Crossbow Says:
October 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Uncontrolled immigration (illegal) is a cancer and it is spreading throughout the country, depressing wages and destroying neighborhoods. An example can be found in Santa Ana California. I can remember in the late ‘50’s and early ‘60’s Santa Ana California was a nice upper middle class community. According to the 2000 census figures it is now home to over 347,000 people 76 % of the population is Latino 180,000 were not born in this country; 156,000 of these people speak English poorly if at all. Most of the Latino population has less than a 9th grade education. The Latino population had an average annual income less than $10,000.00 per year. Once, a nice place to live much of Santa Ana is now plagued by gang violence. Drive-by shootings are common occurrences. Santa Ana has been turned into a barrio. It doesn’t seem like the people in Santa Ana have made any progress in assimilating into the American culture. Do you know why? It’s because they don’t want to assimilate. They want to live in their neighborhoods, speak their language and do things the way they did them in their native country, and they would like to spread that lifestyle to other communities until the place resembles the place that they came from and that includes the corruption and everything else that goes along with it. Other parts of the country are beginning to feel the burden of supporting these families whose incomes cannot possibly sustain the number of mothers and children needing to be fed, schooled and medicated. Now Americans, with the exception of those who have something to gain, complain that the federal government isn’t doing its job, and the federal government complains that they need help from local authorities, and so every agency passes the buck in an attempt to fool the electorate into believing that they really would do something if only they could. The taxpayer is the one left holding the bag. We are constantly fed the lie that things would be so much more expensive without the illegals. Without them our economy would collapse, blah, blah, blah. Things are really not any cheaper now when you consider the costs of supporting these people. Do you really think that businesses that hire these people are giving you deep discounts due to their low labor costs? What they are doing is pocketing the difference of what they would have to pay an American to do the same job, and you still pay the same price plus the cost of benefits that the business doesn’t pay.
Uncontrolled immigration is a cancer that feeds off of corrupt politicians and greedy business owners, expecting them to do anything to abate illegal immigration is an exercise in futility. The only thing that will change these people is to force the government to use existing laws to punish business owners who hire illegal aliens. How do you force the government to do this? You stay on their case. You write them every time you hear even a rumor about an amnesty proposal. Politicians are not interested in doing what is good for this country they are only interested in staying in office. They look at their mail and decide where the votes are and that’s where they go with their decisions. If you don’t participate in this process then you will get what you deserve.
Let people come here legally. Let them assimilate and then let some more come in. That’s the way it should be done. In the meantime if businesses say they can’t get help let them recruit from outside provided they pay the cost of benefits for their “guest workers” up to and including the cost of benefits for the workers family’s; food; clothing; medical care etc. etc. Let’s see how economical it would become to simply raise the wages offered to Americans to do the work. Until then: arrest employers breaking the law and put them in jail; arrest, punish and then deport those who use other’s social security numbers; vote out or impeach politicians who refuse to uphold their sworn duty. It’s not too late.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE BACKING HILLARY
WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE BACKING HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 10, 2007.
The question looms over the Democratic primary: Why are rank-and-file Democrats so determined to nominate Hillary Clinton for president? With her lead now growing and her vote share registering in the mid-40s, she is increasingly likely to win the nomination. Why?
There is every reason why the Democrats should be more cautious. Desperate to win and bring eight years of Republican rule to a close, they realize that Hillary is a red flag to many voters and would be the most polarizing nominee they could select. While Obama or Edwards could likely reach out to independents and even Republicans, Hillary cannot. One either loves her or hates her. Her very candidacy elicits memories of all the Clinton scandals, from Whitewater and Marc Rich to the gifts to the Rose Law Firm, the Chinese campaign contributions, the New Square Hasidic pardons, the Lincoln Bedroom and Monica. Why do Democrats willingly take on that baggage when two relative virgins beckon as alternatives? And why do they want to nominate the first woman to run for president when there is an obvious danger that sexism could yet rear its ugly head? Why take these risks? Indeed, why do they seem to almost insist on taking them?
Democrats today are seeking a warrior, a gladiator, not a president when they cast their ballots in their primaries and caucuses. Angered by the so-called defeat of 2000 and scarred by the upset of 2004, there is an intensity to their desire to win that dwarfs all other emotions and considerations. They are not nominating a president. They are nominating a candidate. They are not interested in the credentials of a possible president in selecting their standard-bearer; they seek the characteristics of a fighter, a combatant, one who will win.
Hillary’s demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and triumph is the quality that most appeals to Democrats. Were she to star in a reality TV show, it would be “Survivor.” She has taken the worst the Republican machine can deal and overcome it. She has mastered the Karl Roves of our politics and earned the affection of her party’s voters for doing so.
Her battle scars are her accolades. Her ability to come back from Gennifer Flowers, healthcare reform, the loss of Congress, the grand jury subpoenas of Kenneth Starr, the denouement of the truth about Lewinsky, the ensuing impeachment, the carpetbagger issue as she journeyed to New York, the pardon and White House gifts scandals and her early support of the war in Iraq are the real items in her résumé that interest her party’s voters. They care less what kind of president she would be and more that she probably can become the president.
When she says she can “hit the ground running,” she pretends that she is addressing her vast public policy experience. But it is irrelevant that she was in the White House for eight years. So was the pastry chef. But what is relevant, and inescapable, is that she did lead the president’s crusade to overcome the efforts of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring him down, and it is that experience which endears her to the base.
This affection for Hillary the Gladiator makes the appeals of Obama and Edwards largely irrelevant. They might be good men. They might be good presidents. But can they win? Are Edwards’s decency and civility barriers to being tough enough to beat the GOP machine? Is Obama’s desire to rise above partisanship the right attitude to take into a food fight with the GOP? Democrats have their doubts. But about Hillary’s zest for combat and her ruthlessness once in the ring, they have no concerns.
So Hillary does not polarize her party ideologically. Instead, she compares with her opponents in a time warp. She is the candidate of the present. Edwards is the candidate of the past, the man who, like Rocky’s brother-in-law Paulie, might have been a contender and would have been very good. Obama is the candidate of the future, the young man with promise and so much talent. But for today, for now — it’s Hillary.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 10, 2007.
The question looms over the Democratic primary: Why are rank-and-file Democrats so determined to nominate Hillary Clinton for president? With her lead now growing and her vote share registering in the mid-40s, she is increasingly likely to win the nomination. Why?
There is every reason why the Democrats should be more cautious. Desperate to win and bring eight years of Republican rule to a close, they realize that Hillary is a red flag to many voters and would be the most polarizing nominee they could select. While Obama or Edwards could likely reach out to independents and even Republicans, Hillary cannot. One either loves her or hates her. Her very candidacy elicits memories of all the Clinton scandals, from Whitewater and Marc Rich to the gifts to the Rose Law Firm, the Chinese campaign contributions, the New Square Hasidic pardons, the Lincoln Bedroom and Monica. Why do Democrats willingly take on that baggage when two relative virgins beckon as alternatives? And why do they want to nominate the first woman to run for president when there is an obvious danger that sexism could yet rear its ugly head? Why take these risks? Indeed, why do they seem to almost insist on taking them?
Democrats today are seeking a warrior, a gladiator, not a president when they cast their ballots in their primaries and caucuses. Angered by the so-called defeat of 2000 and scarred by the upset of 2004, there is an intensity to their desire to win that dwarfs all other emotions and considerations. They are not nominating a president. They are nominating a candidate. They are not interested in the credentials of a possible president in selecting their standard-bearer; they seek the characteristics of a fighter, a combatant, one who will win.
Hillary’s demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and triumph is the quality that most appeals to Democrats. Were she to star in a reality TV show, it would be “Survivor.” She has taken the worst the Republican machine can deal and overcome it. She has mastered the Karl Roves of our politics and earned the affection of her party’s voters for doing so.
Her battle scars are her accolades. Her ability to come back from Gennifer Flowers, healthcare reform, the loss of Congress, the grand jury subpoenas of Kenneth Starr, the denouement of the truth about Lewinsky, the ensuing impeachment, the carpetbagger issue as she journeyed to New York, the pardon and White House gifts scandals and her early support of the war in Iraq are the real items in her résumé that interest her party’s voters. They care less what kind of president she would be and more that she probably can become the president.
When she says she can “hit the ground running,” she pretends that she is addressing her vast public policy experience. But it is irrelevant that she was in the White House for eight years. So was the pastry chef. But what is relevant, and inescapable, is that she did lead the president’s crusade to overcome the efforts of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring him down, and it is that experience which endears her to the base.
This affection for Hillary the Gladiator makes the appeals of Obama and Edwards largely irrelevant. They might be good men. They might be good presidents. But can they win? Are Edwards’s decency and civility barriers to being tough enough to beat the GOP machine? Is Obama’s desire to rise above partisanship the right attitude to take into a food fight with the GOP? Democrats have their doubts. But about Hillary’s zest for combat and her ruthlessness once in the ring, they have no concerns.
So Hillary does not polarize her party ideologically. Instead, she compares with her opponents in a time warp. She is the candidate of the present. Edwards is the candidate of the past, the man who, like Rocky’s brother-in-law Paulie, might have been a contender and would have been very good. Obama is the candidate of the future, the young man with promise and so much talent. But for today, for now — it’s Hillary.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Senate Amendments Increase Funding for Border Security
Senate Amendments Increase Funding for Border Security
On Wednesday, two significant border-related amendments were added to the Defense Appropriations bill currently before the Senate (H.R. 3222). The first of these was an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to continue funding for 6,000 National Guard troops stationed on the southern border (S.A. 3192). Since May, the Administration has drawn down half of the National Guardsmen originally stationed on the border as part of Operation Jump Start. The Administration plans to draw down the remainder at the beginning of 2008.
