanding action. Specifically, we are calling for an amendment (or amendments) tobe added to the DHS appropriations bill to fully fund thedouble-layer fence and directly tie that funding to the actualbuilding of the fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act. I am asking you to take two actions today:
1. Send faxes to your Senators, your Congressman and otherkey leaders exposing the Fence Funding Hoax Go here: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869 (As always you can use our FaxFire system or send your own faxes.All the information is provided at the above link.)
2. Call your Senators and Congressman today: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 To reach your representative, call the House Switchboard: 202-221-3121. Talking Points: 1. I am disappointed that Congress has not tied the border securityfunding directly to the double-layer fence mandated by the SecureFence Act. 2. I call on Congress to reject any amendments (such as theHutchison Amendment, SA 3176 to H.R. 3222) that gives HomelandSecurity total discretion over whether or not to build aborder fence.
3. I call on Congress to amend the DHS appropriations bill tofully fund 854 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER fening and directly tiesuch funding to the Secure Fence Act's two-layer fence mandate. Again, please read our full report. You will be outraged when yousee how the "fix was in" last year even before the Senate voted onthe Secure Fence Act -- and how Congress is trying to repeat thefunding hoax this year. The DHS appropriations bill is in House-Senate conference rightnow and could move quickly. Thank you for taking action. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S. Again, you can access Grassfire's complete Special Reporton the Fence Funding Hoax here:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111 P.P.S. I really want our feedback on this message and report.Please go here to post your comments/thoughts on a specialFireSociety.com page: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/Discussion/?src=111
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. Thise-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to changeyour status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Feedback or comments on this update? Go to FireSociety.com and post your comments so that the Grassfirestaff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from yourthoughts and opinions: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/?src=111
Grassfire.org Alliance We have the "smoking gun" on why the government
isn'tbuilding the double-layered fence mandated by law.
Please read below and forward to your friends.
As we reported to you last week, our government has built just fivemiles of the 854 miles of double-layer border fence mandated bythe Secure Fence Act of 2006. This outrageous fact begs a question... Why? If the law mandated a double layer fence covering 854 miles,then how come such little progress has been made? + + Border fence funding hoax of 2006 and 2007 Grassfire.org's research staff has blown the lid off a deceptiveand convoluted border fence funding sham being perpetrated onthe citizens of our nation. Warning -- reading this report will enrage you. It willinfuriate you. Go here to access the full report: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
As you will see in this report, Congress and the Administrationare pretending to support a real border fence but then workingbehind the scenes to ensure that the Secure Fence Act is neverreally implemented. It happened last year, and as I write, Congress is trying to repeatits Border Fence Funding Hoax on us again! Here's how... As you may know, last week an amendment providing $3 billion forborder security was stripped from the DOD appropriations bill. We fully expect that bill to be added to the DHS funding billin the next few days. But even if they pass the $3 billionfunding amendment, DHS may not be required to use any of thatmoney for the border fence. Not ONE DIME! That's because of another amendment by Sen. Hutchison that saysDHS does not have to build the fence! Sen. Hutchison's staff toldus this amendment (also removed from DOD appropriations) will alsobe re-attached to the DHS appropriations bill. + + Action Items: Help expose the Funding Hoax ed, I need your help to expose Congress’ Fence FundingHoax. We need to flood every House and Senate office with faxesdemanding action. Specifically, we are calling for an amendment (or amendments) tobe added to the DHS appropriations bill to fully fund thedouble-layer fence and directly tie that funding to the actualbuilding of the fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act. I am asking you to take two actions today:
1. Send faxes to your Senators, your Congressman and otherkey leaders exposing the Fence Funding Hoax Go here: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869 (As always you can use our FaxFire system or send your own faxes.All the information is provided at the above link.)
2. Call your Senators and Congressman today: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 To reach your representative, call the House Switchboard: 202-221-3121. Talking Points: 1. I am disappointed that Congress has not tied the border securityfunding directly to the double-layer fence mandated by the SecureFence Act. 2. I call on Congress to reject any amendments (such as theHutchison Amendment, SA 3176 to H.R. 3222) that gives HomelandSecurity total discretion over whether or not to build aborder fence.
