It's been only 24 hours since we started our Condi Must Go campaign and thanks to you it's taken off. Already 22,793 of you signed our petition for Secretary of State Rice to resign for approving torture, and the media has turned its eye towards Condi. Now, we need to turn up the heat.
Next week, the eyes of the world will be on Pennsylvania as the Democratic and Republican primaries approach and the candidates debate. This is our chance to bring our campaign to the attention of the political establishment. Next week we will launch an advertising campaign in Pennsylvania with one simple message-- Condi Rice must resign as Secretary of State. But, we need your help.
Contribute $35 right to turn up the heat:
http://www.truemajority.org/CondiAd
Saturday, April 12, 2008
OVERSTAYING ITS WELCOME
OVERSTAYING ITS WELCOME
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program to track arrival and departure of foreign visitors has been mired in technical problems, cost overruns and delays ever since it was a gleam in Congress’ eye more than a decade ago. We wrote about the aimless program in 2005, and unsurprisingly not too much has changed except that we now have spent more than $2.2 billion on it.
The original plan for U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) was to use stuff like digital facial recognition, voice recognition and retinal scans to track foreign nationals arriving at and departing the nation’s airports, seaports and land points of entry. This would allow DHS to detain persons of interest at the border and detect visa overstays. Rather than use this new gadgetry, however, the agency settled on good old-fashioned fingerprint scans. Hooray.
But the fingerprint scans have had problems. Originally, DHS was only going to use thumb prints, which didn’t meet the FBI’s 10-digit identity and accuracy standards. Eventually, common sense prevailed and now fingerprints will be scanned from all 10 digits. The system will also connect with the FBI database and nine other informational programs tracking foreign nationals coming to this country. The first 10-digit scanner was deployed at Dulles Airport late last year and is supposed to deploy to all points of entry by the end of 2008.
But a new report by the Government Accountability Office has found that while the entry identification capability is present and improving at roughly 300 points of entry across the country, the back end – tracking the exits of those foreign visitors – is virtually nonexistent. As the GAO writes, “Despite long-standing legislative requirements and a sizeable investment of time and resources, DHS has yet to clearly define the second major component of its strategic solution – exit.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program to track arrival and departure of foreign visitors has been mired in technical problems, cost overruns and delays ever since it was a gleam in Congress’ eye more than a decade ago. We wrote about the aimless program in 2005, and unsurprisingly not too much has changed except that we now have spent more than $2.2 billion on it.
The original plan for U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) was to use stuff like digital facial recognition, voice recognition and retinal scans to track foreign nationals arriving at and departing the nation’s airports, seaports and land points of entry. This would allow DHS to detain persons of interest at the border and detect visa overstays. Rather than use this new gadgetry, however, the agency settled on good old-fashioned fingerprint scans. Hooray.
But the fingerprint scans have had problems. Originally, DHS was only going to use thumb prints, which didn’t meet the FBI’s 10-digit identity and accuracy standards. Eventually, common sense prevailed and now fingerprints will be scanned from all 10 digits. The system will also connect with the FBI database and nine other informational programs tracking foreign nationals coming to this country. The first 10-digit scanner was deployed at Dulles Airport late last year and is supposed to deploy to all points of entry by the end of 2008.
But a new report by the Government Accountability Office has found that while the entry identification capability is present and improving at roughly 300 points of entry across the country, the back end – tracking the exits of those foreign visitors – is virtually nonexistent. As the GAO writes, “Despite long-standing legislative requirements and a sizeable investment of time and resources, DHS has yet to clearly define the second major component of its strategic solution – exit.”
just say "no" to Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's hometown, San Francisco, just launched an $83,000 PR media campaign that will actively encourage waves of illegal aliens to sneak across the border.
The massive media blitz will include television and radio ads, billboards and bus signs, and brochures distributed at police stations and hospitals.
The simple and sinister purpose... to assure illegal aliens that they will have safe access to ALL city services -- no questions asked, no IDs checked... services that are supported by the tax dollars of hard-working Americans and legal immigrants all over the country.