The Sessions Amendment, which was added to the bill on a voice vote, reverses the Administration's efforts to end Operation Jump Start by keeping troops funded on the border through fiscal year 2008. "The number of illegal aliens attempting to cross the border decreased by about 25 percent since National Guard troops were deployed," said Sen. Sessions. "This program is a proven success and it would be unthinkable to back away so soon from this critical part of our border enforcement strategy." (Reuters, Oct. 4, 2007)
Earlier in the day, the Senate adopted by a vote of 95-1 an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill authored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would provide $3 billion for security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) spoke in support of the amendment, saying, "There's no greater domestic issue in this country than the problems on our southern border with Mexico, and it is time that Congress makes a commitment to make border security a reality." The amendment sets aside money for selected purposes at the discretion of the Administration. The Administration may spend this $3 billion to hire additional border patrol agents, to install fencing and vehicle barriers along the border, for removal and detention of illegal aliens, and to reimburse states and localities utilizing a 287(g) program. The only money dedicated to a specific enforcement area is $60,000,000 designated for employment eligibility verification programs.
During the debate on the amendment Senator Graham demonstrated that he had no intent of giving up on "comprehensive immigration reform." Indicating that the enforcement package was aimed at laying the predicate for further legislative action, he said, "People who want border security first, this is a recognition that we've listened to you, we understand what you're saying, and we're putting money aside to make sure we secure our border." (Houston Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2007; The State, Oct. 4, 2007)
On Wednesday, two significant border-related amendments were added to the Defense Appropriations bill currently before the Senate (H.R. 3222). The first of these was an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to continue funding for 6,000 National Guard troops stationed on the southern border (S.A. 3192). Since May, the Administration has drawn down half of the National Guardsmen originally stationed on the border as part of Operation Jump Start. The Administration plans to draw down the remainder at the beginning of 2008.
The Sessions Amendment, which was added to the bill on a voice vote, reverses the Administration's efforts to end Operation Jump Start by keeping troops funded on the border through fiscal year 2008. "The number of illegal aliens attempting to cross the border decreased by about 25 percent since National Guard troops were deployed," said Sen. Sessions. "This program is a proven success and it would be unthinkable to back away so soon from this critical part of our border enforcement strategy." (Reuters, Oct. 4, 2007)
Earlier in the day, the Senate adopted by a vote of 95-1 an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill authored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would provide $3 billion for security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) spoke in support of the amendment, saying, "There's no greater domestic issue in this country than the problems on our southern border with Mexico, and it is time that Congress makes a commitment to make border security a reality." The amendment sets aside money for selected purposes at the discretion of the Administration. The Administration may spend this $3 billion to hire additional border patrol agents, to install fencing and vehicle barriers along the border, for removal and detention of illegal aliens, and to reimburse states and localities utilizing a 287(g) program. The only money dedicated to a specific enforcement area is $60,000,000 designated for employment eligibility verification programs.
During the debate on the amendment Senator Graham demonstrated that he had no intent of giving up on "comprehensive immigration reform." Indicating that the enforcement package was aimed at laying the predicate for further legislative action, he said, "People who want border security first, this is a recognition that we've listened to you, we understand what you're saying, and we're putting money aside to make sure we secure our border." (Houston Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2007; The State, Oct. 4, 2007)
Lawmakers Working Under the Radar to Increase H-2B Visas
Lawmakers Working Under the Radar to Increase H-2B Visas
Reports are coming from the Hill that certain lawmakers are quietly working to increase the number of unskilled workers allowed into the U.S. by surreptitiously raising the H-2B visa cap. The leading proponents of such a move are Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), who have introduced the "Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007" (S.988/H.R.1843) and are going from Member to Member to gain support. This legislation would increase the number of unskilled foreign workers in the U.S. by exempting H-2B workers who have been in the U.S. "during any 1 of the preceding 3 years" from the 66,000 cap when they reenter the U.S.
The H-2B program is a temporary non-immigrant worker program through which U.S. businesses import tens of thousands of unskilled foreign laborers each year to perform non-agricultural work. Last year, for example, over 134,000 non-immigrants were brought into the U.S. as H-2B workers, nearly one-third of whom were employed as landscapers and at least one-tenth of whom worked in the resort industry. (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Performance Report: March 28, 2005-September 30, 2006, September 17, 2007). The maximum duration of an H-2B visa is one year.
Under long-standing law, the number of H-2B visas issued in a year is capped at 66,000. Each fiscal year, half of these visas become available in October and the other half becomes available beginning in April. Often, these H-2B visas are all apportioned before they are even released. In this year, for example, applications for the visas coming available in April were already over 33,000 in March. (Denver Post, October 4, 2007).
However, instead of putting pressure on employers to increase wages or seek out American workers to make up any labor shortfalls, Congress increased H-2B visas in both 2005 and 2006. This was the result of Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) successfully offering amendments that provided a temporary back-door way to avoid the H-2B cap. The Mikulski language allowed an H-2B worker who had received his or her visa in any of the previous three years to return without being counted toward the cap. Thus, a business could get around the cap entirely by rehiring previous H-2B workers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal year 2006, the total number of admissions of returning workers into the U.S. was 36,792. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, 2006 Statistical Yearbook, Table 26: Nonimmigrant Admissions (I-94 Only) By Class Of Admission: Fiscal Years 1998 To 2006, 2007).
Through the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007, Congress is once again entertaining pleas from business to renew the returning worker exception. And because simply renewing the returning worker exemption would not be enough to appease business interests, the legislation offered by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Stupak this year has no sunset. The legislation would immediately permit up to 264,000 people to enter the country under the H-2B program—66,000 per year for the three previous years and 66,000 more for fiscal year 2008. This number could then grow at a rate of 66,000 workers per year and by 2017, the potential number of H-2B workers allowed into the country could reach 858,000.
Reports are coming from the Hill that certain lawmakers are quietly working to increase the number of unskilled workers allowed into the U.S. by surreptitiously raising the H-2B visa cap. The leading proponents of such a move are Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), who have introduced the "Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007" (S.988/H.R.1843) and are going from Member to Member to gain support. This legislation would increase the number of unskilled foreign workers in the U.S. by exempting H-2B workers who have been in the U.S. "during any 1 of the preceding 3 years" from the 66,000 cap when they reenter the U.S.
The H-2B program is a temporary non-immigrant worker program through which U.S. businesses import tens of thousands of unskilled foreign laborers each year to perform non-agricultural work. Last year, for example, over 134,000 non-immigrants were brought into the U.S. as H-2B workers, nearly one-third of whom were employed as landscapers and at least one-tenth of whom worked in the resort industry. (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Performance Report: March 28, 2005-September 30, 2006, September 17, 2007). The maximum duration of an H-2B visa is one year.
Under long-standing law, the number of H-2B visas issued in a year is capped at 66,000. Each fiscal year, half of these visas become available in October and the other half becomes available beginning in April. Often, these H-2B visas are all apportioned before they are even released. In this year, for example, applications for the visas coming available in April were already over 33,000 in March. (Denver Post, October 4, 2007).
However, instead of putting pressure on employers to increase wages or seek out American workers to make up any labor shortfalls, Congress increased H-2B visas in both 2005 and 2006. This was the result of Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) successfully offering amendments that provided a temporary back-door way to avoid the H-2B cap. The Mikulski language allowed an H-2B worker who had received his or her visa in any of the previous three years to return without being counted toward the cap. Thus, a business could get around the cap entirely by rehiring previous H-2B workers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal year 2006, the total number of admissions of returning workers into the U.S. was 36,792. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, 2006 Statistical Yearbook, Table 26: Nonimmigrant Admissions (I-94 Only) By Class Of Admission: Fiscal Years 1998 To 2006, 2007).
Through the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007, Congress is once again entertaining pleas from business to renew the returning worker exception. And because simply renewing the returning worker exemption would not be enough to appease business interests, the legislation offered by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Stupak this year has no sunset. The legislation would immediately permit up to 264,000 people to enter the country under the H-2B program—66,000 per year for the three previous years and 66,000 more for fiscal year 2008. This number could then grow at a rate of 66,000 workers per year and by 2017, the potential number of H-2B workers allowed into the country could reach 858,000.
ICE Sweep Nets over 1300 Illegal Aliens
ICE Sweep Nets over 1300 Illegal Aliens in Southern California
On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced one of the country's largest immigration sweeps on record, netting over 1300 illegal aliens across 5 counties in Southern California. (San Diego Union Tribute, October 4). The operation, taken in concert with local sheriffs, focused on aliens who had been processed at southern California jails and were discovered to be deportable.
Of those arrested in the sweep, about 530 were apprehended at their homes and workplaces, while 800 others were removed immediately after the completion of their jail terms. Nearly 1100 of those arrested came from Mexico, but the remainder originated from over 30 countries, including Armenia, India and Ireland. While the vast majority of the aliens were in the country illegally, several of those arrested were lawful residents whose felonies made them deportable. More than 600 of those arrested had been deported by Wednesday. (AFP, October 4; Deutsche Press-Agentur, October 3).
Jim Hayes, the Los Angeles field director for ICE, indicated that the sweep reflects the agency's newfound aggressive stance towards enforcement of immigration laws. "Where the laws may not have been enforced in the past," he said, "that has changed." Nonetheless, there remain nearly 597,000 immigration fugitives in the U.S. While this figure is down 35,000 from last year, it is evidence that ICE has only scratched the surface when it comes to enforcing our country's immigration laws.
On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced one of the country's largest immigration sweeps on record, netting over 1300 illegal aliens across 5 counties in Southern California. (San Diego Union Tribute, October 4). The operation, taken in concert with local sheriffs, focused on aliens who had been processed at southern California jails and were discovered to be deportable.
Of those arrested in the sweep, about 530 were apprehended at their homes and workplaces, while 800 others were removed immediately after the completion of their jail terms. Nearly 1100 of those arrested came from Mexico, but the remainder originated from over 30 countries, including Armenia, India and Ireland. While the vast majority of the aliens were in the country illegally, several of those arrested were lawful residents whose felonies made them deportable. More than 600 of those arrested had been deported by Wednesday. (AFP, October 4; Deutsche Press-Agentur, October 3).
Jim Hayes, the Los Angeles field director for ICE, indicated that the sweep reflects the agency's newfound aggressive stance towards enforcement of immigration laws. "Where the laws may not have been enforced in the past," he said, "that has changed." Nonetheless, there remain nearly 597,000 immigration fugitives in the U.S. While this figure is down 35,000 from last year, it is evidence that ICE has only scratched the surface when it comes to enforcing our country's immigration laws.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
holy shit, senator Mccain shows his face in Tucson, Arizona ….
holy shit, senator Mccain shows his face in Tucson, Arizona ….
maybe he trying to sell some books or dvds?
who’s gonna replace him, he’a 72 now,next senate term is ?
anybody got a count of the trips/time he spends in his own state ?
desperate people do desperate things................
www.mccainalert.com
maybe he trying to sell some books or dvds?
who’s gonna replace him, he’a 72 now,next senate term is ?
anybody got a count of the trips/time he spends in his own state ?
desperate people do desperate things................
