07/31/2007 Mega Millions
05-18-37-39-43 gold 42
winning Mega MIllions lotto numbers for 7/31/07
www.needto.net
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
HILLARY GOOFED IN DEM DEBATE
HILLARY GOOFED IN DEM DEBATE
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
July 30, 2007
(This column has not been published, but is being sent exclusively to our list of subscribers)
The polling is in and Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations. According to the Rasmussen Poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55%-22%. Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the “insider” position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong. Democrats want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without pre conditions.
At the South Carolina Democratic Presidential debate, Hillary and Obama clashed over Obama’s statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran if he were president. Hillary said that she would not do so and would not allow herself to be used for “propaganda purposes.”
All week, Hillary pounded out her message, enlisting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her possible future Secretary of State Dick Holbrooke to speak up on behalf of her position. She blasted Obama as “naïve,” one of her few direct attacks on her opponent. For his party, Obama ridiculed her position as “Bush Cheney lite,” a comment that got under Hillary’s skin.
The exchange had little real significance during the two hour debate, but Hillary’s obsession with the issue all week has given it real importance. She made a big mistake in the debate and amplified it all week.
Why? Perhaps Hillary is not using polling the way Bill always did – to pretest and post test all important issues. If she had, she would not have locked into the minority position among Democratic primary voters and would not have stayed with that view all week.
Maybe her campaign staff was caught flatfooted for once.
The fact is that this week’s debate was the first time the two Democrats have clashed seriously since the contest began early this year. This round definitely goes to Obama.
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
July 30, 2007
(This column has not been published, but is being sent exclusively to our list of subscribers)
The polling is in and Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations. According to the Rasmussen Poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55%-22%. Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the “insider” position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong. Democrats want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without pre conditions.
At the South Carolina Democratic Presidential debate, Hillary and Obama clashed over Obama’s statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran if he were president. Hillary said that she would not do so and would not allow herself to be used for “propaganda purposes.”
All week, Hillary pounded out her message, enlisting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her possible future Secretary of State Dick Holbrooke to speak up on behalf of her position. She blasted Obama as “naïve,” one of her few direct attacks on her opponent. For his party, Obama ridiculed her position as “Bush Cheney lite,” a comment that got under Hillary’s skin.
The exchange had little real significance during the two hour debate, but Hillary’s obsession with the issue all week has given it real importance. She made a big mistake in the debate and amplified it all week.
Why? Perhaps Hillary is not using polling the way Bill always did – to pretest and post test all important issues. If she had, she would not have locked into the minority position among Democratic primary voters and would not have stayed with that view all week.
Maybe her campaign staff was caught flatfooted for once.
The fact is that this week’s debate was the first time the two Democrats have clashed seriously since the contest began early this year. This round definitely goes to Obama.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
excerpt from OUTRAGE about the ACLU
OUTRAGE, Dick Morris' new book describes how illegal immigration, Congress, the UN, student lending companies, drug companies, insurance firms, big tobacco, the teachers union, and trade protection are all ripping us off....and what to do about it.
Read this excerpt from OUTRAGE about the ACLU:
"The ACLU is all for freedom of speech - as long as no one's talking about them...There are signs that the ACLU is, to put it mildly, acting in a way that's uncharacteristic for a civil liberties group...Surveillance of (ACLU) staff computers and emails by the ACLU? Are we missing something here? Compiling files on internal political enemies, attempting to stifle free speech that is critical of the organization or its staff, data mining for prospective donors, purging dissidents who dare to disagree...Is that what the ACLU has become? It sounds more like the Communist Party."
OUTRAGE names names and gives you all the facts about how members of Congress work little, take free trips, and enrich themselves and their family.
Read this excerpt from OUTRAGE about the ACLU:
"The ACLU is all for freedom of speech - as long as no one's talking about them...There are signs that the ACLU is, to put it mildly, acting in a way that's uncharacteristic for a civil liberties group...Surveillance of (ACLU) staff computers and emails by the ACLU? Are we missing something here? Compiling files on internal political enemies, attempting to stifle free speech that is critical of the organization or its staff, data mining for prospective donors, purging dissidents who dare to disagree...Is that what the ACLU has become? It sounds more like the Communist Party."
OUTRAGE names names and gives you all the facts about how members of Congress work little, take free trips, and enrich themselves and their family.
HEALTHCARE: HOUSE POSTURES WHILE SENATE LEGISLATES
HEALTHCARE: HOUSE POSTURES WHILE SENATE LEGISLATES
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on July 25, 2007.
It took more than a decade of constant agitation for the elderly to win the right to charge their prescription medications to Medicare. Republican reluctance to spend the money combined with a Democratic willingness to put off action so as to keep the issue in partisan play. The result was that it took a Republican president to undo the political knot and pass a plan that finally offered senior citizens some relief.
We are now watching House Democrats play the same partisan game with the renewal of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires on Sept. 30. Meanwhile, the Senate on the one hand and President Bush on the other appear to have crafted a generous extension of the program that may now fall prey to the House Democratic desire to provoke a presidential veto — and the children be damned!
Bush opened the game by proposing a $5 billion expansion of the program to cover more children and to limit the focus of the program to child health insurance. This highly successful program, initiated in the middle of the Clinton administration, has now succeeded in reducing the proportion of uncovered children to less than 10 percent (many of whom could get Medicaid if their parents bothered to apply). States have moved to use the program to expand coverage of adults without insurance and the Bush administration wished to restrict the practice.
But the Senate went further and is pushing a $35 billion program, financed by an increase of at least 60 cents in the federal cigarette tax. The extra money would bring the five-year cost to $60 billion. Crafted by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) along with Democrats Max Baucus (Mont.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the plan would make child coverage virtually universal and permit states to access food stamp and other assistance program data to locate uncovered children and bring them into the program. But it would restrict the coverage of adults.
Raising the tobacco levy is a good thing to do anyway, even if you don’t need the money. A higher cigarette tax has been demonstrably shown to cut teen smoking, and the increase, which would bring the total levy to $1 per pack, is a good step to improve national healthcare.
Bush threatened a veto, but seems to have backed off and appears able to live with the Senate bill.
So the House decided to pass a bill he couldn’t sign. By deliberately provoking a veto, they hope to demonstrate what a heartless Scrooge Bush really is.
Not only is the House upping the price tag to $50 billion, it is gratuitously courting the favor of the medical establishment by eliminating the cuts in physician fees scheduled for the next few years as part of the effort to save Medicare without cutting benefits. The House bill also opens the doors of the program wide to adult coverage. Covering adults is a good idea. It would be great to cover all Americans without having to fundamentally alter our healthcare system. That way, socialist utopians like Hillary couldn’t use the uncovered population as an excuse to make healthcare a government-dominated program.
But House leaders know full well that Bush won’t sign the bill that repeals his Medicare physician fee cuts and opens the program to adult coverage. But they are determined, nevertheless, to jerry-rig a bill that Bush can’t sign by festooning it with provisions that not only endanger the future of the Medicare program they profess to adore but also may kindle a new round of medical cost inflation they profess to abhor.
The House should just back off. It is a major accomplishment in healthcare, the new third rail of our politics, to expand SCHIP to cover all children. Forcing the administration to give up its hard-won gains on Medicare cost containment to swallow the program is deliberately unrealistic.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on July 25, 2007.
It took more than a decade of constant agitation for the elderly to win the right to charge their prescription medications to Medicare. Republican reluctance to spend the money combined with a Democratic willingness to put off action so as to keep the issue in partisan play. The result was that it took a Republican president to undo the political knot and pass a plan that finally offered senior citizens some relief.
We are now watching House Democrats play the same partisan game with the renewal of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires on Sept. 30. Meanwhile, the Senate on the one hand and President Bush on the other appear to have crafted a generous extension of the program that may now fall prey to the House Democratic desire to provoke a presidential veto — and the children be damned!
Bush opened the game by proposing a $5 billion expansion of the program to cover more children and to limit the focus of the program to child health insurance. This highly successful program, initiated in the middle of the Clinton administration, has now succeeded in reducing the proportion of uncovered children to less than 10 percent (many of whom could get Medicaid if their parents bothered to apply). States have moved to use the program to expand coverage of adults without insurance and the Bush administration wished to restrict the practice.
But the Senate went further and is pushing a $35 billion program, financed by an increase of at least 60 cents in the federal cigarette tax. The extra money would bring the five-year cost to $60 billion. Crafted by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) along with Democrats Max Baucus (Mont.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the plan would make child coverage virtually universal and permit states to access food stamp and other assistance program data to locate uncovered children and bring them into the program. But it would restrict the coverage of adults.
Raising the tobacco levy is a good thing to do anyway, even if you don’t need the money. A higher cigarette tax has been demonstrably shown to cut teen smoking, and the increase, which would bring the total levy to $1 per pack, is a good step to improve national healthcare.
Bush threatened a veto, but seems to have backed off and appears able to live with the Senate bill.
So the House decided to pass a bill he couldn’t sign. By deliberately provoking a veto, they hope to demonstrate what a heartless Scrooge Bush really is.
Not only is the House upping the price tag to $50 billion, it is gratuitously courting the favor of the medical establishment by eliminating the cuts in physician fees scheduled for the next few years as part of the effort to save Medicare without cutting benefits. The House bill also opens the doors of the program wide to adult coverage. Covering adults is a good idea. It would be great to cover all Americans without having to fundamentally alter our healthcare system. That way, socialist utopians like Hillary couldn’t use the uncovered population as an excuse to make healthcare a government-dominated program.
But House leaders know full well that Bush won’t sign the bill that repeals his Medicare physician fee cuts and opens the program to adult coverage. But they are determined, nevertheless, to jerry-rig a bill that Bush can’t sign by festooning it with provisions that not only endanger the future of the Medicare program they profess to adore but also may kindle a new round of medical cost inflation they profess to abhor.
The House should just back off. It is a major accomplishment in healthcare, the new third rail of our politics, to expand SCHIP to cover all children. Forcing the administration to give up its hard-won gains on Medicare cost containment to swallow the program is deliberately unrealistic.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Fred Thompson’s son has a noshow $170k yr job ?
Fred Thompson’s son has a noshow $170k yr job ?
What did Fred Thompson’s son, Daniel, do to earn the more than $170,000 that his firm, Daniel Thompson Associates, was paid from his father’s federal political action committee, the Fred D. Thompson PAC?
The records suggest he did next to nothing.
The elder Thompson, an undeclared presidential candidate, left the Senate at the start of 2003. He started The Fred D. Thompson PAC with $378,601
transferred from his senatorial campaign committee.
It’s perfectly legal for a former public official to roll leftover campaign funds over to a PAC and use that money to support candidates. Yet very little
of these funds actually went to candidates - the bulk of the money was
paid to Daniel Thompson.
Daniel Thompson did not reply to efforts to contact him.
From the month the PAC started (April 2003), Daniel Thompson Associates began drawing a monthly retainer of $4,000 for management consultant services.
In its first election cycle, the PAC made a total of only $18,000 in
contributions to federal candidates and about $8,000 in contributions to
Republican committees and non-federal candidates. So, the fund spent about
7 percent of its assets on candidates and elections in its first two years
- and about 25 percent on Thompson’s son.
The next cycle (2005-2006), the fund gave $21,200 to federal candidates and about $27,500 to non-federal candidates and party committees - and $84,000 to Daniel Thompson’s firm.
To date, the PAC has paid $176,000 to the son’s firm, $46,000 for federal races, $35,000 in other political donations and $62,700 to charity. The senator’s son,
in other words, accounts for more than half the outlays.