3. I call on Congress to amend the DHS appropriations bill tofully fund 854 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER fening and directly tiesuch funding to the Secure Fence Act's two-layer fence mandate. Again, please read our full report. You will be outraged when yousee how the "fix was in" last year even before the Senate voted onthe Secure Fence Act -- and how Congress is trying to repeat thefunding hoax this year. The DHS appropriations bill is in House-Senate conference rightnow and could move quickly. Thank you for taking action. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S. Again, you can access Grassfire's complete Special Reporton the Fence Funding Hoax here:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111 P.P.S. I really want our feedback on this message and report.Please go here to post your comments/thoughts on a specialFireSociety.com page: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/Discussion/?src=111
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. Thise-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to changeyour status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Feedback or comments on this update? Go to FireSociety.com and post your comments so that the Grassfirestaff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from yourthoughts and opinions: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/?src=111
Mr
invite to see Fred Thompson in Phoenix
Please join the Arizona Republican Party as we welcomePresidential Candidate
and
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson
For a Trunk and Tusk Speaker Series Event
November 29th, Phoenix Airport Marriott
1101 North 44 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Senator Fred Thompson
Registration will open at 11:00 a.
$2,300 Table Sponsor – includes 2 tickets to a private reception, 10 tickets to lunch
$150 Individual
Please RSVP to Amilyn Gordon at mailto="mailto:agordon@azgop.org" To=agordon@azgop.org or Please specify if you are a Trunk and Tusk member; you admission is included in your membership dues!
Please join the Arizona Republican Party as we welcomePresidential Candidate
and
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson
For a Trunk and Tusk Speaker Series Event
November 29th, Phoenix Airport Marriott
1101 North 44 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Senator Fred Thompson
Registration will open at 11:00 a.
$2,300 Table Sponsor – includes 2 tickets to a private reception, 10 tickets to lunch
$150 Individual
Please RSVP to Amilyn Gordon at mailto="mailto:agordon@azgop.org" To=agordon@azgop.org or Please specify if you are a Trunk and Tusk member; you admission is included in your membership dues!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
disappointed in Sentor Mccain
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
First Lady of Arkansas
Monday, November 12, 2007
Phoenix Country Club
2901 North 7Street, Phoenix, 85014
$100 per person
$500 for event sponsorship
$1,000 per table
To RSVP, please contact Amilyn at
(602) 957-7770
Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Contributions are
not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from
corporations, foreign nationals and minors are prohibited. Contributions are
subject to federal contributions limits of $10,000 from individuals and
$5,000 from PACs
www.mccainalert.com
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
First Lady of Arkansas
Monday, November 12, 2007
Phoenix Country Club
2901 North 7Street, Phoenix, 85014
$100 per person
$500 for event sponsorship
$1,000 per table
To RSVP, please contact Amilyn at
(602) 957-7770
Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Contributions are
not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from
corporations, foreign nationals and minors are prohibited. Contributions are
subject to federal contributions limits of $10,000 from individuals and
$5,000 from PACs
www.mccainalert.com
Friday, November 02, 2007
WHAT IF THE IOWA POLLS DON'T CHANGE?
WHAT IF THE IOWA POLLS DON'T CHANGE?
What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?
And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?
With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don’t change much from now until then.
On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.
Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here’s what might happen:
Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor.
Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man’s Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.
Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives.
Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.
And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.
Hillary’s vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.
And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).
And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.
Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.
But what if?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 31, 2007.
What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?
And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?
With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don’t change much from now until then.
On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.
Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here’s what might happen:
Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor.
Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man’s Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.
Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives.
Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.
And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.
Hillary’s vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.
And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).
And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.
Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.
But what if?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 31, 2007.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
HILLARY’S BAD NIGHT
HILLARY’S BAD NIGHT
Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
the American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.
It was a moment in the 2008 campaign akin to Ted Kennedy’s inability to explain to Roger Mudd why he was running for president in 1980. It was one of those few moments when the real candidate is on display and visible to all. It came about because Senator Chris Dodd had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of Spitzer’s plan to illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of is is. It was a Hillary moment and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated, with asperity, to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” but, indeed, she had been got!
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
the American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.