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, October 04, 2007
2007 Arizona governor desk
Thursday, October 4, 2007 Arizona governor desk
Dear Friends,
Last week, I had the opportunity at the annual Border Governors Conference to come together with leaders from both the U.S. and Mexico to make important progress on issues where Arizonans demand results. During the conference, I forged new agreements on the border with fellow governors and spoke with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about issues critical to Arizona especially border security and human and drug smuggling.
Our federal government seems stuck in dealing with problems at the border, leaving the people of border states like Arizona waiting for solutions. Amid this gridlock, it’s important that we as states make progress where we can, and keep pressure on the federal government to act where it must.
For one example, border states in the U.S. and Mexico are now on the same page in combating methamphetamines. Our porous border with Mexico is fueling meth in Arizona – the drug’s precursor chemicals are now imported to the U.S., brought to Mexico, made into meth, and smuggled back. At the conference, border states committed to sharing information to combat smugglers. We pressured the federal government to do the same and help Mexican authorities crack down on meth manufacturing.
While border states in general are taking the lead on border issues, Arizona in particular is standing out as a trailblazer on border security. For border security to be most effective, we need innovative and aggressive ideas to be adopted all across the border, and not just on one stretch – and now, other states are following our lead.
To attack human and drug smuggling, Arizona pioneered the use of damming warrants. The phenomenon of human and drug smuggling is driven by criminal syndicates, and with this tool, we are drying up their financial backbone by targeting their wire transfers. Other states are looking into using this tool as well.
Arizona is developing enhanced drivers’ licenses to reduce fraud and assist employers in verifying whether their employees are legal to work. Other states will be observing our lead on these 3-in-1 IDs.
Even if Washington is putting off border problems, border states are dedicated to taking action wherever we can, and to getting the federal government to keep its eye on the ball.
And as always, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services.
Yours very truly, Janet Napolitano Governor
Senator Craig to remain in the Senate
Senator Craig to remain in the Senate
how much will this cost the Republican Party ?
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, defying the wishes of many in his own Republican Party, said today that he would remain in the Senate through next year despite a court ruling against him in Minnesota, where he sought to rescind his guilty plea stemming from an undercover sex sting
how much will this cost the Republican Party ?
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, defying the wishes of many in his own Republican Party, said today that he would remain in the Senate through next year despite a court ruling against him in Minnesota, where he sought to rescind his guilty plea stemming from an undercover sex sting
$300-a-night prostitutes for Rep Cunningham
$300-a-night prostitutes for California's Rep Cunningham
In 2003, Wilkes got a $16.5 million contract through Cunningham, prosecutors say. In the same year, he purchased Super Bowl tickets and a vacation in Hawaii for Cunningham where he provided the congressman with $300-a-night prostitutes for two nights, prosecutors allege.
In 2004, Wilkes, using Michael and the firm owned by Kontogiannis, gave Cunningham $525,000 to pay off part of a mortgage on the congressman's Rancho Santa Fe estate, the prosecution alleges.
'Never bribed'
Among the potential witnesses are former Cunningham staffers, including three men who served at different times as his chief of staff. Kontogiannis, who faces up to 10 years when he is sentenced in November, also may be called to testify.
Wade, of the former Washington defense firm MZM, who provided Cunningham with a cabin cruiser named the Duke-Stir to live on at a Washington marina, also may appear.
Wade has been cooperating with authorities, prosecutors say, since pleading guilty last year to giving Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes. He faces up to 11 years in prison.
Michael and his attorneys have said little other than to declare his innocence. Efforts to reach them Friday were unsuccessful.
In 2003, Wilkes got a $16.5 million contract through Cunningham, prosecutors say. In the same year, he purchased Super Bowl tickets and a vacation in Hawaii for Cunningham where he provided the congressman with $300-a-night prostitutes for two nights, prosecutors allege.
In 2004, Wilkes, using Michael and the firm owned by Kontogiannis, gave Cunningham $525,000 to pay off part of a mortgage on the congressman's Rancho Santa Fe estate, the prosecution alleges.
'Never bribed'
Among the potential witnesses are former Cunningham staffers, including three men who served at different times as his chief of staff. Kontogiannis, who faces up to 10 years when he is sentenced in November, also may be called to testify.
Wade, of the former Washington defense firm MZM, who provided Cunningham with a cabin cruiser named the Duke-Stir to live on at a Washington marina, also may appear.
Wade has been cooperating with authorities, prosecutors say, since pleading guilty last year to giving Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes. He faces up to 11 years in prison.
Michael and his attorneys have said little other than to declare his innocence. Efforts to reach them Friday were unsuccessful.
Tales of hookers in Hawaii, Cunningham corruption trial
Cunningham corruption trial set to begin
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO ---- Tales of hookers in Hawaii, lavish Capitol Hill dinner parties, private jet junkets and free-flowing cash are expected to be heard when a trial for two men tied to the tawdry corruption of former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham begins in San Diego on Tuesday.
Facing multiple counts of money laundering and bribery are former Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes and New York financier John T. Michael. Each man has declared he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
A 28-page trial memorandum filed by federal prosecutors this week suggests that the government has a wealth of evidence to the contrary. And some of their most damaging material may come directly from Cunningham, who is listed as one of more than 40 potential prosecution witnesses.
The government contends that over an eight-year period starting in 1998, Wilkes obtained more than $80 million in defense contracts for his now-defunct firm, ADCS Inc., in exchange for more than $700,000 in cash and material bribes to Cunningham.
Michael is accused of laundering some of the money through his mortgage company, accepting several thousand dollars in exchange for his services.
Michael's uncle, Thomas Kontogiannis of New York, played a key role in those transactions, the government contends, describing both as "professional money launderers." Kontogiannis has pleaded guilty to bribing Cunningham and is awaiting sentencing.
'Chance to learn'
The trial is expected to last at least three weeks and may expose the inner workings of congressional appropriations, particularly "earmarks" ---- legislative moves that lawmakers use to insert money for pet projects into spending bills.
"Beyond the good, bad and ugly of how Brent Wilkes bribed Duke Cunningham is a chance to learn about the system and why Mr. Wilkes decided the only way he could get ahead in Washington was to bribe a prominent appropriator," said Keith Ashdown of a Washington watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Cunningham, a former North County Republican congressman, pleaded guilty in late 2005 to tax evasion and receiving more than $2.4 million in bribes.
His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, would not say Friday if Cunningham will take the witness stand in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, the same judge who sentenced him to more than eight years in prison.
"That's up to the attorneys trying the case," Blalack said during a telephone interview.
That Cunningham has been transferred from an Arizona prison to the Metropolitan Correctional Center near San Diego's Front Street federal courthouse suggests he will appear.
'Hired gun'
Prosecutors contend in documents filed earlier this week that much of the graft that wound up in Cunningham's pockets came directly from Wilkes with Michael's help. Court documents name them as two of four major co-conspirators in the largest congressional corruption case ever uncovered.
Prosecutors allege Wilkes' bribes included trips, arranging prostitutes for Cunningham during a trip to Hawaii, Babylonian meals with fine wines costing thousands of dollars, a speed boat and cash.
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO ---- Tales of hookers in Hawaii, lavish Capitol Hill dinner parties, private jet junkets and free-flowing cash are expected to be heard when a trial for two men tied to the tawdry corruption of former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham begins in San Diego on Tuesday.
Facing multiple counts of money laundering and bribery are former Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes and New York financier John T. Michael. Each man has declared he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
A 28-page trial memorandum filed by federal prosecutors this week suggests that the government has a wealth of evidence to the contrary. And some of their most damaging material may come directly from Cunningham, who is listed as one of more than 40 potential prosecution witnesses.
The government contends that over an eight-year period starting in 1998, Wilkes obtained more than $80 million in defense contracts for his now-defunct firm, ADCS Inc., in exchange for more than $700,000 in cash and material bribes to Cunningham.
Michael is accused of laundering some of the money through his mortgage company, accepting several thousand dollars in exchange for his services.
Michael's uncle, Thomas Kontogiannis of New York, played a key role in those transactions, the government contends, describing both as "professional money launderers." Kontogiannis has pleaded guilty to bribing Cunningham and is awaiting sentencing.
'Chance to learn'
The trial is expected to last at least three weeks and may expose the inner workings of congressional appropriations, particularly "earmarks" ---- legislative moves that lawmakers use to insert money for pet projects into spending bills.
"Beyond the good, bad and ugly of how Brent Wilkes bribed Duke Cunningham is a chance to learn about the system and why Mr. Wilkes decided the only way he could get ahead in Washington was to bribe a prominent appropriator," said Keith Ashdown of a Washington watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Cunningham, a former North County Republican congressman, pleaded guilty in late 2005 to tax evasion and receiving more than $2.4 million in bribes.
His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, would not say Friday if Cunningham will take the witness stand in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, the same judge who sentenced him to more than eight years in prison.
"That's up to the attorneys trying the case," Blalack said during a telephone interview.
That Cunningham has been transferred from an Arizona prison to the Metropolitan Correctional Center near San Diego's Front Street federal courthouse suggests he will appear.
'Hired gun'
Prosecutors contend in documents filed earlier this week that much of the graft that wound up in Cunningham's pockets came directly from Wilkes with Michael's help. Court documents name them as two of four major co-conspirators in the largest congressional corruption case ever uncovered.
Prosecutors allege Wilkes' bribes included trips, arranging prostitutes for Cunningham during a trip to Hawaii, Babylonian meals with fine wines costing thousands of dollars, a speed boat and cash.