PAC funds can be used to hire relatives. In 2001, the Federal Election Commission ruled that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. could use federal campaign funds to
hire his wife as his campaign manager. But Mrs. Jackson was experienced
in running campaigns and raising funds and had worked on a congressional staff.
It clearly wasn’t a no-show job.
The FEC ruled that a campaign could hire a family member at market value for bona fide campaign services.
But it’s hard to find any evidence of bona fide work done by Daniel Thompson Associates for his father’s PAC. Presumably, Fred Thompson made the
decision about what money would go to candidates - especially since
many of them were his former colleagues.
Maybe Daniel Thompson wrote the 20 checks a year that the PAC mailed out.
How much time or skill could that take? Not $85,000 a year worth.
The PAC appears to have had no office, no phone and no employees other than Daniel Thompson. Minor amounts went for spot telephone and Internet bills, and for an accountant.
And the PAC did no real fund-raising. In its four years, it raised just $700 - two contributions from former Fred Thompson associates. All other income appears to have been interest payments.
The fund did pay a nearly $7,000 to Aristotle Publishing, a company that licenses software for Internet fund-raising, including a $1,000 licensing fee in the fund’s last days several months ago. The initial fees were for conversion, training, and support.
Interestingly enough, Daniel Thompson is now a professional fund-raiser for Lawson Associates in Nashville. According to the firm’s Web site, he consults with clients all over the country to raise funds for non-profit groups in their capital and endowment campaigns.
Too bad he couldn’t help Dad raise money, too.
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
What did Fred Thompson’s son, Daniel, do to earn the more than $170,000 that his firm, Daniel Thompson Associates, was paid from his father’s federal political action committee, the Fred D. Thompson PAC?
The records suggest he did next to nothing.
The elder Thompson, an undeclared presidential candidate, left the Senate at the start of 2003. He started The Fred D. Thompson PAC with $378,601
transferred from his senatorial campaign committee.
It’s perfectly legal for a former public official to roll leftover campaign funds over to a PAC and use that money to support candidates. Yet very little
of these funds actually went to candidates - the bulk of the money was
paid to Daniel Thompson.
Daniel Thompson did not reply to efforts to contact him.
From the month the PAC started (April 2003), Daniel Thompson Associates began drawing a monthly retainer of $4,000 for management consultant services.
In its first election cycle, the PAC made a total of only $18,000 in
contributions to federal candidates and about $8,000 in contributions to
Republican committees and non-federal candidates. So, the fund spent about
7 percent of its assets on candidates and elections in its first two years
- and about 25 percent on Thompson’s son.
The next cycle (2005-2006), the fund gave $21,200 to federal candidates and about $27,500 to non-federal candidates and party committees - and $84,000 to Daniel Thompson’s firm.
To date, the PAC has paid $176,000 to the son’s firm, $46,000 for federal races, $35,000 in other political donations and $62,700 to charity. The senator’s son,
in other words, accounts for more than half the outlays.
PAC funds can be used to hire relatives. In 2001, the Federal Election Commission ruled that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. could use federal campaign funds to
hire his wife as his campaign manager. But Mrs. Jackson was experienced
in running campaigns and raising funds and had worked on a congressional staff.
It clearly wasn’t a no-show job.
The FEC ruled that a campaign could hire a family member at market value for bona fide campaign services.
But it’s hard to find any evidence of bona fide work done by Daniel Thompson Associates for his father’s PAC. Presumably, Fred Thompson made the
decision about what money would go to candidates - especially since
many of them were his former colleagues.
Maybe Daniel Thompson wrote the 20 checks a year that the PAC mailed out.
How much time or skill could that take? Not $85,000 a year worth.
The PAC appears to have had no office, no phone and no employees other than Daniel Thompson. Minor amounts went for spot telephone and Internet bills, and for an accountant.
And the PAC did no real fund-raising. In its four years, it raised just $700 - two contributions from former Fred Thompson associates. All other income appears to have been interest payments.
The fund did pay a nearly $7,000 to Aristotle Publishing, a company that licenses software for Internet fund-raising, including a $1,000 licensing fee in the fund’s last days several months ago. The initial fees were for conversion, training, and support.
Interestingly enough, Daniel Thompson is now a professional fund-raiser for Lawson Associates in Nashville. According to the firm’s Web site, he consults with clients all over the country to raise funds for non-profit groups in their capital and endowment campaigns.
Too bad he couldn’t help Dad raise money, too.
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
FAIR Calls for Suspension of Visa Waiver Program
FAIR Calls for Suspension of Visa Waiver Program in Light of New Intelligence Report
Washington DC - A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report compiled by 16 government intelligence agencies, warns that another attack against the United States by al-Qaeda may be imminent. While the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by terrorists carrying Middle Eastern passports, the NIE cautions that al-Qaeda may use European-based operatives to perpetrate a future attack. According to the NIE a, "growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West's Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States."
Adding to the vulnerability of the United States is the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which allows nationals of 27 nations to enter the U.S. without visas. With the growth of radical Islam in Europe, the VWP is a likely means by which al-Qaeda can move terrorists into the U.S. "Europe could become a platform for an attack against this country," admits Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
In light of the new NIE report and the candid admission of Secretary Chertoff, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is renewing its call for the immediate suspension of the VWP - a call FAIR first issued after 9/11. "We know that al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorist groups will use every means at their disposal and exploit any vulnerability to carry out another dramatic and deadly attack against the United States," warned Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "We know - because the Secretary of Homeland Security has told us so - that one of the vulnerabilities al-Qaeda is targeting is the VWP.
If the VWP is acknowledged to be a weakness in our defense against global terrorist groups, then the VWP must be suspended immediately," said Stein. The VWP was designed for a pre-9/11 world to make it easier for people who had a low likelihood of overstaying visas to travel here.
"After Madrid 2004, London 2005, and Glasgow last month, there can be no doubt that there are lethal and committed Islamic terrorist cells active all across Western Europe. Many of these terrorists are citizens of those countries and, under the VWP, they can easily enter the U.S. with no prior screening," Stein said. "Every intelligence report over the past several years has warned that al-Qaeda is seeking to take advantage of the VWP and is actively recruiting terrorists with European passports."
Ironically, reports of a heightened terrorist threat comes as the Bush Administration and some in Congress are pushing to expand the VWP under pressure from business interests. "Everyone understands the importance of travel to our economy," said Stein. "But legitimate travelers also understand - in fact appreciate - the need to take all reasonable precautions against future terrorist attacks. By now, we are all used to trading off some convenience for security whenever we travel. The economic impact of asking people to be pre-screened for visas would be minor compared with the potential impact of another deadly terrorist strike."
Washington DC - A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report compiled by 16 government intelligence agencies, warns that another attack against the United States by al-Qaeda may be imminent. While the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by terrorists carrying Middle Eastern passports, the NIE cautions that al-Qaeda may use European-based operatives to perpetrate a future attack. According to the NIE a, "growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West's Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States."
Adding to the vulnerability of the United States is the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which allows nationals of 27 nations to enter the U.S. without visas. With the growth of radical Islam in Europe, the VWP is a likely means by which al-Qaeda can move terrorists into the U.S. "Europe could become a platform for an attack against this country," admits Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
In light of the new NIE report and the candid admission of Secretary Chertoff, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is renewing its call for the immediate suspension of the VWP - a call FAIR first issued after 9/11. "We know that al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorist groups will use every means at their disposal and exploit any vulnerability to carry out another dramatic and deadly attack against the United States," warned Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "We know - because the Secretary of Homeland Security has told us so - that one of the vulnerabilities al-Qaeda is targeting is the VWP.
If the VWP is acknowledged to be a weakness in our defense against global terrorist groups, then the VWP must be suspended immediately," said Stein. The VWP was designed for a pre-9/11 world to make it easier for people who had a low likelihood of overstaying visas to travel here.
"After Madrid 2004, London 2005, and Glasgow last month, there can be no doubt that there are lethal and committed Islamic terrorist cells active all across Western Europe. Many of these terrorists are citizens of those countries and, under the VWP, they can easily enter the U.S. with no prior screening," Stein said. "Every intelligence report over the past several years has warned that al-Qaeda is seeking to take advantage of the VWP and is actively recruiting terrorists with European passports."
Ironically, reports of a heightened terrorist threat comes as the Bush Administration and some in Congress are pushing to expand the VWP under pressure from business interests. "Everyone understands the importance of travel to our economy," said Stein. "But legitimate travelers also understand - in fact appreciate - the need to take all reasonable precautions against future terrorist attacks. By now, we are all used to trading off some convenience for security whenever we travel. The economic impact of asking people to be pre-screened for visas would be minor compared with the potential impact of another deadly terrorist strike."
Important Immigration Provisions Included in House Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill
Important Immigration Provisions Included in House Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill
Consideration of the massive fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education (H.R. 3043) dominated House floor action this week. Indeed, two full days were spent debating eighty-six amendments to the bill (Congress Now). The bill finally passed, 276-140, fourteen votes short of the number needed to override a promised presidential veto. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill because it is $7 billion more than requested by his administration.
Two important immigration provisions passed as part of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. First, during the Committee process, Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) successfully offered an amendment to require that government contractors receiving money through the bill to use the Basic Pilot Program to verify that their employees are lawfully present in the United States. The Chamber of Commerce opposed this language and notified Representatives of their objections, urging members to strike the language from the bill. Nevertheless, there were no amendments to remove the language and it survived the floor action.
In addition to the Kingston language that was added in Committee, the House approved a floor amendment offered by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) relating to Totalization agreements. The amendment bars funding for Social Security payments made under a pending totalization agreement with the Mexican government. A social security totalization agreement is an executive agreement entered into by the United States with another country that is intended to relieve employers and employees from double social security tax with respect to the same employment and to consolidate the employee's Social Security tax paid to both countries in order to receive the combined benefits in only one country. A totalization agreement does not permit an employee to avoid Social Security tax in both countries, but instead merely allows the employee to pay tax to either one country or the other.
In a letter sent to colleagues in support of the amendment, Congressman Gingrey expressed concern that the U.S. government would end up paying out more in benefits through the Social Security Totalization agreement with Mexico than it would take in through taxes. In particular, he explained the Social Security Administration has significantly underestimated the number of claims for Social Security that will be made by Mexicans working in the United States—only 50,000. With 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. who may become legal at some point, Congressman Gingrey argued this number could easily be surpassed, impairing the ability of the government to break even. In fact, in 2003, the GAO determined that if the number of Mexican workers claiming benefits exceeds that estimate by 25% (for a total of 63,000), the result would be a financially significant drain on the Social Security Trust Fund.
Having passed the House, the Basic Pilot requirement and the Totalization amendment will now be conferenced with the corresponding Senate bill. Stay tuned to FAIR for more details…
see more at Mccainalert.com
Consideration of the massive fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education (H.R. 3043) dominated House floor action this week. Indeed, two full days were spent debating eighty-six amendments to the bill (Congress Now). The bill finally passed, 276-140, fourteen votes short of the number needed to override a promised presidential veto. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill because it is $7 billion more than requested by his administration.
Two important immigration provisions passed as part of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. First, during the Committee process, Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) successfully offered an amendment to require that government contractors receiving money through the bill to use the Basic Pilot Program to verify that their employees are lawfully present in the United States. The Chamber of Commerce opposed this language and notified Representatives of their objections, urging members to strike the language from the bill. Nevertheless, there were no amendments to remove the language and it survived the floor action.