It was a moment in the 2008 campaign akin to Ted Kennedy’s inability to explain to Roger Mudd why he was running for president in 1980. It was one of those few moments when the real candidate is on display and visible to all. It came about because Senator Chris Dodd had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of Spitzer’s plan to illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of is is. It was a Hillary moment and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated, with asperity, to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” but, indeed, she had been got!
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET
THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on October 26, 2007.
Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is shaking up the Republican race.
Think of the primary process as a tennis tournament. On the center court, in the semi-final, Rudy Giuliani is defeating John McCain in straight sets. But on the right court, low-seeded Huckabee beat Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in the quarter-finals for the designation of "Christian Coalition" challenger - and now will face off against ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Massachusetts ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in the right-court semi-final. The winner will meet Rudy in the finals.
Huckabee's national poll numbers are rising. Scott Rasmussen has him at 10 percent nationally and in third place at 18 percent in Iowa, where he trails Thompson by 1 percent and Romney by 7 percent.
Thompson's campaign has been a disaster - from his comment that Osama bin Laden was entitled to due process to his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. The average of the last five national polls (see realclearpolitics.com) shows him trailing Rudy, 28-18, and only barely ahead of Romney and McCain.
Thanks to heavy advertising, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire - but his edge is dwindling, and he's never broken 16 percent in any national poll.
Why doesn't this charismatic, articulate candidate catch on? Part of it is blatant anti-Mormon bigotry. But part of it is his flip-flop-flip on abortion: As a candidate in liberal Massachusetts, he switched from pro-life to pro-choice; then, as he got ready for this race, he switched back to pro-life again.
Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, "I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you" - and came in strong anyway.
More recently, he swept last weekend's Values Voters convention among those who appeared in person. (He lost by less than one point overall to Romney, whose tally included a mass of Internet votes.)
Why the Huckabee boomlet? A gripping, humorous, passionate orator, he brings a spiritual dimension to public-policy problems. His ideas are interesting. Want lower health-care costs? Tackle obesity and smoking. Education reform? Music and art education are just as important to our national creativity as science and math.
He has a good chance to be the front-ranking challenger to Giuliani in the national primary on Feb. 5. He might beat Rudy - or at least earn a VP designation, because Giuliani will be anxious to appeal to Christian-right voters.
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on October 26, 2007.
Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is shaking up the Republican race.
Think of the primary process as a tennis tournament. On the center court, in the semi-final, Rudy Giuliani is defeating John McCain in straight sets. But on the right court, low-seeded Huckabee beat Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in the quarter-finals for the designation of "Christian Coalition" challenger - and now will face off against ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Massachusetts ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in the right-court semi-final. The winner will meet Rudy in the finals.
Huckabee's national poll numbers are rising. Scott Rasmussen has him at 10 percent nationally and in third place at 18 percent in Iowa, where he trails Thompson by 1 percent and Romney by 7 percent.
Thompson's campaign has been a disaster - from his comment that Osama bin Laden was entitled to due process to his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. The average of the last five national polls (see realclearpolitics.com) shows him trailing Rudy, 28-18, and only barely ahead of Romney and McCain.
Thanks to heavy advertising, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire - but his edge is dwindling, and he's never broken 16 percent in any national poll.
Why doesn't this charismatic, articulate candidate catch on? Part of it is blatant anti-Mormon bigotry. But part of it is his flip-flop-flip on abortion: As a candidate in liberal Massachusetts, he switched from pro-life to pro-choice; then, as he got ready for this race, he switched back to pro-life again.
Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, "I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you" - and came in strong anyway.
More recently, he swept last weekend's Values Voters convention among those who appeared in person. (He lost by less than one point overall to Romney, whose tally included a mass of Internet votes.)
Why the Huckabee boomlet? A gripping, humorous, passionate orator, he brings a spiritual dimension to public-policy problems. His ideas are interesting. Want lower health-care costs? Tackle obesity and smoking. Education reform? Music and art education are just as important to our national creativity as science and math.
He has a good chance to be the front-ranking challenger to Giuliani in the national primary on Feb. 5. He might beat Rudy - or at least earn a VP designation, because Giuliani will be anxious to appeal to Christian-right voters.