Where's the Fence Fridays
Where's the Fence Fridays ed, P. Patrick, a Grassfire team member sent us a brilliantidea she calls "Where's the Fence Fridays" that we are kickingoff this Friday. Every Friday until the Border Fence is completed, we are askingALL members of our team to contact their two Senators andCongressman asking each one "Where's the Fence?" As taxpayers, we have a right to know the status of the fence--especially since it has been long promised us. So please take amoment this Friday to contact your lawmakers and candidly askthem "Where's The Fence?" Here's your contact information: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (for your Congressman) If they cannot give you specifics, take a moment to fillthem in. Let them know that since the Secure Fence Actwas passed, only 18 miles of the promised 854 mileshave been built! Let them know that based on TIME magazine's estimate, morethan 8,000 illegal aliens cross our borders EVERY DAY! we need to be holding leadership accountable,and this is one way everyone in Congress can get a weeklyreminder that we are watching. Be sure to call this Friday. Finally, we need to continue growing our grassroots army ofcitizens, so please forward this message to 15-20 of yourfriends and encourage them to add their names to our growingpetition by clicking here: http://www.grassfire.org/42/petition.asp?PID=11222869
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
DHS Lawsuit Against Illinois Sends Clear Message to Local Governments
DHS Lawsuit Against Illinois Sends Clear Message to Local Governments to Quit Interfering in Immigration Enforcement
FAIR Applauds Administration for Decisive Step to Stop Employment of Illegal Aliens
Washington DC - The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) today applauded the decision by the Department of Homeland Security for filing suit against the State of Illinois and its attempt to thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws. A state law, approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, would bar employers in Illinois from using a federal database to verify the work eligibility of prospective employees. In recent years, Illinois has repeatedly instituted policies aimed at shielding illegal aliens.
Responding to overwhelming public sentiment in favor of enforcement of immigration laws, especially in the workplace, the Bush Administration has begun notifying employers when workers' Social Security numbers do not match information in the government's database. In an effort to assist employers who wish to comply with laws against hiring illegal aliens, the federal government has been encouraging them to utilize a database that allows them to verify Social Security numbers.
"Easy access to jobs in this country has long been the magnet that has drawn millions of illegal aliens here. As much, or perhaps even more, than securing the borders, preventing illegal aliens from finding jobs is the key to reversing mass illegal immigration," noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "In taking steps to bar employers from using the Social Security Administration's database to verify work eligibility until that database is virtually error free, is nothing more than a blatant attempt by state officials to further undermine immigration law enforcement. Perfection does not exist in this world, and we cannot expect it to be the standard for employment verification."
The policy that Illinois is attempting to thwart includes generous provisions to allow individuals to correct errors in the database that might be found during the verification process. "The state's effort is not about preventing errors, it is a politically motivated effort to prevent employers from identifying illegal aliens and complying with federal law," charged Stein. "The suit by DHS to block implementation of state's transparent effort to impede immigration enforcement in the workplace is the appropriate response to Illinois officials and a signal to other local governments that the federal government is serious about cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens."
The federal suit also addresses serious constitutional issues by asserting the federal government's right to enforce immigration laws everywhere in the country, even in jurisdictions that have made themselves de facto or formal sanctuaries for illegal aliens. "No state or local government can be permitted to stand in the way of the federal government's unassailable right to carry out immigration enforcement. Federal law allows local governments to assist in immigration enforcement, but there is no opt-out provision that allows them to prevent immigration laws from being enforced. Employers in Illinois must be permitted to comply with the same laws as employers in the other 49 states," concluded Stein.
FAIR Applauds Administration for Decisive Step to Stop Employment of Illegal Aliens
Washington DC - The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) today applauded the decision by the Department of Homeland Security for filing suit against the State of Illinois and its attempt to thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws. A state law, approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, would bar employers in Illinois from using a federal database to verify the work eligibility of prospective employees. In recent years, Illinois has repeatedly instituted policies aimed at shielding illegal aliens.
Responding to overwhelming public sentiment in favor of enforcement of immigration laws, especially in the workplace, the Bush Administration has begun notifying employers when workers' Social Security numbers do not match information in the government's database. In an effort to assist employers who wish to comply with laws against hiring illegal aliens, the federal government has been encouraging them to utilize a database that allows them to verify Social Security numbers.
"Easy access to jobs in this country has long been the magnet that has drawn millions of illegal aliens here. As much, or perhaps even more, than securing the borders, preventing illegal aliens from finding jobs is the key to reversing mass illegal immigration," noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "In taking steps to bar employers from using the Social Security Administration's database to verify work eligibility until that database is virtually error free, is nothing more than a blatant attempt by state officials to further undermine immigration law enforcement. Perfection does not exist in this world, and we cannot expect it to be the standard for employment verification."
The policy that Illinois is attempting to thwart includes generous provisions to allow individuals to correct errors in the database that might be found during the verification process. "The state's effort is not about preventing errors, it is a politically motivated effort to prevent employers from identifying illegal aliens and complying with federal law," charged Stein. "The suit by DHS to block implementation of state's transparent effort to impede immigration enforcement in the workplace is the appropriate response to Illinois officials and a signal to other local governments that the federal government is serious about cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens."
The federal suit also addresses serious constitutional issues by asserting the federal government's right to enforce immigration laws everywhere in the country, even in jurisdictions that have made themselves de facto or formal sanctuaries for illegal aliens. "No state or local government can be permitted to stand in the way of the federal government's unassailable right to carry out immigration enforcement. Federal law allows local governments to assist in immigration enforcement, but there is no opt-out provision that allows them to prevent immigration laws from being enforced. Employers in Illinois must be permitted to comply with the same laws as employers in the other 49 states," concluded Stein.
The Federal Government Sues Illinois to use E-Verify
The Federal Government Sues Illinois to Allow Employers to Use E-Verify
Last Monday, the federal government sued the State of Illinois to strike down a state law making it illegal for employers to use the federal government's E-Verify program. "E-Verify" is the new name for "Basic Pilot," currently a volunteer program that permits employers to verify the legal status of job applicants electronically. According to DHS, by August of this year, the program had been used by over 22,000 employers, who had sent nearly 3 million queries for verification of employment eligibility to the agency. Nearly 93 percent of these queries were answered within one day. The remainders received tentative non-confirmations. Under E-Verify a worker can challenge a non-confirmation, which takes about a week or sometimes longer for DHS to resolve. The legislation passed by Illinois makes it illegal for businesses in the state to use E-Verify until 99 percent of E-Verify results can be returned within 3 days of a request.
The complaint filed by Homeland Security asserts that the Illinois statute is in clear violation the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2), which declares that federal law trumps any contrary state or local law. As stated by Secretary Chertoff, "What we can't do when we pass a federal law is have the states decide they want to modify that law." Crystal Williams, Deputy Director for Programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the lawsuit filed by DHS selective enforcement, noting that a number of states and localities have enacted laws directed at stopping illegal immigration, describing them as "clearly violations of the supremacy clause." According to Chertoff, the federal government has finally decided to go on the offensive. Noting that he understood the message of the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill, Chertoff remarked, "We will vigorously contest any effort to impede our enforcement efforts." (New York Times, September 25, 2007; Chicago Tribune, September 25 2007)
Last Monday, the federal government sued the State of Illinois to strike down a state law making it illegal for employers to use the federal government's E-Verify program. "E-Verify" is the new name for "Basic Pilot," currently a volunteer program that permits employers to verify the legal status of job applicants electronically. According to DHS, by August of this year, the program had been used by over 22,000 employers, who had sent nearly 3 million queries for verification of employment eligibility to the agency. Nearly 93 percent of these queries were answered within one day. The remainders received tentative non-confirmations. Under E-Verify a worker can challenge a non-confirmation, which takes about a week or sometimes longer for DHS to resolve. The legislation passed by Illinois makes it illegal for businesses in the state to use E-Verify until 99 percent of E-Verify results can be returned within 3 days of a request.
The complaint filed by Homeland Security asserts that the Illinois statute is in clear violation the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2), which declares that federal law trumps any contrary state or local law. As stated by Secretary Chertoff, "What we can't do when we pass a federal law is have the states decide they want to modify that law." Crystal Williams, Deputy Director for Programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the lawsuit filed by DHS selective enforcement, noting that a number of states and localities have enacted laws directed at stopping illegal immigration, describing them as "clearly violations of the supremacy clause." According to Chertoff, the federal government has finally decided to go on the offensive. Noting that he understood the message of the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill, Chertoff remarked, "We will vigorously contest any effort to impede our enforcement efforts." (New York Times, September 25, 2007; Chicago Tribune, September 25 2007)
Attempt to Pass DREAM Act Stalls after Public Outcry
Attempt to Pass DREAM Act Stalls after Public Outcry
The efforts of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other amnesty proponents to amend the DREAM Act onto the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585) were scuttled last week after public outcry threatened to derail the Defense Bill entirely. Over the past two weeks tens of thousands of phone calls, emails and faxes in opposition to the DREAM Act barraged Senate offices, keeping Senator Durbin from finding the 60 votes he needed to proceed with the debate on his amendment. Although the Senator circulated various versions of the amendment and spent days trying to strike a deal behind closed doors, in the end he could not overcome public opinion. Wednesday evening, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the DREAM Act would not be brought to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.
The DREAM Act would have granted amnesty to those who had entered the country before they were 16 and had lived here 5 years if they were in the military or school and under the age of 30. However, the age limit did not affect the ability of illegal aliens to receive retroactive benefits if they already met the other criteria of the amnesty program. In addition, illegal aliens who were granted legal status under the program would have been eligible to receive federal financial aid for college tuition and been able to claim residency for purposes of in-state tuition.
Although the DREAM Act stalled as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to make every effort to return the legislation to the floor before the Thanksgiving recess. Reid declared: "We will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here. I'm going to do my utmost to do it by November 16."
The efforts of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other amnesty proponents to amend the DREAM Act onto the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585) were scuttled last week after public outcry threatened to derail the Defense Bill entirely. Over the past two weeks tens of thousands of phone calls, emails and faxes in opposition to the DREAM Act barraged Senate offices, keeping Senator Durbin from finding the 60 votes he needed to proceed with the debate on his amendment. Although the Senator circulated various versions of the amendment and spent days trying to strike a deal behind closed doors, in the end he could not overcome public opinion. Wednesday evening, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the DREAM Act would not be brought to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.