In addition to the Kingston language that was added in Committee, the House approved a floor amendment offered by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) relating to Totalization agreements. The amendment bars funding for Social Security payments made under a pending totalization agreement with the Mexican government. A social security totalization agreement is an executive agreement entered into by the United States with another country that is intended to relieve employers and employees from double social security tax with respect to the same employment and to consolidate the employee's Social Security tax paid to both countries in order to receive the combined benefits in only one country. A totalization agreement does not permit an employee to avoid Social Security tax in both countries, but instead merely allows the employee to pay tax to either one country or the other.
In a letter sent to colleagues in support of the amendment, Congressman Gingrey expressed concern that the U.S. government would end up paying out more in benefits through the Social Security Totalization agreement with Mexico than it would take in through taxes. In particular, he explained the Social Security Administration has significantly underestimated the number of claims for Social Security that will be made by Mexicans working in the United States—only 50,000. With 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. who may become legal at some point, Congressman Gingrey argued this number could easily be surpassed, impairing the ability of the government to break even. In fact, in 2003, the GAO determined that if the number of Mexican workers claiming benefits exceeds that estimate by 25% (for a total of 63,000), the result would be a financially significant drain on the Social Security Trust Fund.
Having passed the House, the Basic Pilot requirement and the Totalization amendment will now be conferenced with the corresponding Senate bill. Stay tuned to FAIR for more details…
see more at Mccainalert.com
Senators Ask For Commutation of Border Patrol Agents
Senators Ask For Commutation of Border Patrol Agents
The Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing Tuesday to discuss the prosecution and subsequent sentencing of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The agents were each sentenced to over ten years in federal prison after pursuing and shooting an illegal alien caught smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana into the country. The sentencing has created a national firestorm of controversy with many charging that the federal government has shown more favor to a drug-smuggler than its own law enforcement officers.
In attendance at the hearing were several Senators who have been active in the Ramos-Compean case, including Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Tom Coburn (R-OK). The witness panel included Congressmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) as well as T.J. Bonner, President of the National Council of Border Patrol Agents, and Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas.
The Senators and testifying Congressmen each expressed their alarm at what they considered excessive punishment for Agents Ramos and Compean. Senators Feinstein and Cornyn called the sentence a "serious miscarriage of justice." Senator Sessions shook his head in dismay, saying he was "just heartbroken about it", but that he hoped the Senate could "figure out some way to be helpful to them." Congressman Hunter, who has served on the House Armed Services Committee for 26 years, called the sentence the worst case of "injustice" toward any law enforcement officer he has ever seen. Congressman Rohrabacher lamented, "It just tears at your soul to think of these two men… who put their lives at risk every day trying to do one of America's toughest law enforcement jobs… in solitary confinement for an activity that stems from their interdiction of a drug dealer."
During witness testimony, T.J. Bonner criticized the prosecution's portrait the drug smuggler who was wounded—an operative for Mexican drug cartels—as an innocent civilian who was shot in the back while trying to earn money to take care of his sick mother. Bonner defended the actions of the agents, concluding, "The wrongdoing here was bringing 743 pounds of marijuana into the country. That is a felony. And the person who did that was granted immunity by our federal government." However, Luis Barker, Deputy Chief of the Office of Border Control for the Department of Customs and Border Protection, charged that the agents' first wrongdoing was shooting the drug smuggler as he fled the scene. Senator Feinstein asked how Mr. Barker thought the agents should have reprimanded the fleeing man, to which Mr. Barker replied that their only real option was to shout and chase the man by foot. To this Senator Feinstein retorted, "No wonder so much drugs are coming across the border."
A large focus of the hearing was the application of a federal gun statute (18 U.S.C. 924(c)), a charge against the agents that was added after the original indictment. This portion of the United States Code requires a minimum sentence of ten years for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The Senators on the committee repeatedly discussed the fact that Section 924(c) was intended to be a deterrent to drug smugglers, not law enforcement officers pursuing them. However, Johnny Sutton, United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, said the agents were "not heroes" and that it "is a crime to discharge a firearm during a crime of violence, and we will continue to bring those charges where the law and the evidence warrant." Senator Feinstein and other supporters disagree with Sutton's decision to charge the border patrol agents with a crime under Section 924(c), denouncing it as "prosecutorial overreach."
Senators Feinstein and Cornyn sent a joint letter to the White House Wednesday asking President Bush to immediately commute the sentences of both Ramos and Compean. Representatives Hunter, Rohrabacher, Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Ted Poe (R-TX) have proposed similar measures in the House. In his closing statements, Congressman Rohrabacher added, "And as we now see, Scooter Libby can be set free. Two Border Patrol agents who languish in solitary confinement, whose lives are in danger, their lives don't count a bit with this administration."
The Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing Tuesday to discuss the prosecution and subsequent sentencing of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The agents were each sentenced to over ten years in federal prison after pursuing and shooting an illegal alien caught smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana into the country. The sentencing has created a national firestorm of controversy with many charging that the federal government has shown more favor to a drug-smuggler than its own law enforcement officers.
In attendance at the hearing were several Senators who have been active in the Ramos-Compean case, including Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Tom Coburn (R-OK). The witness panel included Congressmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) as well as T.J. Bonner, President of the National Council of Border Patrol Agents, and Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas.
The Senators and testifying Congressmen each expressed their alarm at what they considered excessive punishment for Agents Ramos and Compean. Senators Feinstein and Cornyn called the sentence a "serious miscarriage of justice." Senator Sessions shook his head in dismay, saying he was "just heartbroken about it", but that he hoped the Senate could "figure out some way to be helpful to them." Congressman Hunter, who has served on the House Armed Services Committee for 26 years, called the sentence the worst case of "injustice" toward any law enforcement officer he has ever seen. Congressman Rohrabacher lamented, "It just tears at your soul to think of these two men… who put their lives at risk every day trying to do one of America's toughest law enforcement jobs… in solitary confinement for an activity that stems from their interdiction of a drug dealer."
During witness testimony, T.J. Bonner criticized the prosecution's portrait the drug smuggler who was wounded—an operative for Mexican drug cartels—as an innocent civilian who was shot in the back while trying to earn money to take care of his sick mother. Bonner defended the actions of the agents, concluding, "The wrongdoing here was bringing 743 pounds of marijuana into the country. That is a felony. And the person who did that was granted immunity by our federal government." However, Luis Barker, Deputy Chief of the Office of Border Control for the Department of Customs and Border Protection, charged that the agents' first wrongdoing was shooting the drug smuggler as he fled the scene. Senator Feinstein asked how Mr. Barker thought the agents should have reprimanded the fleeing man, to which Mr. Barker replied that their only real option was to shout and chase the man by foot. To this Senator Feinstein retorted, "No wonder so much drugs are coming across the border."
A large focus of the hearing was the application of a federal gun statute (18 U.S.C. 924(c)), a charge against the agents that was added after the original indictment. This portion of the United States Code requires a minimum sentence of ten years for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The Senators on the committee repeatedly discussed the fact that Section 924(c) was intended to be a deterrent to drug smugglers, not law enforcement officers pursuing them. However, Johnny Sutton, United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, said the agents were "not heroes" and that it "is a crime to discharge a firearm during a crime of violence, and we will continue to bring those charges where the law and the evidence warrant." Senator Feinstein and other supporters disagree with Sutton's decision to charge the border patrol agents with a crime under Section 924(c), denouncing it as "prosecutorial overreach."
Senators Feinstein and Cornyn sent a joint letter to the White House Wednesday asking President Bush to immediately commute the sentences of both Ramos and Compean. Representatives Hunter, Rohrabacher, Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Ted Poe (R-TX) have proposed similar measures in the House. In his closing statements, Congressman Rohrabacher added, "And as we now see, Scooter Libby can be set free. Two Border Patrol agents who languish in solitary confinement, whose lives are in danger, their lives don't count a bit with this administration."
Friday, July 20, 2007
New FBI report: Arabs smuggled to U.S. through Mexico
New FBI report: Arabs smuggled to U.S. through Mexico
Grassfire.org Alliance
From the Desk of Steve Elliott
According to ABC News, the FBI is now investigating a major
human smuggling ring that is bringing Iraqi and other
Middle Easterners into the U.S. through our southern
border (see below for a link to the article).
The report indicated that the smuggling ring "used to
smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other
Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative."
The smugglers gathered at the Mexican border, crossed
the Rio Grande and bordered their "cargo" on trains
for the U.S. interior.
And this smuggling ring is just the tip of the iceberg.
+ + Hezbollah and Al Qaida coming through Mexico
Last year, the FBI director reported that both Hezbollah
and Al Qaida terrorists had crossed our Mexican border.
Also, as we reported in our "Truth About Illegal Invasion"
booklet, in a four-year period (2001-2005) more than 91,500
illegal aliens from countries known to or suspected of
sponsoring terrorism were apprehended at our border.
That means an estimated 200,000 illegals from potential
terrorist nations were not apprehended and successfully
infiltrated our country.
+ + Iranian terrorists coming through Cuba then Mexico
A few days ago, I received an anonymous call from an
Iranian man who is legally residing in the U.S. He
desperately wanted to get the word out that it is
common knowledge in the Iranian community that
terrorists are being smuggled into the U.S. through
Cuba and then Mexico.
He said he couldn't give me his name (for fear of repercussions),
and I admit his report is anectdotal. But based on what
our own FBI is willing to report publicly about Hezbollah
and Al Qaida and now this new smuggling ring, is there
any reason to doubt this man's report?
Meanwhile...
Only 13 miles of the 854 miles of border
fence authorized last year has been built.
And none of the 13 miles of new construction
has been of the mandated double-layer variety.
ed, let's face it -- President Bush and
the Kennedy amnesty gang would have quietly passed their
amnesty bill if you and I and thousands of other citizens
had not raised our voices.
Likewise, they will not build the fence and secure our
borders (even though terrorists are crossing constantly)
unless you and I and thousands more rise up and demand it!
A few days ago, we launched a major "Where's The Fence?"
fax and phone campaign to the President and Congress
Our records show you have not yet scheduled your faxes.
Please go here to schedule your faxes:
http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
(We also have posted the phone and fax numbers so you can
make calls and send faxes on your own if you prefer.)
Thank you for the stand you are taking!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S. I've posted this update on FireSociety with a link
to the ABC News article. Go here for those resources:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/15791/?src=111
www.mccainalert.com
Grassfire.org Alliance
From the Desk of Steve Elliott
According to ABC News, the FBI is now investigating a major
human smuggling ring that is bringing Iraqi and other
Middle Easterners into the U.S. through our southern
border (see below for a link to the article).
The report indicated that the smuggling ring "used to
smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other
Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative."
The smugglers gathered at the Mexican border, crossed
the Rio Grande and bordered their "cargo" on trains
for the U.S. interior.
And this smuggling ring is just the tip of the iceberg.
+ + Hezbollah and Al Qaida coming through Mexico
Last year, the FBI director reported that both Hezbollah
and Al Qaida terrorists had crossed our Mexican border.
Also, as we reported in our "Truth About Illegal Invasion"
booklet, in a four-year period (2001-2005) more than 91,500
illegal aliens from countries known to or suspected of
sponsoring terrorism were apprehended at our border.
That means an estimated 200,000 illegals from potential
terrorist nations were not apprehended and successfully
infiltrated our country.
+ + Iranian terrorists coming through Cuba then Mexico
A few days ago, I received an anonymous call from an
Iranian man who is legally residing in the U.S. He
desperately wanted to get the word out that it is
common knowledge in the Iranian community that
terrorists are being smuggled into the U.S. through
Cuba and then Mexico.