New Report from FAIR Finds More than 13 Million Illegal Aliens
New Report from FAIR Finds More than 13 Million Illegal Aliens Reside in the U.S.
2007 Figures Represent an 88 Percent Increase Since 2000
(Washington, D.C.) According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), How Many Illegal Aliens?, the illegal immigrant population of the United States now exceeds 13 million. In 2000, the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were a little more than 7 million people residing illegally in the U.S.
The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.
"These new estimates, showing explosive growth in illegal immigration in recent years, indicate why Americans all across the country are demanding that the government control our borders and block illegal immigrants from working or receiving benefits in this country," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Almost from the day the Bush Administration took office, they made it clear that their aim was to reward illegal immigration with amnesty and assorted other benefits. As a result, we have seen record increases in illegal immigration, mounting burdens on taxpayers, and unprecedented public concern about this issue."
At 13,175,000 people, the illegal population of the United States is now larger than the entire population of Illinois, the nation's fifth most populous state. The phenomenon has also become a national one in the past decade, finds How Many Illegal Aliens? More than three-fifths of the states have seen their illegal alien population more than double since 2000. In all, 24 states now have illegal populations that exceed 100,000.
"There are no overnight fixes to a problem that has been growing for years," commented Stein. "But the American public strongly supports an enforcement-first approach that discourages new people from coming illegally and encourages millions who are here to return home. What is clear, is that lack of enforcement and proposed amnesties have only exacerbated the problem."
How Many Illegal Aliens? is available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca
To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
To join or donate to FAIR, click here.
2007 Figures Represent an 88 Percent Increase Since 2000
(Washington, D.C.) According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), How Many Illegal Aliens?, the illegal immigrant population of the United States now exceeds 13 million. In 2000, the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were a little more than 7 million people residing illegally in the U.S.
The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.
"These new estimates, showing explosive growth in illegal immigration in recent years, indicate why Americans all across the country are demanding that the government control our borders and block illegal immigrants from working or receiving benefits in this country," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Almost from the day the Bush Administration took office, they made it clear that their aim was to reward illegal immigration with amnesty and assorted other benefits. As a result, we have seen record increases in illegal immigration, mounting burdens on taxpayers, and unprecedented public concern about this issue."
At 13,175,000 people, the illegal population of the United States is now larger than the entire population of Illinois, the nation's fifth most populous state. The phenomenon has also become a national one in the past decade, finds How Many Illegal Aliens? More than three-fifths of the states have seen their illegal alien population more than double since 2000. In all, 24 states now have illegal populations that exceed 100,000.
"There are no overnight fixes to a problem that has been growing for years," commented Stein. "But the American public strongly supports an enforcement-first approach that discourages new people from coming illegally and encourages millions who are here to return home. What is clear, is that lack of enforcement and proposed amnesties have only exacerbated the problem."
How Many Illegal Aliens? is available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca
To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
To join or donate to FAIR, click here.
Monday, October 29, 2007
new popular web site www.hillary-uncensored.com web
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Something for everyone if you are White.
Something for everyone if you are White.
http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
http://www.halturnershow.com/ Hal Turner Show
http://www.natall.com/ National Alliance
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/ Vanguard News Network
http://www.stormfront.org/ Stormfront
http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World Wide
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ White Civil Rights
ted
http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
http://www.halturnershow.com/ Hal Turner Show
http://www.natall.com/ National Alliance
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/ Vanguard News Network
http://www.stormfront.org/ Stormfront
http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World Wide
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ White Civil Rights
ted
Friday, October 26, 2007
John Mccain playing the war hero card? with all due repect?
John Mccain playing the war hero card? with all due repect?
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow poilots gave him the nick name of "crash".
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow poilots gave him the nick name of "crash".