The DREAM Act would have granted amnesty to those who had entered the country before they were 16 and had lived here 5 years if they were in the military or school and under the age of 30. However, the age limit did not affect the ability of illegal aliens to receive retroactive benefits if they already met the other criteria of the amnesty program. In addition, illegal aliens who were granted legal status under the program would have been eligible to receive federal financial aid for college tuition and been able to claim residency for purposes of in-state tuition.
Although the DREAM Act stalled as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to make every effort to return the legislation to the floor before the Thanksgiving recess. Reid declared: "We will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here. I'm going to do my utmost to do it by November 16."
Monday, October 01, 2007
HILLARY AND BILL'S TRUE COLORS UNFOLD ON FOX NEWS
HILLARY AND BILL'S TRUE COLORS UNFOLD ON FOX NEWS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 27, 2007.
Chris Wallace brings out the real Bill and Hillary each time he interviews one of them.
For those who have ever visited Clintonland, it’s sometimes hard to recognize the slickly-scripted, post-White House media personalities of the Clintons: the affable, smiling Hillary seen on the campaign trial or the laid back, take-it-as-it-comes Bill who periodically surfaces for softball interviews.
But every once in a while, there’s a rare moment of clarity. That happened last year when Wallace interviewed the former president. At the end of the interview, Bill lost it. Suddenly the veneer was off, exposing the enraged, snarling, lunging Bill accusing Wallace of “do[ing] his nice little right wing hit job” when he forced Clinton to address his inability to capture or kill bin Laden.
Not a pretty sight.
And Wallace did it again in his recent interview of Hillary. Asked about the extreme partisan politics espoused by her and her husband, the real Hillary challenged Wallace. “Well, Chris, if you'd walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years I'm sure you'd understand."
Hillary preceded her passing moment of reality by a loud, inappropriate and mirthless laugh – a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech. She was quick to follow it with a scripted recitation about how she wants to rise above partisanship. (Of course) But, in between, we saw a fleeting glimpse of the pervasive sense of victimization and self-righteousness that even now underscores the vicious partisanship with which both Clintons play the game of politics.
Amazingly, they seem to genuinely believe that they are still the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that they are alone and under attack despite their manifest virtue and singular desire to do good.
You don’t see this authenticity very often. Hillary’s handlers have taken great pains to teach her the art of concealment, hiding her raw partisanship behind a smile and, when necessary, even a forced laugh. A laugh that’s often too long and too loud.
And so, at the beginning and the end of the Wallace interview, Hillary sounded just like a laughing hyena. Watch the video on FOX News or YouTube. You won’t laugh.
It’s part of the Hillary defense. Just as Hillary’s answers are scripted, so is her "spontaneous" laughter. This is truly learned behavior — laughing — or pretending to laugh at will. Over the past 15 years, she’s perfected the art of responding to people, questions and networks that she doesn’t like. In the past, she would sneer and answer sarcastically, as in, “Maybe I should have stayed home and baked cookies.” But those days are over. Now she smiles constantly and dissolves into a flood of loud giggles. It’s been a big part of her media training.
The mainstream media hasn’t had much to say about the laughing candidate. But can you imagine if Rudy Giuliani responded to a network interviewer by laughing loudly and hysterically for five seconds? No doubt The New York Times would seriously wonder about his state of mind. But they don’t find it odd with Hillary.
It’ll likely be a long time before we see the real Hillary again. So next time you hear her special laugh, think about what it really means.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 27, 2007.
Chris Wallace brings out the real Bill and Hillary each time he interviews one of them.
For those who have ever visited Clintonland, it’s sometimes hard to recognize the slickly-scripted, post-White House media personalities of the Clintons: the affable, smiling Hillary seen on the campaign trial or the laid back, take-it-as-it-comes Bill who periodically surfaces for softball interviews.
But every once in a while, there’s a rare moment of clarity. That happened last year when Wallace interviewed the former president. At the end of the interview, Bill lost it. Suddenly the veneer was off, exposing the enraged, snarling, lunging Bill accusing Wallace of “do[ing] his nice little right wing hit job” when he forced Clinton to address his inability to capture or kill bin Laden.
Not a pretty sight.
And Wallace did it again in his recent interview of Hillary. Asked about the extreme partisan politics espoused by her and her husband, the real Hillary challenged Wallace. “Well, Chris, if you'd walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years I'm sure you'd understand."
Hillary preceded her passing moment of reality by a loud, inappropriate and mirthless laugh – a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech. She was quick to follow it with a scripted recitation about how she wants to rise above partisanship. (Of course) But, in between, we saw a fleeting glimpse of the pervasive sense of victimization and self-righteousness that even now underscores the vicious partisanship with which both Clintons play the game of politics.
Amazingly, they seem to genuinely believe that they are still the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that they are alone and under attack despite their manifest virtue and singular desire to do good.
You don’t see this authenticity very often. Hillary’s handlers have taken great pains to teach her the art of concealment, hiding her raw partisanship behind a smile and, when necessary, even a forced laugh. A laugh that’s often too long and too loud.
And so, at the beginning and the end of the Wallace interview, Hillary sounded just like a laughing hyena. Watch the video on FOX News or YouTube. You won’t laugh.
It’s part of the Hillary defense. Just as Hillary’s answers are scripted, so is her "spontaneous" laughter. This is truly learned behavior — laughing — or pretending to laugh at will. Over the past 15 years, she’s perfected the art of responding to people, questions and networks that she doesn’t like. In the past, she would sneer and answer sarcastically, as in, “Maybe I should have stayed home and baked cookies.” But those days are over. Now she smiles constantly and dissolves into a flood of loud giggles. It’s been a big part of her media training.
The mainstream media hasn’t had much to say about the laughing candidate. But can you imagine if Rudy Giuliani responded to a network interviewer by laughing loudly and hysterically for five seconds? No doubt The New York Times would seriously wonder about his state of mind. But they don’t find it odd with Hillary.
It’ll likely be a long time before we see the real Hillary again. So next time you hear her special laugh, think about what it really means.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
ANSWERING A'JAD: DISINVEST, N.Y.!
ANSWERING A'JAD: DISINVEST, N.Y.!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on September 27, 2007.
Columbia University this week managed to hand a PR victory to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's time for another New York institution - the state Office of the Comptroller - to join the drive to undermine this evil and dangerous regime.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to sign a new law aimed at banning Golden State public pension funds - which includes the two largest ones in America - from investing in companies that are involved in developing Iranian petroleum or natural-gas resources. Florida's public-employee-retirement fund is divesting nearly $1.3 billion invested with 21 companies doing business in Iran or Sudan. (California already hit Sudan's pocketbook last year.) Missouri and Louisiana have similar policies in place.
The blow to Iran's rulers should be huge. The California system alone has assets totaling $350 billion - much of it invested in companies that do business with Iran such as Sieman's, Total, Respol and Shell.
Here in New York, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has total power over the state pension funds. He could add materially to the pressure on Iran simply by the stroke of a pen. City Comptroller William Thompson Jr. could help, by pushing to move Gotham pension funds away from Iranian-investing companies.
City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) is sponsoring a resolution calling on the state and the city to disinvest in companies that do business with Iran. He says that more than $100 billion of the holdings by New York public pension funds are invested directly or indirectly in Iran.
Thompson has sent letters to eight companies that have business ties to Iran, asking them to mitigate "the significant risks that could negatively impact the company's stock price and reputation" by their investments in Iran.
In one of the letters, Thompson warned the Spanish oil giant Respol that its investments in Iran pose "significant risks to the company, and by extension, to our investments and that of other share-owners of the company." DiNapoli also signed the letter, as did officials of the Illinois, North Carolina and California pension systems.
DiNapoli should take the further step of disinvesting in Iran, as California and Florida have done.
Eighty-five percent of Iranian government revenues come from the energy industry - a total of $55 billion in 2006. Already, falling oil production (down by a third since the 1979 revolution) and rising domestic demand will cut government energy revenues by an estimated 20 percent over the coming year.
Less government revenues mean reductions in subsidies to the restive Iranian population. Gasoline, for example, may no longer sell for 35 cents a gallon in Tehran if the government runs into financial difficulty.
The Iranian regime is increasingly unpopular, with stories circulating of clerics afraid to go out in public in their religious attire for fear of being attacked. Financial pressure on the government can be the key element in forcing a change of course. Disinvestment, after all, helped forced South Africa to abandon apartheid.
With its large Jewish population, one would expect New York to take the lead in cutting off funding to a government that denies that the Holocaust ever happened. The state that took the biggest blow on 9/11 should also join campaign against a terror-sponsoring government that's developing nuclear weapons.
A spokesman for DiNapoli says that his office is "studying" the issue of disinvestment in Iran - and notes that they've already moved on Sudan, and co-signed the "warning" letters like the one quoted above to Respol.
DiNapoli's office also said that the comptroller "has a fiduciary duty to retirees to get the best possible return on pension investments" and fears lawsuits by retirees or unions should he disinvest - and that "we want to do what's right, not what is political."
What could be more right than slowing Iran down in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons?
wwww.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on September 27, 2007.
Columbia University this week managed to hand a PR victory to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's time for another New York institution - the state Office of the Comptroller - to join the drive to undermine this evil and dangerous regime.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to sign a new law aimed at banning Golden State public pension funds - which includes the two largest ones in America - from investing in companies that are involved in developing Iranian petroleum or natural-gas resources. Florida's public-employee-retirement fund is divesting nearly $1.3 billion invested with 21 companies doing business in Iran or Sudan. (California already hit Sudan's pocketbook last year.) Missouri and Louisiana have similar policies in place.
The blow to Iran's rulers should be huge. The California system alone has assets totaling $350 billion - much of it invested in companies that do business with Iran such as Sieman's, Total, Respol and Shell.
Here in New York, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has total power over the state pension funds. He could add materially to the pressure on Iran simply by the stroke of a pen. City Comptroller William Thompson Jr. could help, by pushing to move Gotham pension funds away from Iranian-investing companies.
City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) is sponsoring a resolution calling on the state and the city to disinvest in companies that do business with Iran. He says that more than $100 billion of the holdings by New York public pension funds are invested directly or indirectly in Iran.