He said he couldn't give me his name (for fear of repercussions),
and I admit his report is anectdotal. But based on what
our own FBI is willing to report publicly about Hezbollah
and Al Qaida and now this new smuggling ring, is there
any reason to doubt this man's report?
Meanwhile...
Only 13 miles of the 854 miles of border
fence authorized last year has been built.
And none of the 13 miles of new construction
has been of the mandated double-layer variety.
ed, let's face it -- President Bush and
the Kennedy amnesty gang would have quietly passed their
amnesty bill if you and I and thousands of other citizens
had not raised our voices.
Likewise, they will not build the fence and secure our
borders (even though terrorists are crossing constantly)
unless you and I and thousands more rise up and demand it!
A few days ago, we launched a major "Where's The Fence?"
fax and phone campaign to the President and Congress
Our records show you have not yet scheduled your faxes.
Please go here to schedule your faxes:
http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
(We also have posted the phone and fax numbers so you can
make calls and send faxes on your own if you prefer.)
Thank you for the stand you are taking!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S. I've posted this update on FireSociety with a link
to the ABC News article. Go here for those resources:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/15791/?src=111
www.mccainalert.com
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand
John McCain was followed by Hillary Clinton on the floor of the Senate
early (and I do mean early!) this morning and they presented
two strikingly different visions of the war in Iraq. John McCain continues
to stand for victory against al Qaeda in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton
has sided with the Democrats who are calling for retreat and defeat.
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand al Qaeda "a historic victory"?
Hillary Clinton voted to surrender in our efforts to fight terrorists and Islamic extremists in Iraq, and dutifully indulged the Democratic leadership's all-night "debate." She sided with the Democratic leadership to put on a publicity stunt rather than acting like a leader and standing up for our troops. John McCain, however, refused to give in to the Democrats' empty exhibition, and used his
time speaking on the floor of the Senate to give an impassioned speech
fighting for victory in Iraq. While Hillary Clinton and the Democrats
pretended to lead, it was John McCain who showed real leadership in
denouncing their political stunt.
As John McCain points out time and again, there is a simple choice
facing our nation and it boils down to this - will we have the courage
to win the war against Islamic extremists, or will we succumb to the political pressures of the moment and accept defeat? Hillary Clinton and the Democrats claim this is a war we cannot win. But if we cannot win this war, then who won?
The answer is in the Iraq Study Group report, which states, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory."
The choice is simple, but our resolve for victory is more important now than ever before.
"This fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than
that and more important still, about whether America still has the
political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for
defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot
walk away gracefully from defeat in this war."
-John McCain
I am proud that John McCain is standing for victory in Iraq. He understands
that courage and sacrifice are necessary to make this historic choice, especially from the brave men and women fighting for our country. So much rests on
the shoulders of these brave men and women, and we as a nation should
not ask them to sacrifice for us unless it is absolutely necessary.
These are dangerous times we live in, and our enemy is not going away.
In fact, our talk of defeat and withdrawal is only emboldening the
terrorists we are fighting in Iraq. Make no mistake - the terrorists
are in this war to win.
Do we have the courage to stand up and fight for victory? Or will we
settle for Hillary Clinton's vision of retreat and defeat? John McCain has reminded
us time and again that the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq are catastrophic, which is why we must stand strong for victory.
I know most of you probably weren't watching the debate at 4 a.m. this
morning and I know most of your friends probably weren't either.
That's why it's up to us to spread the word about this morning's
clear contrast. John McCain and Hillary Clinton present starkly
different views of the War in Iraq. This morning there was one man
standing before the United States Senate ready to be our next
Commander-in-Chief. That man is John McCain.
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
www.mccainalert.com
John McCain was followed by Hillary Clinton on the floor of the Senate
early (and I do mean early!) this morning and they presented
two strikingly different visions of the war in Iraq. John McCain continues
to stand for victory against al Qaeda in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton
has sided with the Democrats who are calling for retreat and defeat.
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand al Qaeda "a historic victory"?
Hillary Clinton voted to surrender in our efforts to fight terrorists and Islamic extremists in Iraq, and dutifully indulged the Democratic leadership's all-night "debate." She sided with the Democratic leadership to put on a publicity stunt rather than acting like a leader and standing up for our troops. John McCain, however, refused to give in to the Democrats' empty exhibition, and used his
time speaking on the floor of the Senate to give an impassioned speech
fighting for victory in Iraq. While Hillary Clinton and the Democrats
pretended to lead, it was John McCain who showed real leadership in
denouncing their political stunt.
As John McCain points out time and again, there is a simple choice
facing our nation and it boils down to this - will we have the courage
to win the war against Islamic extremists, or will we succumb to the political pressures of the moment and accept defeat? Hillary Clinton and the Democrats claim this is a war we cannot win. But if we cannot win this war, then who won?
The answer is in the Iraq Study Group report, which states, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory."
The choice is simple, but our resolve for victory is more important now than ever before.
"This fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than
that and more important still, about whether America still has the
political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for
defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot
walk away gracefully from defeat in this war."
-John McCain
I am proud that John McCain is standing for victory in Iraq. He understands
that courage and sacrifice are necessary to make this historic choice, especially from the brave men and women fighting for our country. So much rests on
the shoulders of these brave men and women, and we as a nation should
not ask them to sacrifice for us unless it is absolutely necessary.
These are dangerous times we live in, and our enemy is not going away.
In fact, our talk of defeat and withdrawal is only emboldening the
terrorists we are fighting in Iraq. Make no mistake - the terrorists
are in this war to win.
Do we have the courage to stand up and fight for victory? Or will we
settle for Hillary Clinton's vision of retreat and defeat? John McCain has reminded
us time and again that the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq are catastrophic, which is why we must stand strong for victory.
I know most of you probably weren't watching the debate at 4 a.m. this
morning and I know most of your friends probably weren't either.
That's why it's up to us to spread the word about this morning's
clear contrast. John McCain and Hillary Clinton present starkly
different views of the War in Iraq. This morning there was one man
standing before the United States Senate ready to be our next
Commander-in-Chief. That man is John McCain.
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
www.mccainalert.com
IS HILLARY HEDGING ON HEDGE FUNDS?
IS HILLARY HEDGING ON HEDGE FUNDS?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Although Hillary Clinton claims to adamantly support tax fairness,
she can't make up her mind about whether Wall Street barons should
have to pay the same tax rate as the regular workers she loves and
the corporations she loathes.
Right now, when private equity and hedge funds go public, the funds and
their managers only have to pay a 15 percent tax on their millions in
profits. That's a lot less than the top rates of 35 percent for
corporations and 33 percent for individuals. Doesn't sound fair,
does it?
But Hillary, whose Web site espouses justice and fairness by leveling
the playing field and reducing special breaks for big corporations
and ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes hasn't
come out in support of legislation co-sponsored by Barack Obama and
backed by John Edwards to increase the tax rate on hedge funds and
private equity firms to 35 percent.
She's still thinking about it.
And we're not talking about peanuts here. The dollars involved in these
transactions give new meaning to the term big bucks. Take a look at
the public offering on one such firm, Blackstone. Its IPO later this
month is expected to net $4.75 billion! And two of the partners alone
will have made almost $10 billion in the transaction. According to Business
Week, top partners Stephen Schwartzman and Pete Peterson will personally make billions: Schwarzman, 60, will own 24 percent of Blackstone after the
IPO, a stake that would be worth about $7.73 billion. Peterson, 80,
will get at least $1.88 billion when he sells all but 4 percent of
his interest in the firm.
And that's not all: the Blackstone folks are not even satisfied with that
amazingly low and preferential tax rate of 15 percent. Apparently they've even concocted a plan to avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion of the $4.75
billion profit.
Think about the difference between Mr. Peterson's taxes on the $1.8
billion at the current 15 percent rate and the proposed 35 percent rate:
that's $270 million vs. $630 million - a $360 million difference.
That's why the hedge fund and private equity firms have been deluging
Congress with their lobbyists and their money.
So why isn't Hillary jumping on the Obama/Edwards bandwagon? This is her kind of issue, isn't it? Her Web site also promotes ... reforming the governance of corporations and the financial sector. It is inconsistent with our values to allow CEO pay to skyrocket while workers' wages and benefits are under threat.
Guess how much Blackstone's CEO, Mr. Schwartz, made in 2006? FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!
And Hillary still has to think about it.
Maybe it's because she has received more contributions from hedge funds in her senate campaign than any other member of Congress $144,460 in the period
from January 2005 to June 2006 alone. And another $160,000 in the first
six months of her presidential campaign.
That's definitely something to think about.
But there's more: Hillary has a family interest in the hedge fund industry
Chelsea Clinton works for the Avenue Capital Group, a $12 billion hedge
fund in New York.
According to Marc Lasry, founder and managing partner of the firm (and a
long-time contributor to Hillary), he thinks that hedge funds make too
much money: "Obviously, what we make is absolutely obscene. I think it's
too much. I'm not saying it's wrong ... (but) trust me, the dollars
are still obscene."
Most people would agree with Mr. Lasry.
It's time to change the rules.
Hillary Clinton should stop hedging and join Edwards and Obama in seeking the justice and fairness that she claims to be pursuing.
Published on FoxNews.com on July 13, 2007.
www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Although Hillary Clinton claims to adamantly support tax fairness,
she can't make up her mind about whether Wall Street barons should
have to pay the same tax rate as the regular workers she loves and
the corporations she loathes.
Right now, when private equity and hedge funds go public, the funds and
their managers only have to pay a 15 percent tax on their millions in
profits. That's a lot less than the top rates of 35 percent for
corporations and 33 percent for individuals. Doesn't sound fair,
does it?
But Hillary, whose Web site espouses justice and fairness by leveling
the playing field and reducing special breaks for big corporations
and ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes hasn't
come out in support of legislation co-sponsored by Barack Obama and
backed by John Edwards to increase the tax rate on hedge funds and
private equity firms to 35 percent.
She's still thinking about it.
And we're not talking about peanuts here. The dollars involved in these
transactions give new meaning to the term big bucks. Take a look at
the public offering on one such firm, Blackstone. Its IPO later this
month is expected to net $4.75 billion! And two of the partners alone
will have made almost $10 billion in the transaction. According to Business
Week, top partners Stephen Schwartzman and Pete Peterson will personally make billions: Schwarzman, 60, will own 24 percent of Blackstone after the
IPO, a stake that would be worth about $7.73 billion. Peterson, 80,
will get at least $1.88 billion when he sells all but 4 percent of
his interest in the firm.
And that's not all: the Blackstone folks are not even satisfied with that
amazingly low and preferential tax rate of 15 percent. Apparently they've even concocted a plan to avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion of the $4.75
billion profit.
Think about the difference between Mr. Peterson's taxes on the $1.8
billion at the current 15 percent rate and the proposed 35 percent rate:
that's $270 million vs. $630 million - a $360 million difference.
That's why the hedge fund and private equity firms have been deluging
Congress with their lobbyists and their money.
So why isn't Hillary jumping on the Obama/Edwards bandwagon? This is her kind of issue, isn't it? Her Web site also promotes ... reforming the governance of corporations and the financial sector. It is inconsistent with our values to allow CEO pay to skyrocket while workers' wages and benefits are under threat.
Guess how much Blackstone's CEO, Mr. Schwartz, made in 2006? FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!
And Hillary still has to think about it.