Or to put it in the words of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom:
"We're inviting people to come out of the shadows and take advantage of services."
Of course, these ads -- written in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian -- really say, in effect:
Come one, come all. And when you sneak across the border, make your way to San Francisco because hard-working American citizens and legal immigrants will pick up your bills from cradle to grave!
Don't worry about working, we'll give you welfare. Don't worry about hospital bills, hard-working American taxpayers have got that covered for you.
Don't worry about educating your children; you won't have to pay a dime and we'll even instruct them in YOUR language so there's no need to worry about something as silly as assimilating.
And if hard-working taxpayers don't like it... TOUGH... They don't have a thing to say about it because we can act with impunity!
What else would you expect from the nation's most in-your-face sanctuary city?
But more importantly, how long will it take for other sanctuary cities across the country to follow San Francisco's example!
It doesn't have to be this way. YOU CAN SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Urge Congress to pass the Clear Act of 2007, which will CUT OFF FEDERAL FUNDS to so-called sanctuary cities!
The massive media blitz will include television and radio ads, billboards and bus signs, and brochures distributed at police stations and hospitals.
The simple and sinister purpose... to assure illegal aliens that they will have safe access to ALL city services -- no questions asked, no IDs checked... services that are supported by the tax dollars of hard-working Americans and legal immigrants all over the country.
Or to put it in the words of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom:
"We're inviting people to come out of the shadows and take advantage of services."
Of course, these ads -- written in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian -- really say, in effect:
Come one, come all. And when you sneak across the border, make your way to San Francisco because hard-working American citizens and legal immigrants will pick up your bills from cradle to grave!
Don't worry about working, we'll give you welfare. Don't worry about hospital bills, hard-working American taxpayers have got that covered for you.
Don't worry about educating your children; you won't have to pay a dime and we'll even instruct them in YOUR language so there's no need to worry about something as silly as assimilating.
And if hard-working taxpayers don't like it... TOUGH... They don't have a thing to say about it because we can act with impunity!
What else would you expect from the nation's most in-your-face sanctuary city?
But more importantly, how long will it take for other sanctuary cities across the country to follow San Francisco's example!
It doesn't have to be this way. YOU CAN SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Urge Congress to pass the Clear Act of 2007, which will CUT OFF FEDERAL FUNDS to so-called sanctuary cities!
HILLARY'S NAFTA PRETENSIONS
HILLARY'S NAFTA PRETENSIONS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FOXNews.com on April 11, 2008.
Forget about her claim to have dodged sniper’s bullets in Bosnia, or that she was named after Sir Edmund Hilary, or that she met a woman who was denied health care and died.
All of these Hillary Clinton fibs and exaggerations are basically harmless. But her current attempts to lie about her record and to pretend that she always opposed free trade agreements and disagreed with Bill on NAFTA is a serious distortion of her record as she searches for blue collar support in Pennsylvania.
Hillary was a strong supporter of NAFTA. Her official schedule reveals that she attended meetings designed to promote its passage and her memoir, Living History betrays no hint of any opposition to her husband’s key legislative accomplishment of his first two years in office — the ratification of NAFTA.
Hillary and I spoke frequently through all of 1993 and 1994 and together we plotted to help NAFTA ratification. She was deeply involved in the decision to enlist past presidents in supporting the bill and followed the vote count with heightening anxiety as it appeared closer and closer.
That she could totally reinvent her record, turn it around 180 degrees, and expect us to fall for it, shows her arrogance and her continuing belief that she can sell us on anything, no matter how obviously false.
Trade was no side issue in the Clinton administration; it was central to his key worldview — that he had to lead America to compete successfully in the new global economy. His refusal to submit to protectionism or to legislation to reduce layoffs — his commitment to the free market — was a singular badge of courage in his presidency. For Hillary to indicate now so fundamental a disagreement with a policy so integral to her husbands’ presidency is transparently phony.