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, October 25, 2007
will Senator Ted Kennedy lose his personal off shore tax shelters?
will Senator Ted Kennedy lose his personal off shore tax shelters?
with the new proposed tax change law announced by dems today ?
www.mccainalert.com
with the new proposed tax change law announced by dems today ?
www.mccainalert.com
when's that shithead senator dick durbin up for reelection?
when's that shithead senator dick durbin up for reelection?
i think he personally pulling down approval rating for the senate with his absurb amensty projects.
www.mccainalert.com
i think he personally pulling down approval rating for the senate with his absurb amensty projects.
www.mccainalert.com
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
FAIR Congratulates New York Senate
FAIR Congratulates New York Senate for Opposing
Plan to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens
(Washington DC) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which represents some 12,000 members in New York State, issued the following statement regarding the passage of S. 6484, a bill before the New York State Senate requiring proof of legal U.S. residence to obtain a driver's license. The bill was approved Monday by a 39-19 vote:
"FAIR congratulates Sen. Frank Padavan and a bipartisan coalition of legislators for their swift and decisive action to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to reward illegal aliens in New York with driver's license privileges. S. 6484 is a victory for common sense, the rule of law and national security. The bill also reflects the overwhelming opinion of New Yorkers, more than 70 percent of whom oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
"A driver's license is the de facto document that Americans use to identify themselves in a variety of situations, including boarding airplanes. The terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York on September 11, 2001 used driver's licenses issued by New Jersey, Virginia and Florida to board flights that morning. It is inconceivable to most New Yorkers that given the enormous price that the state has already paid for lax issuance of these vital identity documents, that Gov. Spitzer is intent on reversing the state's longstanding policy of requiring proof of legal residence to obtain a New York license or identity card.
"We urge the Assembly to follow the lead of the State Senate and reaffirm New York's commitment to protecting the security of its people and the nation. Ensuring road safety in New York can and should be accomplished by enforcing existing motor vehicle codes against people who drive without licenses and insurance, not by capitulating to the demands of the illegal alien lobby.
"It is time for Gov. Spitzer to listen to the law-abiding people of New York, to national security experts, and to local officials who issue licenses. He needs to abandon his ill-advised efforts which reward illegal immigrants at great risk to the public.
Plan to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens
(Washington DC) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which represents some 12,000 members in New York State, issued the following statement regarding the passage of S. 6484, a bill before the New York State Senate requiring proof of legal U.S. residence to obtain a driver's license. The bill was approved Monday by a 39-19 vote:
"FAIR congratulates Sen. Frank Padavan and a bipartisan coalition of legislators for their swift and decisive action to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to reward illegal aliens in New York with driver's license privileges. S. 6484 is a victory for common sense, the rule of law and national security. The bill also reflects the overwhelming opinion of New Yorkers, more than 70 percent of whom oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
"A driver's license is the de facto document that Americans use to identify themselves in a variety of situations, including boarding airplanes. The terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York on September 11, 2001 used driver's licenses issued by New Jersey, Virginia and Florida to board flights that morning. It is inconceivable to most New Yorkers that given the enormous price that the state has already paid for lax issuance of these vital identity documents, that Gov. Spitzer is intent on reversing the state's longstanding policy of requiring proof of legal residence to obtain a New York license or identity card.
"We urge the Assembly to follow the lead of the State Senate and reaffirm New York's commitment to protecting the security of its people and the nation. Ensuring road safety in New York can and should be accomplished by enforcing existing motor vehicle codes against people who drive without licenses and insurance, not by capitulating to the demands of the illegal alien lobby.
"It is time for Gov. Spitzer to listen to the law-abiding people of New York, to national security experts, and to local officials who issue licenses. He needs to abandon his ill-advised efforts which reward illegal immigrants at great risk to the public.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Muslins don't like women as political leaders, why do we keep sending Condi Rice to the Muslim world ?
Muslins don't like women as political leaders, why do we keep sending Condi Rice to the Muslim world ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, October 18, 2007
New Jersey Cash 5 lottery NJ lotto
see the hottest/coldest lotto numbers for the
New Jersey Cash 5 lottery
Popularity Report
Hot numbers ???