Maybe it's because she has received more contributions from hedge funds in her senate campaign than any other member of Congress $144,460 in the period
from January 2005 to June 2006 alone. And another $160,000 in the first
six months of her presidential campaign.
That's definitely something to think about.
But there's more: Hillary has a family interest in the hedge fund industry
Chelsea Clinton works for the Avenue Capital Group, a $12 billion hedge
fund in New York.
According to Marc Lasry, founder and managing partner of the firm (and a
long-time contributor to Hillary), he thinks that hedge funds make too
much money: "Obviously, what we make is absolutely obscene. I think it's
too much. I'm not saying it's wrong ... (but) trust me, the dollars
are still obscene."
Most people would agree with Mr. Lasry.
It's time to change the rules.
Hillary Clinton should stop hedging and join Edwards and Obama in seeking the justice and fairness that she claims to be pursuing.
Published on FoxNews.com on July 13, 2007.
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
McCain confidant speaks out about McCain campaign woes
McCain confidant speaks out about McCain campaign woes
By Frank Camacho / 3TV reporter
His campaign may be battered, but Sen. John McCain said he is not quitting his quest to win the Republican presidential nomination.
And in spite of all of the problems, McCain's campaign is experiencing, a long-time confidant said it's far too early to count the senator out.
It's money and people which fuel a successful political campaign, especially one as huge as the presidential campaign. Right now, McCain is running short on both, which long-time McCain confidant Chuck Coughlin thinks is a good thing.
"John is John. He's a very edgy personality," said Coughlin.
It's an edgy personality which can be difficult to package according to Coughlin, a political consultant who came to Arizona more than 20 years ago to work for McCain.
Coughlin thinks the original McCain campaign brain trust made some fundamental mistakes.
"They built an organizational model that required a tremendous amount of fundraising with a guy that hates fundraising, which is just ridiculous. I was John's fundraiser for John's first campaign. I know how much the man hates fundraising."
Coughlin was to morph McCain into the all things to all people candidate. An example of which is McCain's speech at Moral Majority Founder Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. It was a gesture meant to appease the religious right which has a mutual history of mistrust with McCain.
"I mean to everyone here in Arizona who knew John from way back, when you were like asking what's he doing, why would he be doing that," he said.
Coughlin is encouraged by the steps McCain has taken in the
past 10 days, streamlining the campaign and getting back
to the philosophy which served the senator so well eight years ago.
Coughlin thinks McCain should drop out of Iowa and instead
focus his resources and time on New Hampshire, South Carolina
and Florida.
McCain must win one of those three states in order to remain viable.
"You know, it's a healthy thing. It's a healthy thing. It'll be a
certainly be a healthy thing for the Republican ticket to have
John McCain back on the campaign trail speaking from the gospel
of John McCain. I think that'll be great. From Channel 2,
from the gun, back to Channel 1, from the gut," he said.
Coughlin thinks the McCain campaign may receive a boost in
September. He believes the administration will give the
Iraqi government a deadline.
www.mccainalert.com
see at..................
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/KTVKLNews20070717_mccain_confidant_campaign.8578523b.html
see more on Mccain at www.mccainalert.com
By Frank Camacho / 3TV reporter
His campaign may be battered, but Sen. John McCain said he is not quitting his quest to win the Republican presidential nomination.
And in spite of all of the problems, McCain's campaign is experiencing, a long-time confidant said it's far too early to count the senator out.
It's money and people which fuel a successful political campaign, especially one as huge as the presidential campaign. Right now, McCain is running short on both, which long-time McCain confidant Chuck Coughlin thinks is a good thing.
"John is John. He's a very edgy personality," said Coughlin.
It's an edgy personality which can be difficult to package according to Coughlin, a political consultant who came to Arizona more than 20 years ago to work for McCain.
Coughlin thinks the original McCain campaign brain trust made some fundamental mistakes.
"They built an organizational model that required a tremendous amount of fundraising with a guy that hates fundraising, which is just ridiculous. I was John's fundraiser for John's first campaign. I know how much the man hates fundraising."
Coughlin was to morph McCain into the all things to all people candidate. An example of which is McCain's speech at Moral Majority Founder Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. It was a gesture meant to appease the religious right which has a mutual history of mistrust with McCain.
"I mean to everyone here in Arizona who knew John from way back, when you were like asking what's he doing, why would he be doing that," he said.
Coughlin is encouraged by the steps McCain has taken in the
past 10 days, streamlining the campaign and getting back
to the philosophy which served the senator so well eight years ago.
Coughlin thinks McCain should drop out of Iowa and instead
focus his resources and time on New Hampshire, South Carolina
and Florida.
McCain must win one of those three states in order to remain viable.
"You know, it's a healthy thing. It's a healthy thing. It'll be a
certainly be a healthy thing for the Republican ticket to have
John McCain back on the campaign trail speaking from the gospel
of John McCain. I think that'll be great. From Channel 2,
from the gun, back to Channel 1, from the gut," he said.
Coughlin thinks the McCain campaign may receive a boost in
September. He believes the administration will give the
Iraqi government a deadline.
www.mccainalert.com
see at..................
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/KTVKLNews20070717_mccain_confidant_campaign.8578523b.html
see more on Mccain at www.mccainalert.com
Monday, July 16, 2007
more staff jumping the John Mccain sinking ship........
more staff jumping the John Mccain sinking ship........
July 16 7 members of Republican presidential candidate
John McCain's campaign press staff have resigned
as the Arizona senator shuffles his team amid lagging
fund raising and a drop in the polls.
The latest turmoil to hit McCain's bid for the White House
follows the resignations last week of campaign manager
Terry Nelson and long-time McCain strategist John Weaver.
see more at..........
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070716/pl_bloomberg/acaib_sigxu_1
www.mccainalert.com
July 16 7 members of Republican presidential candidate
John McCain's campaign press staff have resigned
as the Arizona senator shuffles his team amid lagging
fund raising and a drop in the polls.
The latest turmoil to hit McCain's bid for the White House
follows the resignations last week of campaign manager
Terry Nelson and long-time McCain strategist John Weaver.
see more at..........
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070716/pl_bloomberg/acaib_sigxu_1
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Arizona Breathing Easier
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Dear Friends,
Arizona had a very busy legislative season this year. Amid the all the important achievements, one of the bills passed in the flurry of last-minute activity was SB 1552, Arizona's first major air-quality legislation in a decade.
This strong new air quality bill puts into place new measures to protect the health of Arizonans, and will remove more than 10,000 tons of particulates from the air we breathe.
Removing particulates from the air is not just about keeping the sky blue. Air quality has a huge effect on our health. Dirty air can cause any number of respiratory problems, especially among our children and senior citizens.
The new law is a bipartisan approach to cleaning up our air. Earlier this year, Senators Carolyn Allen and John Huppenthal and I announced the introduction of a major air quality bill. Representative Ray Barnes helped move the measure through the House. The result is a bill that strongly addresses our air quality. Local governments will pave over many dirt roads and shoulders that blow up dust. Open burning will not be permitted in high-pollution months. Construction sites will have to ensure that they don't kick up particulates into the air. All citizens will stop using leaf blowers on bare dirt and will stop blowing debris into our streets to be churned up and breathed in by our citizens. Government employees and their contractors will refrain from using leaf blowers at all on high-pollution days. These are just some of the many new efforts that we are taking to clean up our air with this initiative.
Not only will this bill help clean up the air we breathe, but it will make sure Arizona keeps its share of federal highway funds. Right now, metropolitan Phoenix is in danger of noncompliance with federal health-based air-quality standards. The bill I signed will go a long way to bringing us in step with the guidelines. In that way, this bill is a win-win approach for Arizona in both the transportation and health arenas.
We should all have confidence that the air we breathe is clean - and thanks to the new efforts of this bill, Arizonans will be able to breathe easier.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Dear Friends,
Arizona had a very busy legislative season this year. Amid the all the important achievements, one of the bills passed in the flurry of last-minute activity was SB 1552, Arizona's first major air-quality legislation in a decade.
This strong new air quality bill puts into place new measures to protect the health of Arizonans, and will remove more than 10,000 tons of particulates from the air we breathe.
Removing particulates from the air is not just about keeping the sky blue. Air quality has a huge effect on our health. Dirty air can cause any number of respiratory problems, especially among our children and senior citizens.
The new law is a bipartisan approach to cleaning up our air. Earlier this year, Senators Carolyn Allen and John Huppenthal and I announced the introduction of a major air quality bill. Representative Ray Barnes helped move the measure through the House. The result is a bill that strongly addresses our air quality. Local governments will pave over many dirt roads and shoulders that blow up dust. Open burning will not be permitted in high-pollution months. Construction sites will have to ensure that they don't kick up particulates into the air. All citizens will stop using leaf blowers on bare dirt and will stop blowing debris into our streets to be churned up and breathed in by our citizens. Government employees and their contractors will refrain from using leaf blowers at all on high-pollution days. These are just some of the many new efforts that we are taking to clean up our air with this initiative.
Not only will this bill help clean up the air we breathe, but it will make sure Arizona keeps its share of federal highway funds. Right now, metropolitan Phoenix is in danger of noncompliance with federal health-based air-quality standards. The bill I signed will go a long way to bringing us in step with the guidelines. In that way, this bill is a win-win approach for Arizona in both the transportation and health arenas.
We should all have confidence that the air we breathe is clean - and thanks to the new efforts of this bill, Arizonans will be able to breathe easier.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
NEW IMMIGRATION MEASURES ARE "VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE"
NEW IMMIGRATION MEASURES ARE "VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE"
By Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney
The new anti-illegal-immigration laws signed by Governor Janet Napolitano covering employer sanctions and Prop. 100 are a "victory for the people," and I intend to move swiftly to implement them.
Last week, the governor signed House Bill 2779 and Senate Bill 1265. House Bill 2779 creates a regime for sanctioning companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The new law provides that county attorneys are the chief law enforcement officers responsible for implementing employer sanctions. It is expected that because of the population of Maricopa County, the vast
majority of potential employer-sanctions cases in Arizona will originate here.
Senate Bill 1265 establishes probable cause as the standard of proof for determining if defendants accused of serious felonies are illegal immigrants and, as such, not entitled to bail or release under Proposition 100. This legislation was passed in response to protracted difficulties in obtaining full enforcement of Proposition 100 in the Maricopa County Superior Courts.
Shortly after the governor signed Senate Bill 1265, the Arizona Supreme Court issued new rules governing Proposition 100 cases, which repealed the so-called Simpson hearings previously created
for these defendants. I'd recently complained that 94 percent of illegal immigrants were being granted bail or release at Simpson hearings by Maricopa County judges and judicial officers. The Simpson hearings were rescinded immediately, and those scheduled were vacated by court decree.
When I ran for county attorney on a platform of stopping illegal immigration, many questioned what state and local governments could do to combat this problem. These new laws are the latest answer to this question. We do not have to rely on a broken federal bureaucracy to secure our borders. The County Attorney's Office helped draft and lobbied in favor of both new laws.
These new laws are also the latest evidence that this is still a democracy. The people have the final say on how our government operates. Their voice was heard loud and clear.
I have begun to set up an internal committee to prepare to implement the new employer sanctions law. I will reach out to the business community and other critics of the law so their concerns can be heard. However, the law is the law, and it will be enforced.
As the County Attorney's Office begins to enforce the new law next year, the office will provide updates on progress made in preparation for this event. I pledge to apply the law fairly and equitably.
www.mccainalert.com
By Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney
The new anti-illegal-immigration laws signed by Governor Janet Napolitano covering employer sanctions and Prop. 100 are a "victory for the people," and I intend to move swiftly to implement them.