And when Hillary entered the Senate, before she started to run for president, she was a reliable vote for free trade, supporting a host of bi-lateral agreements negotiated by her husband and by the Bush Administration. She even took the lead in urging the admission of China to the World Trade Organization, the key counter-protectionist step of the past two decades.
Hillary spoke at a meeting to promote NAFTA in November of 1993. Participants told ABC News that Hilary was “100 percent pro-NAFTA” and expressed “not a hint of waffling” on the deal. In 1996, she said that NAFTA was giving Americans a chance to compete. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about. I think NAFTA is proving its worth.”
And in 2002, the AP reports that she told the Democratic Leadership Council praising Bill’s economic policies: “The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. All of these came our of some very fundamental ideas bout what would work. The results speak for themselves.”
Does she really believe that we are about to forget history and buy that Hillary was opposed to NAFTA all along?
NAFTA has worked very well. It has improved Mexico and the United States. Without it, we would be burdened by millions of more immigrants from Mexico. It was one of the stellar achievements of the Clinton administration. For Hillary to try to sell us on a revised history speaks to her confidence that she can make us believe anything.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FOXNews.com on April 11, 2008.
Forget about her claim to have dodged sniper’s bullets in Bosnia, or that she was named after Sir Edmund Hilary, or that she met a woman who was denied health care and died.
All of these Hillary Clinton fibs and exaggerations are basically harmless. But her current attempts to lie about her record and to pretend that she always opposed free trade agreements and disagreed with Bill on NAFTA is a serious distortion of her record as she searches for blue collar support in Pennsylvania.
Hillary was a strong supporter of NAFTA. Her official schedule reveals that she attended meetings designed to promote its passage and her memoir, Living History betrays no hint of any opposition to her husband’s key legislative accomplishment of his first two years in office — the ratification of NAFTA.
Hillary and I spoke frequently through all of 1993 and 1994 and together we plotted to help NAFTA ratification. She was deeply involved in the decision to enlist past presidents in supporting the bill and followed the vote count with heightening anxiety as it appeared closer and closer.
That she could totally reinvent her record, turn it around 180 degrees, and expect us to fall for it, shows her arrogance and her continuing belief that she can sell us on anything, no matter how obviously false.
Trade was no side issue in the Clinton administration; it was central to his key worldview — that he had to lead America to compete successfully in the new global economy. His refusal to submit to protectionism or to legislation to reduce layoffs — his commitment to the free market — was a singular badge of courage in his presidency. For Hillary to indicate now so fundamental a disagreement with a policy so integral to her husbands’ presidency is transparently phony.
And when Hillary entered the Senate, before she started to run for president, she was a reliable vote for free trade, supporting a host of bi-lateral agreements negotiated by her husband and by the Bush Administration. She even took the lead in urging the admission of China to the World Trade Organization, the key counter-protectionist step of the past two decades.
Hillary spoke at a meeting to promote NAFTA in November of 1993. Participants told ABC News that Hilary was “100 percent pro-NAFTA” and expressed “not a hint of waffling” on the deal. In 1996, she said that NAFTA was giving Americans a chance to compete. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about. I think NAFTA is proving its worth.”
And in 2002, the AP reports that she told the Democratic Leadership Council praising Bill’s economic policies: “The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. All of these came our of some very fundamental ideas bout what would work. The results speak for themselves.”
Does she really believe that we are about to forget history and buy that Hillary was opposed to NAFTA all along?
NAFTA has worked very well. It has improved Mexico and the United States. Without it, we would be burdened by millions of more immigrants from Mexico. It was one of the stellar achievements of the Clinton administration. For Hillary to try to sell us on a revised history speaks to her confidence that she can make us believe anything.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Mr
they get bitter.......... or are americans pissed ?
Obama said the small towns are bitter.
they get bitter.......... or are americans pissed ?
popular opinion polls record lows fro President Bush and all of congress.
I feel thae the american voter is pissed at all politicans. They just see them as self serving politicans, who are selling out the individual voter for the dollars of
business interests.
time will tell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)