=================================================
times Last
Ranking Number occurred hit on
1 B37 105 10/18/07
2 B33 97 10/18/07
3 B04 93 10/17/07
4 B14 90 10/17/07
5 B10 89 10/12/07
6 B03 88 10/18/07
7 B09 88 10/16/07
8 B15 87 10/17/07
9 B32 87 10/18/07
10 B39 87 10/08/07
11 B16 86 10/11/07
12 B30 86 10/11/07
13 B08 84 10/13/07
14 B28 84 10/13/07
15 B18 83 10/09/07
16 B21 82 10/10/07
17 B05 81 10/06/07
18 B12 81 10/01/07
19 B13 81 10/09/07
20 B27 81 10/02/07
21 B11 80 10/06/07
22 B19 80 09/30/07
23 B20 80 10/18/07
24 B01 79 10/16/07
25 B22 79 10/12/07
26 B29 79 10/08/07
27 B34 79 10/13/07
28 B35 79 10/17/07
29 B38 79 09/18/07
30 B24 78 10/11/07
31 B25 78 10/12/07
32 B06 76 10/15/07
33 B07 76 09/29/07
34 B31 76 09/23/07
35 B23 75 10/17/07
36 B02 74 10/07/07
37 B26 74 10/12/07
38 B40 74 10/13/07
39 B36 73 09/12/07
40 B17 62 10/09/07
=====================================
= end of pop report =
see more New Jersey Take 5 Lotto reporting and stats
at www.needto.net/newjersey.htm
best of luck in the next New Jersey Cash 5 Lotto
www.needto.net/newjersey.htm more New Jersey lotto reports
see more lottery reporting and stats at www.needto.net
including New Jersey Mega Millions lotto
report for New Jersey Cash 5 lotto prepared on 10/18/2007
New Jersey Pick 6 lottery
see the hottest/coldest lotto numbers for the
New Jersey Pick 6 lottery
Popularity Report
Hot numbers ???
=================================================
times Last
Ranking Number occurred hit on
1 B02 34 10/18/07
2 B34 33 10/18/07
3 B48 32 09/20/07
4 B05 30 10/08/07
5 B13 30 08/30/07
6 B28 30 10/18/07
7 B33 30 10/08/07
8 B07 29 09/06/07
9 B01 28 08/20/07
10 B03 27 10/08/07
11 B29 27 09/24/07
12 B10 26 10/15/07
13 B24 26 10/18/07
14 B41 26 07/05/07
15 B23 25 10/15/07
16 B38 25 10/11/07
17 B43 25 09/17/07
18 B44 25 10/04/07
19 B04 24 10/01/07
20 B08 24 10/04/07
21 B18 24 09/24/07
22 B32 24 07/19/07
23 B26 23 07/26/07
24 B35 23 10/15/07
25 B39 23 10/04/07
26 B40 23 07/12/07
27 B06 22 09/10/07
28 B09 22 10/11/07
29 B30 22 09/24/07
30 B49 22 09/27/07
31 B17 21 09/27/07
32 B27 21 08/30/07
33 B36 21 10/11/07
34 B11 20 10/11/07
35 B12 20 09/24/07
36 B19 20 10/01/07
37 B14 19 10/18/07
38 B20 19 07/12/07
39 B31 19 10/15/07
40 B46 19 09/10/07
41 B25 18 09/17/07
42 B37 18 10/18/07
43 B16 17 09/06/07
44 B21 17 10/04/07
45 B22 17 09/03/07
46 B47 17 09/17/07
47 B15 14 10/04/07
48 B45 14 09/03/07
49 B42 13 09/13/07
=====================================
= end of pop report =
see more New Jersey Lotto reporting and stats
at www.needto.net/newjersey.htm
best of luck in the next New Jersey Pick 6 Lotto
www.needto.net/newjersey.htm more New Jersey lotto reports
see more lottery reporting and stats at www.needto.net
including New Jersey Mega Millions lotto
report for New Jersey Pick lotto prepared on 10/18/2007
from the desk of Janet Napolitano
Education has been one of my top priorities since the day I took office, which is why I am excited to announce that October 2007 is Arizona’s first College Savings Month. To succeed in our 21st century global economy, every Arizona student should have the opportunity to pursue education beyond high school. Not only does higher education allow for tremendous personal growth, but it also provides endless professional opportunities and higher earning potential.
In the Arizona economy, less than two percent of top-earning jobs will be available to workers whose educations end at a high school diploma. College Savings Month recognizes that a family saving a little money at a time can make a big difference in a child’s future – and there are tools available to help.