Last week, the governor signed House Bill 2779 and Senate Bill 1265. House Bill 2779 creates a regime for sanctioning companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The new law provides that county attorneys are the chief law enforcement officers responsible for implementing employer sanctions. It is expected that because of the population of Maricopa County, the vast
majority of potential employer-sanctions cases in Arizona will originate here.
Senate Bill 1265 establishes probable cause as the standard of proof for determining if defendants accused of serious felonies are illegal immigrants and, as such, not entitled to bail or release under Proposition 100. This legislation was passed in response to protracted difficulties in obtaining full enforcement of Proposition 100 in the Maricopa County Superior Courts.
Shortly after the governor signed Senate Bill 1265, the Arizona Supreme Court issued new rules governing Proposition 100 cases, which repealed the so-called Simpson hearings previously created
for these defendants. I'd recently complained that 94 percent of illegal immigrants were being granted bail or release at Simpson hearings by Maricopa County judges and judicial officers. The Simpson hearings were rescinded immediately, and those scheduled were vacated by court decree.
When I ran for county attorney on a platform of stopping illegal immigration, many questioned what state and local governments could do to combat this problem. These new laws are the latest answer to this question. We do not have to rely on a broken federal bureaucracy to secure our borders. The County Attorney's Office helped draft and lobbied in favor of both new laws.
These new laws are also the latest evidence that this is still a democracy. The people have the final say on how our government operates. Their voice was heard loud and clear.
I have begun to set up an internal committee to prepare to implement the new employer sanctions law. I will reach out to the business community and other critics of the law so their concerns can be heard. However, the law is the law, and it will be enforced.
As the County Attorney's Office begins to enforce the new law next year, the office will provide updates on progress made in preparation for this event. I pledge to apply the law fairly and equitably.
www.mccainalert.com
Monday, July 09, 2007
$1 million top prize 60 free online online sweepstakes
$1 million top prize 60 free online online sweepstakes
see www.isweepdaily.com
all are free and easy to enter legit sweepstakes, win cash,cars,trips and electronics.
best of luck
see the free sweepstakes at www.isweepdaily.com
see www.isweepdaily.com
all are free and easy to enter legit sweepstakes, win cash,cars,trips and electronics.
best of luck
see the free sweepstakes at www.isweepdaily.com
Sunday, July 08, 2007
McCain’s POW past is core, but not only, claim to presidency
McCain’s POW past is core, but not only, claim to presidency
Sparingly used Vietnam history always inspires GOP crowds
MONTGOMERY, Ala.— Recalling his military past may be key to U.S. Sen. John S. McCain 3rd’s political future.
Declining in the polls and struggling with fundraising, the Republican presidential candidate and U.S. senator from Arizona draws an appreciative response from audiences when he recounts his Navy pilot days and the fortitude of some of his fellow POWs during the 6-1/2 years he spent in a North Vietnamese prison.
Vietnam is hardly the centerpiece of McCain’s campaign; it’s part of his biography and, as such, is an element in a broader narrative he is trying to paint of an experienced leader.
McCain routinely brings up Vietnam as he discusses the challenges in Iraq and he often recognizes veterans in each audience he addresses. He typically only tells his war stories when the opportunity presents itself, such as when he was campaigning this spring in Sioux City, Iowa — hometown of Bud Day, one of his fellow prisoners of war in Hanoi.
McCain did the same in a recent visit to Mike Christian’s home state of Alabama, holding Republicans spellbound at a recent state GOP dinner.
www.mccainalert.com
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070706/NEWS/707060431/1052/RSS01&source=rss
Sparingly used Vietnam history always inspires GOP crowds
MONTGOMERY, Ala.— Recalling his military past may be key to U.S. Sen. John S. McCain 3rd’s political future.
Declining in the polls and struggling with fundraising, the Republican presidential candidate and U.S. senator from Arizona draws an appreciative response from audiences when he recounts his Navy pilot days and the fortitude of some of his fellow POWs during the 6-1/2 years he spent in a North Vietnamese prison.
Vietnam is hardly the centerpiece of McCain’s campaign; it’s part of his biography and, as such, is an element in a broader narrative he is trying to paint of an experienced leader.
McCain routinely brings up Vietnam as he discusses the challenges in Iraq and he often recognizes veterans in each audience he addresses. He typically only tells his war stories when the opportunity presents itself, such as when he was campaigning this spring in Sioux City, Iowa — hometown of Bud Day, one of his fellow prisoners of war in Hanoi.
McCain did the same in a recent visit to Mike Christian’s home state of Alabama, holding Republicans spellbound at a recent state GOP dinner.
www.mccainalert.com
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070706/NEWS/707060431/1052/RSS01&source=rss
Saturday, July 07, 2007
PAUL VS MCCAIN , this has got to hurt.
(Political Animal) PAUL VS MCCAIN....As if John McCain's campaign freefall weren't embarrassing enough before, this has got to hurt.
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank. In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.
"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul.
Ouch. Salt on the wound.
To be sure, I don't exactly expect mainstream campaign observers to start treating McCain and Paul as equally credible presidential hopefuls, but who would have guessed, half-way through 2007, that Paul would have more money in the bank than McCain?
see more at................
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/06/politics/animal/main3026168.shtml
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank. In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.
"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul.
Ouch. Salt on the wound.
To be sure, I don't exactly expect mainstream campaign observers to start treating McCain and Paul as equally credible presidential hopefuls, but who would have guessed, half-way through 2007, that Paul would have more money in the bank than McCain?
see more at................
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/06/politics/animal/main3026168.shtml
Friday, July 06, 2007
DO THE CLINTONS NOW SUPPORT JAIL TIME FOR PERJURERS?
DO THE CLINTONS NOW SUPPORT JAIL TIME FOR PERJURERS?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on July 6, 2007.
Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton are absolutely
outraged that President Bush granted executive clemency to Scooter Libby,
recently convicted of making false statements under oath. They obviously
believe that Libby should serve his thirty month sentence.
Does that mean that they now think that perjurers should go to jail? Or
have they simply forgotten about Bill Clinton’s own plea agreement in
the last hours of his presidency for making false statements under
oath? Some people would call that perjury.
One would have thought that Hillary and Bill Clinton wouldn’t touch
the Libby executive clemency issue with a ten-foot pole for lots
of reasons.
After all, Bill Clinton has a well-earned reputation as the king of
pardons granting 140 of them during his last minutes in office
with many going to terrorists, people who had paid Hillary’s brothers
to arrange for pardons, contributed money or key support to Hillary’s
Senate campaign, given the Clintons expensive personal gifts, and/or
made large contributions to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library. One
of the pardons went to Bill’s own brother, Roger, while another went
to Susan MacDougal, who kept quiet about Clinton during the
Whitewater trial.
That’s really cronyism, Hillary.
Given the disgraceful Clinton record on pardons, most reasonable people
would have kept quiet especially when Libby’s offense was so similar
to Bill’s own criminal conviction. But the self-righteous former first couple couldn’t resist. Once the clemency was announced, Hillary immediately
attacked President Bush, saying, "This commutation sends the clear signal
that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.
Hey, Hillary, do you understand what cronyism really means?
Cronyism is favoritism shown to friends and supporters without regard to their qualifications. And that’s what Bill Clinton’s pardons were all about.
Except, as usual, the Clintons went way over the top. So, in addition
to granting pardons to undeserving friends, Bill Clinton also pardoned
undeserving strangers who paid his family, friends, campaign coffers,
and presidential library.
Now Bill and Hillary claim that his highly controversial pardons were
different than the Libby clemency.
He’s absolutely right ...
The big difference was that many of the Clinton pardons were patently bought and paid for something event he Clintons don’t claim to be the case in the Libby commutation.
Hillary’s brothers were paid more than $500,000 to lobby the president for pardons that were then granted to con artists and drug dealers. For a fee of
$400,000, Hugh Rodham successfully pushed for a pardon for drug kingpin
Carlos Anabel Vignali, convicted of shipping a half-ton of cocaine from L.A. to Minnesota. His father was a big contributor to the Democratic Party
he gave more than $150,000 to the Los Angeles Democrats. Obviously,
the investment was a shrewd one.
That’s cronyism, Hillary. Get it?
Tony Rodham advocated a pardon for Edgar and Vanna Jo Gregory.
The Gregorys, who owned a carnival company, defrauded a federal bank.
When the pardon was publicized, Hillary stated that Tony was not paid
by the Gregorys for his work on the pardon. Tony repeated that line
on the Larry King Show.
After an investigation, the House Government Operations Committee disagreed and announced that Hillary’s statement was inaccurate. Now, a federal bankruptcy court overseeing the carnival company’s bankruptcy is about to rule on whether over $100,000 paid to Tony Rodham at the time of the pardons was a loan or payment for consulting.
The Gregorys contributed over $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign and other Democratic causes. These folks were well known to the Clintons they visited them
at Camp David and were hired to stage two carnivals on the White House
grounds paid for by the taxpayers.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
When the Rodham brothers’ exploits were made public, Bill and Hillary
announced that they were shocked and saddened by the disclosure.
At the time of the pardons, the Rodham brothers were actually living in
the White House with the Clintons and had made contact with the highest
level of presidential assistants. But the Clintons claimed that they were
totally unaware of what Hugh and Tony were doing.
But, it wasn’t just Hillary’s family who benefited from the Clinton cronyism.
Bill’s brother Roger was pardoned for his drug conviction, and he was
allegedly paid $30,000 to promote six felons although those pardons were never granted.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
The most outrageous Clinton pardons went to sixteen members of the terrorist
gang, the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group responsible for over
130 bombings in the U.S. attacking the N.Y. office of the FBI,
military recruiting headquarters, and even former president
Jimmy Carter’s Chicago campaign office. Six people died and dozens
more were injured as a result of FALN’s actions. These terrorists never
even asked for a pardon, but because Hillary wanted to ingratiate herself
with the Hispanic population in New York during her first Senate race,
they were suddenly granted a commutation of their sentences.
Although the commutations were opposed by the FBI and the Clinton
Justice Department, Bill Clinton granted them to all 16 terrorists.
Once again, Hillary claimed to have no involvement in or prior knowledge
of the decision. Her statement is ridiculous. Two days before the
announcement of the pardons, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet of materials including a letter asking
her to speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive
clemency to the prisoners. What a coincidence the sentences were
immediately commuted!
Hillary, that’s another example of cronyism.
Joe Connor, the son of one of the innocent men killed by the FALN
terrorists at the Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan, put it this way:
The Clinton family traded the release of terrorists for votes, votes that were promised to be delivered by New York politicians to Hillary for senate
and Gore for president. That was clear.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
And Hillary actually has the audacity to accuse President Bush of cronyism! This woman has no shame.
Then, of course, there was also Marc Rich, the fugitive oil broker who
renounced his American citizenship. Rich was illegally buying oil from
Iran during the American trade embargo and hid the $200 million in
trading (and over $100 million in profits) with Iraq using dummy
transactions in off-shore corporations.
Ironically, Scooter Libby was one of Rich’s lawyers, while Rudy Giuliani
was the U.S. Attorney who brought the indictment. Amazingly, the U.S.