Thompson has sent letters to eight companies that have business ties to Iran, asking them to mitigate "the significant risks that could negatively impact the company's stock price and reputation" by their investments in Iran.
In one of the letters, Thompson warned the Spanish oil giant Respol that its investments in Iran pose "significant risks to the company, and by extension, to our investments and that of other share-owners of the company." DiNapoli also signed the letter, as did officials of the Illinois, North Carolina and California pension systems.
DiNapoli should take the further step of disinvesting in Iran, as California and Florida have done.
Eighty-five percent of Iranian government revenues come from the energy industry - a total of $55 billion in 2006. Already, falling oil production (down by a third since the 1979 revolution) and rising domestic demand will cut government energy revenues by an estimated 20 percent over the coming year.
Less government revenues mean reductions in subsidies to the restive Iranian population. Gasoline, for example, may no longer sell for 35 cents a gallon in Tehran if the government runs into financial difficulty.
The Iranian regime is increasingly unpopular, with stories circulating of clerics afraid to go out in public in their religious attire for fear of being attacked. Financial pressure on the government can be the key element in forcing a change of course. Disinvestment, after all, helped forced South Africa to abandon apartheid.
With its large Jewish population, one would expect New York to take the lead in cutting off funding to a government that denies that the Holocaust ever happened. The state that took the biggest blow on 9/11 should also join campaign against a terror-sponsoring government that's developing nuclear weapons.
A spokesman for DiNapoli says that his office is "studying" the issue of disinvestment in Iran - and notes that they've already moved on Sudan, and co-signed the "warning" letters like the one quoted above to Respol.
DiNapoli's office also said that the comptroller "has a fiduciary duty to retirees to get the best possible return on pension investments" and fears lawsuits by retirees or unions should he disinvest - and that "we want to do what's right, not what is political."
What could be more right than slowing Iran down in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons?
wwww.mccainalert.com
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
Publish Date: October 2, 2007. NewsMax will have among the first copies — order your copy now!
Ann Coulter is the most reviled conservative pundit alive — as far as the liberal establishment sees it.
Presidential candidate John Edwards calls her a "she devil."
A major media magazine is attempting to get her nationally syndicated column canceled at newspapers across the country.
Why is Ann Coulter so hated and so feared?
You will find out in Ann's latest blockbuster: If Democrats had any Brains, they’d be Republicans.
With the political season red-hot, Ann's book takes on the big targets: Hillary Clinton, Obama, the liberal media and much, much more.
ln If Democrats Had Any Brains you will enjoy Ann's razor-sharp wit and refreshing candor.
This new book offers the definitive collection of Coulterisms — an incisive, often hilarious, and always entertaining compendium of Coulter’s best, funniest, most devastating, and, yes, most outrageous quotations.
Included here are hundreds of quotations never before published — from her speeches, television and radio appearances, and interviews.
Commenting on everything from Democrats to dating, environmentalism to evolution, religion to Reagan, terrorism to television, Ann Coulter is both wicked and wickedly insightful.
Ann Coulter is an conservative columnist and political commentator, and a best-selling author. Coulter has written five New York Times best seller books.
Publish Date: October 2, 2007. NewsMax will have among the first copies — order your copy now!
Ann Coulter is the most reviled conservative pundit alive — as far as the liberal establishment sees it.
Presidential candidate John Edwards calls her a "she devil."
A major media magazine is attempting to get her nationally syndicated column canceled at newspapers across the country.
Why is Ann Coulter so hated and so feared?
You will find out in Ann's latest blockbuster: If Democrats had any Brains, they’d be Republicans.
With the political season red-hot, Ann's book takes on the big targets: Hillary Clinton, Obama, the liberal media and much, much more.
ln If Democrats Had Any Brains you will enjoy Ann's razor-sharp wit and refreshing candor.
This new book offers the definitive collection of Coulterisms — an incisive, often hilarious, and always entertaining compendium of Coulter’s best, funniest, most devastating, and, yes, most outrageous quotations.
Included here are hundreds of quotations never before published — from her speeches, television and radio appearances, and interviews.
Commenting on everything from Democrats to dating, environmentalism to evolution, religion to Reagan, terrorism to television, Ann Coulter is both wicked and wickedly insightful.
Ann Coulter is an conservative columnist and political commentator, and a best-selling author. Coulter has written five New York Times best seller books.
DINNER WITH HILLARY: TALKING POINTS FOR THE NEXT ROUND
DINNER WITH HILLARY: TALKING POINTS FOR THE NEXT ROUND
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 26, 2007.
Even for her, Hillary Clinton showed tremendous skill at batting aside questions asked of her on the Sunday shows this past weekend and giving, instead, her standard talking points. Pinning this lady down is admittedly not easy. Two of the best interviewers on political TV — Chris Wallace and Tim Russert — asked tough questions but got scripted and memorized retorts for their pains. But here are some questions (along with follow-ups) that I suggest they ask during the next round of Sunday shows — if she ever goes back on the circuit.
• Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?
• After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?
(As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn’t you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?
• Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay. In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn’t you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?
• You base your healthcare proposal on the need to cover 47 million “uninsured Americans.” Since about a third of them are illegal immigrants and another third are eligible for Medicaid right now and just don’t apply for it, aren’t you overstating the problem?
(As a follow-up to No. 4) In 2005 you co-sponsored legislation to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years. In other words, their children would get subsidized healthcare under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a reward for dodging the cops for five years. Do you still support that proposal?
• You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?
• In Arkansas, you achieved fame by urging mandatory testing for teachers and demanded that those who failed the competency tests be dismissed. You and your husband did this and implemented this policy. As a result, he was denied the endorsement by the Arkansas Teachers Union during his time as governor. Do you still support your proposal of 1983 and 1984 for mandatory teacher competency tests for current teachers — not just for new ones?
• In Arkansas, you pioneered the idea of testing students to ascertain their progress and holding schools accountable for any shortcomings in their test scores. Now California Democratic Congressman George Miller, chairman of the House Education Committee, wants to change the No Child Left Behind Act to substitute graduation rates for test scores as the measure of a school’s performance. Opponents say this is injecting a non-objective standard and undercuts the whole purpose of the legislation. Do you support Miller’s proposal?
There’s more, but we’ve run out of time! I hope that the journalists who next have Clinton in their sights read this column, take notes and act on it. The answers to these questions would be nice to have before we elect her president.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 26, 2007.
Even for her, Hillary Clinton showed tremendous skill at batting aside questions asked of her on the Sunday shows this past weekend and giving, instead, her standard talking points. Pinning this lady down is admittedly not easy. Two of the best interviewers on political TV — Chris Wallace and Tim Russert — asked tough questions but got scripted and memorized retorts for their pains. But here are some questions (along with follow-ups) that I suggest they ask during the next round of Sunday shows — if she ever goes back on the circuit.
• Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?
• After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?
(As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn’t you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?
• Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay. In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn’t you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?
• You base your healthcare proposal on the need to cover 47 million “uninsured Americans.” Since about a third of them are illegal immigrants and another third are eligible for Medicaid right now and just don’t apply for it, aren’t you overstating the problem?
(As a follow-up to No. 4) In 2005 you co-sponsored legislation to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years. In other words, their children would get subsidized healthcare under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a reward for dodging the cops for five years. Do you still support that proposal?
• You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?
• In Arkansas, you achieved fame by urging mandatory testing for teachers and demanded that those who failed the competency tests be dismissed. You and your husband did this and implemented this policy. As a result, he was denied the endorsement by the Arkansas Teachers Union during his time as governor. Do you still support your proposal of 1983 and 1984 for mandatory teacher competency tests for current teachers — not just for new ones?
• In Arkansas, you pioneered the idea of testing students to ascertain their progress and holding schools accountable for any shortcomings in their test scores. Now California Democratic Congressman George Miller, chairman of the House Education Committee, wants to change the No Child Left Behind Act to substitute graduation rates for test scores as the measure of a school’s performance. Opponents say this is injecting a non-objective standard and undercuts the whole purpose of the legislation. Do you support Miller’s proposal?
There’s more, but we’ve run out of time! I hope that the journalists who next have Clinton in their sights read this column, take notes and act on it. The answers to these questions would be nice to have before we elect her president.
Democrats Should Stand Up To Moveon.org
Democrats Should Stand Up To Moveon.org
Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls Sunday for failing to apologize for the controversial MoveOn.org advertisement that referred to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
"Now, they acknowledge that [Petraeus] is an honorable and fine military man, but they refuse to repudiate MoveOn.org," McCain said of the Democrats. "And as you say, if you can't stand up to them, how can you stand up to the tough challenges that are presented to you as President of the United States? I don't know the answer to that."
The Arizona Senator was responding to a question from a military veteran in the crowd at a campaign stop here, who asked McCain how the Democratic candidates will have the courage to stand up to challenges they face in the White House if they can't stand up to MoveOn.org.
By Peter Hamby, CNN
September 17, 2007
Article Excerpt
Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls Sunday for failing to apologize for the controversial MoveOn.org advertisement that referred to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
"Now, they acknowledge that [Petraeus] is an honorable and fine military man, but they refuse to repudiate MoveOn.org," McCain said of the Democrats. "And as you say, if you can't stand up to them, how can you stand up to the tough challenges that are presented to you as President of the United States? I don't know the answer to that."
The Arizona Senator was responding to a question from a military veteran in the crowd at a campaign stop here, who asked McCain how the Democratic candidates will have the courage to stand up to challenges they face in the White House if they can't stand up to MoveOn.org.
By Peter Hamby, CNN
September 17, 2007
Article Excerpt
Leaving Iraq Would Lead To Chaos, McCain Says
Leaving Iraq Would Lead To Chaos, McCain Says
Article Excerpt
With another Senate debate looming this week on a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, Arizona Sen. John McCain said abandoning that country would lead to chaos and a period of national suffering at the hands of "evil, evil people."
Midway through his three-day "No Surrender" tour, McCain focused his brief remarks on Iraq in a packed VFW hall here, scarcely mentioning his Republican presidential candidacy.
"The strategy is succeeding," but hasn't had enough time to develop, McCain said of President Bush's troop surge.
"A date for withdrawal, I view as a date for surrender, that we would choose to lose. I don't believe we should choose to lose," he said.