This month, the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education is reaching out to families to share information about new saving options that can help facilitate what was once a complicated process. These options include the Arizona Family College Savings Program (AFCSP), a 529 plan that allows Arizonans to save for post-secondary education in much the same way as a retirement account.
Families who use the AFCSP, or contribute to any other 529 plan, will be eligible for a state tax deduction effective January 1, 2008. Single tax filers can receive up to a $750 deduction; taxpayers who are married and filing jointly will be permitted up to a $1,500 deduction.
College Savings Month organizers are offering a series of seminars providing information on the new state tax incentive and the AFCSP. For more information on these seminars or to download a planner, visit www.az529.gov.
As always, if you have suggestions or questions, or if you would like information, please call my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services, or visit www.azgovernor.gov for more information from my office.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
In the Arizona economy, less than two percent of top-earning jobs will be available to workers whose educations end at a high school diploma. College Savings Month recognizes that a family saving a little money at a time can make a big difference in a child’s future – and there are tools available to help.
This month, the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education is reaching out to families to share information about new saving options that can help facilitate what was once a complicated process. These options include the Arizona Family College Savings Program (AFCSP), a 529 plan that allows Arizonans to save for post-secondary education in much the same way as a retirement account.
Families who use the AFCSP, or contribute to any other 529 plan, will be eligible for a state tax deduction effective January 1, 2008. Single tax filers can receive up to a $750 deduction; taxpayers who are married and filing jointly will be permitted up to a $1,500 deduction.
College Savings Month organizers are offering a series of seminars providing information on the new state tax incentive and the AFCSP. For more information on these seminars or to download a planner, visit www.az529.gov.
As always, if you have suggestions or questions, or if you would like information, please call my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services, or visit www.azgovernor.gov for more information from my office.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
what's that shithead NY Governor "no balls" Spitzer up to?
what's that shithead NY Governor "no balls" Spitzer up to?
he doesn't have the balls to appear on any talk show to discuss his absurb ideal of giving away NY driver licenses ?
he doesn't have the balls to appear on any talk show to discuss his absurb ideal of giving away NY driver licenses ?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Rush's letter from Reid is now on ebay.
private citizen, forty-one of them sent a letter demanding the "repudiation" of their inaccurate interpretation of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Jesse Al-Zaid (a.k.a. Jesse MacBeth) and other "phony soldiers" who falsify their service. This letter was delivered to Mark Mays of Clear Channel Communications, Rush Limbaugh's syndication partner, and widely quoted in the Drive-By Media.
Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers.
The entire proceeds of this auction.. the entire high bid... will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. All costs of this auction will be paid by the seller... every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million.
Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers.
The entire proceeds of this auction.. the entire high bid... will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. All costs of this auction will be paid by the seller... every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
CHANCE OF INCREASED TAXES IF HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED
CHANCE OF INCREASED TAXES IF HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Hillary Clinton would raise taxes if she is elected president. Sharply. As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.
As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.
It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.
She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.
But that is far from all.
She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes. This levy is currently enforced on the first $97,000 of income. Hillary would probably follow the lead of Democratic liberals and either raise the limit — at least doubling it — or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both close Hillary allies (it was Rangel who first suggested she run for Senate in New York), are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.) Each year, inflation threatens to expand to cover more and more middle class families and replace it with a 35 percent tax on all "carried interest" earnings of hedge funds and other venture capital partnerships.
Robert Novak reports that Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system." Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation "the mother of all tax reforms."
Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.
Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.
In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:
"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."
On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”
She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.’”
Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Hillary Clinton would raise taxes if she is elected president. Sharply. As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.
As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.
It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.
She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.
But that is far from all.
She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes. This levy is currently enforced on the first $97,000 of income. Hillary would probably follow the lead of Democratic liberals and either raise the limit — at least doubling it — or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both close Hillary allies (it was Rangel who first suggested she run for Senate in New York), are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.) Each year, inflation threatens to expand to cover more and more middle class families and replace it with a 35 percent tax on all "carried interest" earnings of hedge funds and other venture capital partnerships.
Robert Novak reports that Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system." Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation "the mother of all tax reforms."
Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.
Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.
In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:
"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."
On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”
She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.’”
Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)