Attorney’s Office was never contacted by the White House for input into
the pardon decision. Here’s what the prosecuting attorney had to say about the pardon:
I cannot imagine two people that were less suited for a presidential pardon
than Marc Rich and Pincus Green[the co-defendant]. It is inconceivable that President Clinton chose to pardon the two biggest tax cheats in the history
of the United States who had renounced their citizenship, been fugitives for seventeen years, and who had traded with the Iranians during the hostage
crisis. While I do not know what motivated President Clinton to pardon Rich
and Green, I can state that it is implausible that those pardons were based
on his evaluation of the merits of the case... [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonsex8.htm]
Interestingly, Rich’s wife bought furniture for the Clinton’s
Chappaqua home and contributed at least $450,000 to the
Clinton Library.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
Finally, there were the four New Square pardons. There, the Hasidic
defendants were convicted of pocketing $40 million of federal scholarship money. Hillary visited the community, and on Election Day the community
supported Hillary 1400 to 12. Weeks later, on December 22, 2000,
President Clinton met with the New Square leaders to discuss a pardon.
Hillary attended the meeting, but claims that she did not speak.
Apparently, she didn’t have to the pardons were granted.
That’s cronyism, Hillary!
===================
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
www.mccainalert.com
see more at www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on July 6, 2007.
Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton are absolutely
outraged that President Bush granted executive clemency to Scooter Libby,
recently convicted of making false statements under oath. They obviously
believe that Libby should serve his thirty month sentence.
Does that mean that they now think that perjurers should go to jail? Or
have they simply forgotten about Bill Clinton’s own plea agreement in
the last hours of his presidency for making false statements under
oath? Some people would call that perjury.
One would have thought that Hillary and Bill Clinton wouldn’t touch
the Libby executive clemency issue with a ten-foot pole for lots
of reasons.
After all, Bill Clinton has a well-earned reputation as the king of
pardons granting 140 of them during his last minutes in office
with many going to terrorists, people who had paid Hillary’s brothers
to arrange for pardons, contributed money or key support to Hillary’s
Senate campaign, given the Clintons expensive personal gifts, and/or
made large contributions to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library. One
of the pardons went to Bill’s own brother, Roger, while another went
to Susan MacDougal, who kept quiet about Clinton during the
Whitewater trial.
That’s really cronyism, Hillary.
Given the disgraceful Clinton record on pardons, most reasonable people
would have kept quiet especially when Libby’s offense was so similar
to Bill’s own criminal conviction. But the self-righteous former first couple couldn’t resist. Once the clemency was announced, Hillary immediately
attacked President Bush, saying, "This commutation sends the clear signal
that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.
Hey, Hillary, do you understand what cronyism really means?
Cronyism is favoritism shown to friends and supporters without regard to their qualifications. And that’s what Bill Clinton’s pardons were all about.
Except, as usual, the Clintons went way over the top. So, in addition
to granting pardons to undeserving friends, Bill Clinton also pardoned
undeserving strangers who paid his family, friends, campaign coffers,
and presidential library.
Now Bill and Hillary claim that his highly controversial pardons were
different than the Libby clemency.
He’s absolutely right ...
The big difference was that many of the Clinton pardons were patently bought and paid for something event he Clintons don’t claim to be the case in the Libby commutation.
Hillary’s brothers were paid more than $500,000 to lobby the president for pardons that were then granted to con artists and drug dealers. For a fee of
$400,000, Hugh Rodham successfully pushed for a pardon for drug kingpin
Carlos Anabel Vignali, convicted of shipping a half-ton of cocaine from L.A. to Minnesota. His father was a big contributor to the Democratic Party
he gave more than $150,000 to the Los Angeles Democrats. Obviously,
the investment was a shrewd one.
That’s cronyism, Hillary. Get it?
Tony Rodham advocated a pardon for Edgar and Vanna Jo Gregory.
The Gregorys, who owned a carnival company, defrauded a federal bank.
When the pardon was publicized, Hillary stated that Tony was not paid
by the Gregorys for his work on the pardon. Tony repeated that line
on the Larry King Show.
After an investigation, the House Government Operations Committee disagreed and announced that Hillary’s statement was inaccurate. Now, a federal bankruptcy court overseeing the carnival company’s bankruptcy is about to rule on whether over $100,000 paid to Tony Rodham at the time of the pardons was a loan or payment for consulting.
The Gregorys contributed over $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign and other Democratic causes. These folks were well known to the Clintons they visited them
at Camp David and were hired to stage two carnivals on the White House
grounds paid for by the taxpayers.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
When the Rodham brothers’ exploits were made public, Bill and Hillary
announced that they were shocked and saddened by the disclosure.
At the time of the pardons, the Rodham brothers were actually living in
the White House with the Clintons and had made contact with the highest
level of presidential assistants. But the Clintons claimed that they were
totally unaware of what Hugh and Tony were doing.
But, it wasn’t just Hillary’s family who benefited from the Clinton cronyism.
Bill’s brother Roger was pardoned for his drug conviction, and he was
allegedly paid $30,000 to promote six felons although those pardons were never granted.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
The most outrageous Clinton pardons went to sixteen members of the terrorist
gang, the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group responsible for over
130 bombings in the U.S. attacking the N.Y. office of the FBI,
military recruiting headquarters, and even former president
Jimmy Carter’s Chicago campaign office. Six people died and dozens
more were injured as a result of FALN’s actions. These terrorists never
even asked for a pardon, but because Hillary wanted to ingratiate herself
with the Hispanic population in New York during her first Senate race,
they were suddenly granted a commutation of their sentences.
Although the commutations were opposed by the FBI and the Clinton
Justice Department, Bill Clinton granted them to all 16 terrorists.
Once again, Hillary claimed to have no involvement in or prior knowledge
of the decision. Her statement is ridiculous. Two days before the
announcement of the pardons, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet of materials including a letter asking
her to speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive
clemency to the prisoners. What a coincidence the sentences were
immediately commuted!
Hillary, that’s another example of cronyism.
Joe Connor, the son of one of the innocent men killed by the FALN
terrorists at the Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan, put it this way:
The Clinton family traded the release of terrorists for votes, votes that were promised to be delivered by New York politicians to Hillary for senate
and Gore for president. That was clear.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
And Hillary actually has the audacity to accuse President Bush of cronyism! This woman has no shame.
Then, of course, there was also Marc Rich, the fugitive oil broker who
renounced his American citizenship. Rich was illegally buying oil from
Iran during the American trade embargo and hid the $200 million in
trading (and over $100 million in profits) with Iraq using dummy
transactions in off-shore corporations.
Ironically, Scooter Libby was one of Rich’s lawyers, while Rudy Giuliani
was the U.S. Attorney who brought the indictment. Amazingly, the U.S.
Attorney’s Office was never contacted by the White House for input into
the pardon decision. Here’s what the prosecuting attorney had to say about the pardon:
I cannot imagine two people that were less suited for a presidential pardon
than Marc Rich and Pincus Green[the co-defendant]. It is inconceivable that President Clinton chose to pardon the two biggest tax cheats in the history
of the United States who had renounced their citizenship, been fugitives for seventeen years, and who had traded with the Iranians during the hostage
crisis. While I do not know what motivated President Clinton to pardon Rich
and Green, I can state that it is implausible that those pardons were based
on his evaluation of the merits of the case... [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonsex8.htm]
Interestingly, Rich’s wife bought furniture for the Clinton’s
Chappaqua home and contributed at least $450,000 to the
Clinton Library.
That’s cronyism, Hillary.
Finally, there were the four New Square pardons. There, the Hasidic
defendants were convicted of pocketing $40 million of federal scholarship money. Hillary visited the community, and on Election Day the community
supported Hillary 1400 to 12. Weeks later, on December 22, 2000,
President Clinton met with the New Square leaders to discuss a pardon.
Hillary attended the meeting, but claims that she did not speak.
Apparently, she didn’t have to the pardons were granted.
That’s cronyism, Hillary!
===================
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
www.mccainalert.com
see more at www.mccainalert.com
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
IF BUSH PULLS OUT THE TROOPS, IT MIGHT SAVE THE GOP
IF BUSH PULLS OUT THE TROOPS, IT MIGHT SAVE THE GOP
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 27, 2007.
Will George W. Bush try to steal a page from Richard Nixon and, reading the handwriting on the wall after a dismal showing in the congressional elections, begin to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of the year? If he does, will it save the Republican Party?
Recent indications of administration unhappiness with the failure of the Iraqi regime to use the period of the surge in American troops to enact basic reforms might presage just such a withdrawal. Clearly, the Iraqi government has done nothing to expand power-sharing with the Sunnis or to equalize access to oil revenues. Their failure to act could give Bush the rationale he needs to begin to draw down American force levels.
If Bush decides to act in this way, he will be doing himself, his party, and the country a big favor. There is still time to rescue the fortunes of the Republican Party in the 2008 election. It is Iraq that is dragging the president’s ratings down and killing his party’s chances in the election. Bush’s ratings on the economy are not bad, and he still draws commendations for his battle against terrorism. If he began to pull out troops, he could begin to recover his personal ratings and move his party up.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both indicated that they would have to support some kind of ongoing presence in Iraq during their presidencies. Obama implied as much when he told David Letterman that “we need to be as responsible in pulling out as we were irresponsible in going in” to Iraq. But Hillary has been much more direct, telling The New York Times that she favored keeping sufficient troops there to provide logistical, training, air and intelligence support for Iraqi forces and to hunt al Qaeda and patrol the Iraq-Iran border to stop infiltration. These missions, according to Pentagon sources, would likely occupy at least 75,000 soldiers.
If Bush begins to draw down manpower levels by the end of the year, he could reduce the differences between his positionand that of the Democratic front-runners on a matter of numbers rather than on basic policy. In taking the Iraq issue out of contention in the 2008 election, Bush will have rescued his party from what is now almost certain defeat.
Will his move seem transparently political? Democrats will surely say that it is, but nobody will really believe that Bush or the Republicans will reverse course and send in more troops after the election. Everybody will believe that the draw-down of U.S. troops is permanent and quite real. In fact, Bush’s stubborn obstinacy on Iraq in the past will make it unlikely that any concession on his part will be seen as opportunistic. He has already made it quite clear to this angry, disappointed nation that he doesn’t read the polls and doesn’t much care what we think when it comes to his foreign policy.
Without Iraq, Bush has quite a record to present to the country in 2008. The economy seems to be avoiding a recession, unemployment remains low, North Korea seems to be caving in, and the Iranian regime seems to be in real trouble at home.
Bush, after all, did relent and fire Donald Rumsfeld — although too late to influence the 2006 election. Maybe he is getting smart enough to extricate himself and his party from the mess in Iraq.
Certainly, the Iraqi regime is giving him every out to do so. All he needs to do is agree with Hillary that the U.S. troops have done their job but the Iraqi government has not done its. Such rhetoric is all the cover he would need to begin to pull out. And a switch in time might just save the White House.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 27, 2007.
Will George W. Bush try to steal a page from Richard Nixon and, reading the handwriting on the wall after a dismal showing in the congressional elections, begin to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of the year? If he does, will it save the Republican Party?
Recent indications of administration unhappiness with the failure of the Iraqi regime to use the period of the surge in American troops to enact basic reforms might presage just such a withdrawal. Clearly, the Iraqi government has done nothing to expand power-sharing with the Sunnis or to equalize access to oil revenues. Their failure to act could give Bush the rationale he needs to begin to draw down American force levels.