McCain said that Democratic critics have "lost sight of a fundamental fact, that presidents don't lose wars and political parties don't lose wars, but nations lose wars and when nations lose wars, nations suffer."
Precipitous withdrawal, he said, would create chaos "that almost certainly would require us to come back" when Iran almost certainly moves to fill the void.
Islamic extremists are "evil, evil people ... dedicated to the destruction of everything we stand for and believe in," McCain said.
In heavily Baptist South Carolina, McCain told reporters that despite having long been identified as an Episcopalian, he has been a Baptist for some time.
By Dan Hoover, Greenville News September 17, 2007
www.mccainalert.com
Article Excerpt
With another Senate debate looming this week on a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, Arizona Sen. John McCain said abandoning that country would lead to chaos and a period of national suffering at the hands of "evil, evil people."
Midway through his three-day "No Surrender" tour, McCain focused his brief remarks on Iraq in a packed VFW hall here, scarcely mentioning his Republican presidential candidacy.
"The strategy is succeeding," but hasn't had enough time to develop, McCain said of President Bush's troop surge.
"A date for withdrawal, I view as a date for surrender, that we would choose to lose. I don't believe we should choose to lose," he said.
McCain said that Democratic critics have "lost sight of a fundamental fact, that presidents don't lose wars and political parties don't lose wars, but nations lose wars and when nations lose wars, nations suffer."
Precipitous withdrawal, he said, would create chaos "that almost certainly would require us to come back" when Iran almost certainly moves to fill the void.
Islamic extremists are "evil, evil people ... dedicated to the destruction of everything we stand for and believe in," McCain said.
In heavily Baptist South Carolina, McCain told reporters that despite having long been identified as an Episcopalian, he has been a Baptist for some time.
By Dan Hoover, Greenville News September 17, 2007
www.mccainalert.com
Dream Act Defeated, for Now
Dream Act Defeated, for Now
Grassfire.org Alliance From the Desk of Steve Elliott
ed,
I want to thank everyone who invested their time and financial
resources to take a strong stand against the Senate's
nightmarish "Dream Act" amnesty push!
Last night Dick Durbin (D-IL), the measure's chief Senate
sponsor stated that attempts to attach the Dream Act to
the defense authorization bill had failed. "I am disappointed
for thousands of young people whose lives are just in limbo."
But even in defeat, the arrogance of amnesty Democrats was
clearly evident. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, bristling
over the defeat, said the battle is "still on" promising
passage this Fall!
Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council
of La Raza added, "There is no question that this issue doesn't
stop here."
Click here for more:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/17948/?src=111
++ Grassroots Answers the Call
ed, turnout to defeat this latest attempt by open border
lawmakers was unprecedented, and spectacular! Dianne Feinstein,
a strong supporter of the bill reported receiving more than
4,000 phone calls since September 13. A spokesman for her
office reported that while 239 calls were in favor of the bill,
3,805 were opposed!
And that doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands of faxes
that literally poured into every Senate office on Capitol Hill
over these last few weeks!
Once again the arrogance of our leadership underestimated the
strength and power of the people--the citizens of the U.S, who
once again demanded enforcement of our existing laws, the
building of the fence and absolutely NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS!
Simply stated, without your efforts, Durbin and his open-border
cohorts would already be celebrating the bill’s passage with
amnesty special interests.
But, as in the past, we cannot rest on our laurels. Instead we
must remain vigilant for the next deceptive amnesty charge.
In fact, Harry Reid probably did us all a favor by promising
it would be coming again in the Fall.
ed, thanks for standing with Grassfire. I know that when
we sound the next alarm, I will be able to count on you!
Again, thank you so much for your passionate efforts to secure
our border and protect our sovereignty!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S: Just yesterday, the House passed a measure for illegal
aliens to gain access to additional taxpayer funded benefits,
including healthcare. Our staff has compiled an exclusive
backgrounder for our team. Click here to access the report:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/17956/?src=111
Grassfire.org Alliance From the Desk of Steve Elliott
ed,
I want to thank everyone who invested their time and financial
resources to take a strong stand against the Senate's
nightmarish "Dream Act" amnesty push!
Last night Dick Durbin (D-IL), the measure's chief Senate
sponsor stated that attempts to attach the Dream Act to
the defense authorization bill had failed. "I am disappointed
for thousands of young people whose lives are just in limbo."
But even in defeat, the arrogance of amnesty Democrats was
clearly evident. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, bristling
over the defeat, said the battle is "still on" promising
passage this Fall!
Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council
of La Raza added, "There is no question that this issue doesn't
stop here."
Click here for more:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/17948/?src=111
++ Grassroots Answers the Call
ed, turnout to defeat this latest attempt by open border
lawmakers was unprecedented, and spectacular! Dianne Feinstein,
a strong supporter of the bill reported receiving more than
4,000 phone calls since September 13. A spokesman for her
office reported that while 239 calls were in favor of the bill,
3,805 were opposed!
And that doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands of faxes
that literally poured into every Senate office on Capitol Hill
over these last few weeks!
Once again the arrogance of our leadership underestimated the
strength and power of the people--the citizens of the U.S, who
once again demanded enforcement of our existing laws, the
building of the fence and absolutely NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS!
Simply stated, without your efforts, Durbin and his open-border
cohorts would already be celebrating the bill’s passage with
amnesty special interests.
But, as in the past, we cannot rest on our laurels. Instead we
must remain vigilant for the next deceptive amnesty charge.
In fact, Harry Reid probably did us all a favor by promising
it would be coming again in the Fall.
ed, thanks for standing with Grassfire. I know that when
we sound the next alarm, I will be able to count on you!
Again, thank you so much for your passionate efforts to secure
our border and protect our sovereignty!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S: Just yesterday, the House passed a measure for illegal
aliens to gain access to additional taxpayer funded benefits,
including healthcare. Our staff has compiled an exclusive
backgrounder for our team. Click here to access the report:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/17956/?src=111
Update from U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Update from U.S. Senator John Cornyn September 2007
This month, Gen. David Petraeus provided Congress an objective, no-nonsense assessment on Iraq. His report made it clear that the surge is working, and we’re making significant progress. Total attacks and civilian casualties have decreased and Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar have revolted against al Qaeda. As a result, some American troops are now expected to begin returning home later this year. Our ground mission in Iraq is not open-ended, but our commitment to our national security must be.
The Senate later approved an amendment I introduced reaffirming our “support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus,” and repudiating “the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.” This underscores an important precedent adhered to by previous generations of leaders in both political parties: efforts to impugn the integrity of our commanders and troops in the field during war time—in pursuit of partisan political purposes—should be rejected.
I’ve been working to see that a Defense Authorization bill, setting funding levels for important Texas military and national defense programs, is passed without unrelated amendments. I joined hundreds of veterans last week who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—Vets for Freedom—including several from Texas, and Gold and Blue Star families in support of the troops. It’s great to see grassroots support for maintaining our fight against Islamic terrorists abroad, so that Americans can remain safe at home.
We’ve also made progress in fulfilling our moral obligation to provide troops and veterans the care and benefits they need and deserve.
Earlier this month, I participated in an event marking the 75th anniversary of the Waco VA Medical Center, which provides quality care to Central Texas veterans.
I also was part of the groundbreaking ceremony in San Antonio for a new recovery center for troops and their families that will help them make a smooth transition to civilian life.
I introduced a successful amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that helps ensure federal support for the needed expansion of Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood.
With Sen. Hutchison, I applaud the news that the VA will build a new $67 million Level One Polytrauma Facility in San Antonio, and that veterans will soon have expanded clinic and outpatient hospital care in the Rio Grande Valley. This is an important initial step toward ensuring South Texas veterans have access to the health care they deserve.
I joined Sen. Hutchison this month in passing legislation banning new tolls on existing lanes of interstate highways in our state. Texans whose federal tax dollars have already paid for these roads should not face double taxation through tolls. We also gained approval for an anti-gang bill I co-sponsored that will establish tougher penalties and provide support for local gang enforcement and prevention programs.
Polls show the American public is not pleased with the performance of Congress, and I understand the frustration. We are ending the 2007 fiscal year next week without having passed a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills. And some of my colleagues are attempting to load up the Defense Authorization bill with measures that have little to do with our national security. I will continue working to ensure that Congress pays close attention to our national priorities, and avoids unnecessary partisan fighting that has diverted us so often earlier this year.
For more information on these and other topics, go directly to my Web site. To receive additional updates, please select the issues that interest you listed on the right. It’s an honor to serve you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
This month, Gen. David Petraeus provided Congress an objective, no-nonsense assessment on Iraq. His report made it clear that the surge is working, and we’re making significant progress. Total attacks and civilian casualties have decreased and Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar have revolted against al Qaeda. As a result, some American troops are now expected to begin returning home later this year. Our ground mission in Iraq is not open-ended, but our commitment to our national security must be.
The Senate later approved an amendment I introduced reaffirming our “support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus,” and repudiating “the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.” This underscores an important precedent adhered to by previous generations of leaders in both political parties: efforts to impugn the integrity of our commanders and troops in the field during war time—in pursuit of partisan political purposes—should be rejected.
I’ve been working to see that a Defense Authorization bill, setting funding levels for important Texas military and national defense programs, is passed without unrelated amendments. I joined hundreds of veterans last week who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—Vets for Freedom—including several from Texas, and Gold and Blue Star families in support of the troops. It’s great to see grassroots support for maintaining our fight against Islamic terrorists abroad, so that Americans can remain safe at home.
We’ve also made progress in fulfilling our moral obligation to provide troops and veterans the care and benefits they need and deserve.
Earlier this month, I participated in an event marking the 75th anniversary of the Waco VA Medical Center, which provides quality care to Central Texas veterans.
I also was part of the groundbreaking ceremony in San Antonio for a new recovery center for troops and their families that will help them make a smooth transition to civilian life.
I introduced a successful amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that helps ensure federal support for the needed expansion of Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood.
With Sen. Hutchison, I applaud the news that the VA will build a new $67 million Level One Polytrauma Facility in San Antonio, and that veterans will soon have expanded clinic and outpatient hospital care in the Rio Grande Valley. This is an important initial step toward ensuring South Texas veterans have access to the health care they deserve.