If Bush decides to act in this way, he will be doing himself, his party, and the country a big favor. There is still time to rescue the fortunes of the Republican Party in the 2008 election. It is Iraq that is dragging the president’s ratings down and killing his party’s chances in the election. Bush’s ratings on the economy are not bad, and he still draws commendations for his battle against terrorism. If he began to pull out troops, he could begin to recover his personal ratings and move his party up.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both indicated that they would have to support some kind of ongoing presence in Iraq during their presidencies. Obama implied as much when he told David Letterman that “we need to be as responsible in pulling out as we were irresponsible in going in” to Iraq. But Hillary has been much more direct, telling The New York Times that she favored keeping sufficient troops there to provide logistical, training, air and intelligence support for Iraqi forces and to hunt al Qaeda and patrol the Iraq-Iran border to stop infiltration. These missions, according to Pentagon sources, would likely occupy at least 75,000 soldiers.
If Bush begins to draw down manpower levels by the end of the year, he could reduce the differences between his positionand that of the Democratic front-runners on a matter of numbers rather than on basic policy. In taking the Iraq issue out of contention in the 2008 election, Bush will have rescued his party from what is now almost certain defeat.
Will his move seem transparently political? Democrats will surely say that it is, but nobody will really believe that Bush or the Republicans will reverse course and send in more troops after the election. Everybody will believe that the draw-down of U.S. troops is permanent and quite real. In fact, Bush’s stubborn obstinacy on Iraq in the past will make it unlikely that any concession on his part will be seen as opportunistic. He has already made it quite clear to this angry, disappointed nation that he doesn’t read the polls and doesn’t much care what we think when it comes to his foreign policy.
Without Iraq, Bush has quite a record to present to the country in 2008. The economy seems to be avoiding a recession, unemployment remains low, North Korea seems to be caving in, and the Iranian regime seems to be in real trouble at home.
Bush, after all, did relent and fire Donald Rumsfeld — although too late to influence the 2006 election. Maybe he is getting smart enough to extricate himself and his party from the mess in Iraq.
Certainly, the Iraqi regime is giving him every out to do so. All he needs to do is agree with Hillary that the U.S. troops have done their job but the Iraqi government has not done its. Such rhetoric is all the cover he would need to begin to pull out. And a switch in time might just save the White House.
Monday, July 02, 2007
DHS "can't deliver simple passports" Chertoff scolds Senate on immigration
DHS "can't deliver simple passports" Chertoff scolds Senate on immigration
DHS "can't deliver simple passports" Chertoff scolds Senate on immigration
what a shithead...........
The homeland security chief on Sunday scolded the Senate
for failing to pass an immigration bill and said it will be difficult
for the government to crack down on illegal workers.
"We're going to continue to enforce the law. It's going to be tough,"
Michael Chertoff said. "We don't really have the ability to enforce
the law with respect to illegal work in this country in
a way that's truly effective."
see more at...........
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics/story/81839.html
www.mccainalert.com
DHS "can't deliver simple passports" Chertoff scolds Senate on immigration
what a shithead...........
The homeland security chief on Sunday scolded the Senate
for failing to pass an immigration bill and said it will be difficult
for the government to crack down on illegal workers.
"We're going to continue to enforce the law. It's going to be tough,"
Michael Chertoff said. "We don't really have the ability to enforce
the law with respect to illegal work in this country in
a way that's truly effective."
see more at...........
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics/story/81839.html
www.mccainalert.com
Senator Mccain cuts staffs, thank god.......
Senator Mccain cuts staffs...........
Senator Mccain cuts staffs
Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will
be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator bows to six months
of subpar fundraising, according to officials with knowledge of
the details of the shake up.
Republican John McCain reorganized his campaign Monday,
cutting staff in every department as he raised just $11.2 million in
the last three months and reported an abysmal $2 million cash on hand
for his presidential bid.
"We confronted reality and we dealt with it in the best way that
we could so that we could move forward," said Terry Nelson,
McCain's campaign manager.
Once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain trails top Republican rivals in money and polls.
Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will be subject
to pay cuts as the Arizona senator bows to six months of subpar fundraising, according to officials with knowledge of the details of the shake up.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because the campaign would not
publicly discuss details of the restructuring.
McCain's tally in the second financial quarter, which ended Saturday,
is expected to trail those of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who have
not yet released their totals. In the first quarter, McCain came in third
and raised just $13.6 million.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_campaign
Senator Mccain cuts staffs
Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will
be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator bows to six months
of subpar fundraising, according to officials with knowledge of
the details of the shake up.
Republican John McCain reorganized his campaign Monday,
cutting staff in every department as he raised just $11.2 million in
the last three months and reported an abysmal $2 million cash on hand
for his presidential bid.
"We confronted reality and we dealt with it in the best way that
we could so that we could move forward," said Terry Nelson,
McCain's campaign manager.
Once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain trails top Republican rivals in money and polls.
Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will be subject
to pay cuts as the Arizona senator bows to six months of subpar fundraising, according to officials with knowledge of the details of the shake up.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because the campaign would not
publicly discuss details of the restructuring.
McCain's tally in the second financial quarter, which ended Saturday,
is expected to trail those of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who have
not yet released their totals. In the first quarter, McCain came in third
and raised just $13.6 million.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_campaign
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President
Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President
By Lou Dobbs CNN
Editor’s note: Lou Dobbs’ commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) — President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To “Mission accomplished,” “Bring it on,” “Wanted: Dead or alive,” and of course, “I earned … political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” he has added “I’ll see you at the bill signing,” referring to his own ill-considered push for so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Bush emerged from a midday meeting with Republican senators on Capitol Hill to declare, “We’ve got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border.”
No, Mr. President, someone you trust and respect must convince you that kind of tortured reasoning should never be exposed before cameras and microphones. Isn’t there anyone in this administration with the guts to say, “Give it a rest, Mr. President”?
Sen. Jeff Sessions came close when he said, “He needs to back off.” This president desperately needs to be reminded that he is the president of all Americans and not just of corporate interests and socio-ethnocentric special interest groups.
In what other country would citizens be treated to the spectacle of the president and the Senate focusing on the desires of 12 million to 20 million people who had crossed the nation’s borders illegally, committed document fraud, and in many cases identity theft, overstayed their visas and demanded, not asked, full forgiveness for their trespasses?
Illegal aliens and their advocates, both liberal and conservative, possess such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that they demand not only legal status, but also that the government leave the borders wide open so that other illegals could follow as well, while offering not so much as an “I’m sorry” or a “Thank you.”
This bill would be disastrous public policy and devastate millions of American workers and their families, taxpayers and any semblance of national security. Yet even in defeat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, one of the reform bill’s chief architects, declared: “Doing nothing is totally unacceptable.” Like the senator, Bush says the status quo is unacceptable.
The president and the senator are wrong. It is the sham legislation they support that is totally unacceptable. But if Bush and Kennedy sincerely desire resolution to our illegal immigration and border security crises, I’d like to try to help. But a word of caution, if I may, to our elected officials: Resolution of these crises will require honesty, directness and an absolute commitment to the national interest and the common good of our citizens. Here are what I consider to be the essential guiding principles for any substantive reform:
First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law.
Second, enforce existing immigration laws, and that includes the prosecution of the employers of illegal aliens. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, put it, illegal employers are the magnet that draws illegal aliens across our border. Enforcing the law against illegal employers and illegal aliens at large in the country will mean bolstering, in all respects, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Third, the government should fund, equip and hire the people necessary to man the Citizenship and Immigration Services. To do so will ensure that the agency is capable of fully executing and administering lawful immigration into the United States and eliminating the shameful backlog of millions of people who are seeking legal entry into this country.
Those three steps are necessary to the security of the nation and the effective administration and enforcement of existing immigration laws. Those steps should be considered non-negotiable conditions precedent to any change or reform of existing immigration law.
At the same time, the president and Congress should order exhaustive studies of the economic, social and fiscal effects of the leading proposals to change immigration law, and foremost in their consideration should be the well-being of American workers and their families.
The president and Congress should begin the process of thoughtful reform of our immigration laws. Public hearings should be held throughout the nation. The American people should be heard in every region of the country, and fact-finding should be rigorous and thorough. The process will be time-consuming and demand much of our congressmen and senators, their staffs and relevant executive agencies.
The importance of securing borders and ports and reforming our immigration laws is profound, and that security is fundamental to the future of our nation. That future can be realized only with a complete commitment to a comprehensive legislative process of absolute transparency and open public forums in which our elected officials hear the voices of the people they represent. American citizens deserve no less.
see CNN at www.loudobbs.com
By Lou Dobbs CNN
Editor’s note: Lou Dobbs’ commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) — President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To “Mission accomplished,” “Bring it on,” “Wanted: Dead or alive,” and of course, “I earned … political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” he has added “I’ll see you at the bill signing,” referring to his own ill-considered push for so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Bush emerged from a midday meeting with Republican senators on Capitol Hill to declare, “We’ve got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border.”
No, Mr. President, someone you trust and respect must convince you that kind of tortured reasoning should never be exposed before cameras and microphones. Isn’t there anyone in this administration with the guts to say, “Give it a rest, Mr. President”?
Sen. Jeff Sessions came close when he said, “He needs to back off.” This president desperately needs to be reminded that he is the president of all Americans and not just of corporate interests and socio-ethnocentric special interest groups.
In what other country would citizens be treated to the spectacle of the president and the Senate focusing on the desires of 12 million to 20 million people who had crossed the nation’s borders illegally, committed document fraud, and in many cases identity theft, overstayed their visas and demanded, not asked, full forgiveness for their trespasses?
Illegal aliens and their advocates, both liberal and conservative, possess such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that they demand not only legal status, but also that the government leave the borders wide open so that other illegals could follow as well, while offering not so much as an “I’m sorry” or a “Thank you.”
This bill would be disastrous public policy and devastate millions of American workers and their families, taxpayers and any semblance of national security. Yet even in defeat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, one of the reform bill’s chief architects, declared: “Doing nothing is totally unacceptable.” Like the senator, Bush says the status quo is unacceptable.
The president and the senator are wrong. It is the sham legislation they support that is totally unacceptable. But if Bush and Kennedy sincerely desire resolution to our illegal immigration and border security crises, I’d like to try to help. But a word of caution, if I may, to our elected officials: Resolution of these crises will require honesty, directness and an absolute commitment to the national interest and the common good of our citizens. Here are what I consider to be the essential guiding principles for any substantive reform:
First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law.
Second, enforce existing immigration laws, and that includes the prosecution of the employers of illegal aliens. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, put it, illegal employers are the magnet that draws illegal aliens across our border. Enforcing the law against illegal employers and illegal aliens at large in the country will mean bolstering, in all respects, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Third, the government should fund, equip and hire the people necessary to man the Citizenship and Immigration Services. To do so will ensure that the agency is capable of fully executing and administering lawful immigration into the United States and eliminating the shameful backlog of millions of people who are seeking legal entry into this country.
Those three steps are necessary to the security of the nation and the effective administration and enforcement of existing immigration laws. Those steps should be considered non-negotiable conditions precedent to any change or reform of existing immigration law.
At the same time, the president and Congress should order exhaustive studies of the economic, social and fiscal effects of the leading proposals to change immigration law, and foremost in their consideration should be the well-being of American workers and their families.
The president and Congress should begin the process of thoughtful reform of our immigration laws. Public hearings should be held throughout the nation. The American people should be heard in every region of the country, and fact-finding should be rigorous and thorough. The process will be time-consuming and demand much of our congressmen and senators, their staffs and relevant executive agencies.
The importance of securing borders and ports and reforming our immigration laws is profound, and that security is fundamental to the future of our nation. That future can be realized only with a complete commitment to a comprehensive legislative process of absolute transparency and open public forums in which our elected officials hear the voices of the people they represent. American citizens deserve no less.
see CNN at www.loudobbs.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)