I joined Sen. Hutchison this month in passing legislation banning new tolls on existing lanes of interstate highways in our state. Texans whose federal tax dollars have already paid for these roads should not face double taxation through tolls. We also gained approval for an anti-gang bill I co-sponsored that will establish tougher penalties and provide support for local gang enforcement and prevention programs.
Polls show the American public is not pleased with the performance of Congress, and I understand the frustration. We are ending the 2007 fiscal year next week without having passed a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills. And some of my colleagues are attempting to load up the Defense Authorization bill with measures that have little to do with our national security. I will continue working to ensure that Congress pays close attention to our national priorities, and avoids unnecessary partisan fighting that has diverted us so often earlier this year.
For more information on these and other topics, go directly to my Web site. To receive additional updates, please select the issues that interest you listed on the right. It’s an honor to serve you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Friday, September 28, 2007
Cops Hunt Suspect in Texas Student's Burning Death;
Cops Hunt Suspect in Texas Student's Burning Death; Another Arrested for Tampering With Evidence
Friday , September 28, 2007
Police said anyone with information on the whereabouts of Reyes should call 972-466-4775.
CARROLLTON, Texas —
A 19-year-old man was arrested Thursday on suspicion of tampering with evidence, as authorities continued their manhunt for a suspect in the death and subsequent burning of a University of North Texas sophomore.
Donovan R. Young was arrested Thursday night, according to Carrollton, Tex, police Sgt. John Singleton. "They do not believe that he was involved in the murder at this time," Singleton said.
Police have issued a murder warrant for the arrest of Ernesto Pina Reyes, a 20-year-old resident alien living in Denton, Texas, in connection with the death of Melanie Goodwin. Reyes remains at large.
Surveillance video from a business near where the charred remains of Goodwin, 19, were found this week shows a man dragging a body from a car and igniting a fire, according to an affidavit released Thursday by Carrollton police. Investigators believe the man in the video is Reyes.
Police were not releasing the video. Singleton, a police spokesman, said they considered it important evidence in Goodwin's death.
In the video, a car matching Goodwin's pulls into the parking lot of electronic payment business TransTech Merchant Group around 4 a.m. Tuesday. A stocky man parks the vehicle and pulls a body from it to the spot where Goodwin's remains were found later in the day. The man then lights a fire, according to the affidavit.
Goodwin's burnt body was found Tuesday and an autopsy revealed she died of blunt force trauma.
She was last seen at a Denton convenience store near UNT around 1:45 a.m. Tuesday. Another surveillance video showed her talking to a man with stocky build, wearing similar clothes as the man later seen in the Carrollton video.
A salesclerk remembers the man asked a woman matching Goodwin's description for a ride. Investigators say the clerk remembers the two left the store together, the affidavit said.
Before leaving, the man made and received phone calls from the convenience store's phone. Those were traced to a woman who identified the man as Reyes, her boyfriend. The woman said she saw Reyes Tuesday evening and noticed burns on his forearms and singed hair, authorities said.
Authorities don't believe Goodwin and Reyes knew each other. They haven't ruled out an abduction in her case, since it's unclear what happened in the parking lot of the convenience store, Singleton said.
Goodwin was a 2006 graduate of Bowie High School in Arlington and had appeared in school and community theatrical productions. She was majoring in radio-television-film at North Texas.
Police said anyone with information on the whereabouts of Reyes should call 972-466-4775.
Friday , September 28, 2007
Police said anyone with information on the whereabouts of Reyes should call 972-466-4775.
CARROLLTON, Texas —
A 19-year-old man was arrested Thursday on suspicion of tampering with evidence, as authorities continued their manhunt for a suspect in the death and subsequent burning of a University of North Texas sophomore.
Donovan R. Young was arrested Thursday night, according to Carrollton, Tex, police Sgt. John Singleton. "They do not believe that he was involved in the murder at this time," Singleton said.
Police have issued a murder warrant for the arrest of Ernesto Pina Reyes, a 20-year-old resident alien living in Denton, Texas, in connection with the death of Melanie Goodwin. Reyes remains at large.
Surveillance video from a business near where the charred remains of Goodwin, 19, were found this week shows a man dragging a body from a car and igniting a fire, according to an affidavit released Thursday by Carrollton police. Investigators believe the man in the video is Reyes.
Police were not releasing the video. Singleton, a police spokesman, said they considered it important evidence in Goodwin's death.
In the video, a car matching Goodwin's pulls into the parking lot of electronic payment business TransTech Merchant Group around 4 a.m. Tuesday. A stocky man parks the vehicle and pulls a body from it to the spot where Goodwin's remains were found later in the day. The man then lights a fire, according to the affidavit.
Goodwin's burnt body was found Tuesday and an autopsy revealed she died of blunt force trauma.
She was last seen at a Denton convenience store near UNT around 1:45 a.m. Tuesday. Another surveillance video showed her talking to a man with stocky build, wearing similar clothes as the man later seen in the Carrollton video.
A salesclerk remembers the man asked a woman matching Goodwin's description for a ride. Investigators say the clerk remembers the two left the store together, the affidavit said.
Before leaving, the man made and received phone calls from the convenience store's phone. Those were traced to a woman who identified the man as Reyes, her boyfriend. The woman said she saw Reyes Tuesday evening and noticed burns on his forearms and singed hair, authorities said.
Authorities don't believe Goodwin and Reyes knew each other. They haven't ruled out an abduction in her case, since it's unclear what happened in the parking lot of the convenience store, Singleton said.
Goodwin was a 2006 graduate of Bowie High School in Arlington and had appeared in school and community theatrical productions. She was majoring in radio-television-film at North Texas.
Police said anyone with information on the whereabouts of Reyes should call 972-466-4775.
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO? congressional approval
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO?
New poll shows Dem Congress at record low
Phoenix, AZ – “Just when you thought congressional approval ratings had hit rock bottom, the Democrats have proved otherwise and brought the U.S. Congress even lower to 11%,” said Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. “I think the question on everybody’s minds now is: ‘How low can they go?’.”
Pullen’s comments came after he learned that the newest Zogby/ Reuters poll of likely voters showed the Democrat controlled Congress achieving a mere 11% approval rating.
“Maybe the Democrats wouldn’t have such a low approval rating if Gabrielle Giffords hadn’t supported the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Or maybe the Democrats wouldn’t be so low if Harry Mitchell hadn’t voted against full funding of the border fence as mandated by Congress,” said Pullen.
Pullen continued, “Maybe their approval ratings wouldn’t be so low if Giffords hadn’t voted for the Democrat bill that tied spending for our troops with billions of dollars in Democrat pork. Maybe they would have better numbers if Mitchell didn’t vote to cut seniors’ Medicare, increase taxes on private health insurance, and open the door to taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens. Or maybe if Giffords hadn’t voted to strip American workers of their right to a secret ballot for union organizing elections and if Mitchell didn’t help “steal” a vote on the House floor, allowing benefits for illegal aliens, they might have better numbers.
“Americans want and deserve a Congress that will effectively represent the interests of American citizens. So far, the only interests that the Democrats have represented are there own,” concluded Pullen.
New poll shows Dem Congress at record low
Phoenix, AZ – “Just when you thought congressional approval ratings had hit rock bottom, the Democrats have proved otherwise and brought the U.S. Congress even lower to 11%,” said Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. “I think the question on everybody’s minds now is: ‘How low can they go?’.”
Pullen’s comments came after he learned that the newest Zogby/ Reuters poll of likely voters showed the Democrat controlled Congress achieving a mere 11% approval rating.
“Maybe the Democrats wouldn’t have such a low approval rating if Gabrielle Giffords hadn’t supported the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Or maybe the Democrats wouldn’t be so low if Harry Mitchell hadn’t voted against full funding of the border fence as mandated by Congress,” said Pullen.
Pullen continued, “Maybe their approval ratings wouldn’t be so low if Giffords hadn’t voted for the Democrat bill that tied spending for our troops with billions of dollars in Democrat pork. Maybe they would have better numbers if Mitchell didn’t vote to cut seniors’ Medicare, increase taxes on private health insurance, and open the door to taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens. Or maybe if Giffords hadn’t voted to strip American workers of their right to a secret ballot for union organizing elections and if Mitchell didn’t help “steal” a vote on the House floor, allowing benefits for illegal aliens, they might have better numbers.
“Americans want and deserve a Congress that will effectively represent the interests of American citizens. So far, the only interests that the Democrats have represented are there own,” concluded Pullen.
Free Happy Hour Networking Event
UPCOMING EVENTS:
www.RepublicanProfessionals.org
Free Happy Hour Networking Event
When? Thursday, October 4th at 6:00 PM
Where? 6 Lounge: 7316 E. Stetson Dr. Scottsdale, AZ
Who can attend? All Professionals (free admission)
Who will be speaking? J.D. Hayworth, Radio Personality and Former U.S. Congressman
Randy Pullen, Arizona Republican Party Chairman
CLICK HERE to view the evite and RSVP
The purpose of the Republican Professionals networking events is to link together like minded professionals into a monthly happy hour where they can network, socialize, synergize, and hear directly from their local and statewide Republican leaders. The Republican Professionals Association was started in Phoenix, Arizona and has already spread to other cities.
For more information on this event, please email info@RepublicanProfessionals.org
www.RepublicanProfessionals.org
Free Happy Hour Networking Event
When? Thursday, October 4th at 6:00 PM
Where? 6 Lounge: 7316 E. Stetson Dr. Scottsdale, AZ
Who can attend? All Professionals (free admission)
Who will be speaking? J.D. Hayworth, Radio Personality and Former U.S. Congressman
Randy Pullen, Arizona Republican Party Chairman
CLICK HERE to view the evite and RSVP
The purpose of the Republican Professionals networking events is to link together like minded professionals into a monthly happy hour where they can network, socialize, synergize, and hear directly from their local and statewide Republican leaders. The Republican Professionals Association was started in Phoenix, Arizona and has already spread to other cities.
For more information on this event, please email info@RepublicanProfessionals.org
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Thompson calls for stop to Iranian leader's visit
Thompson calls for stop to Iranian leader's visit
11:10 PM CDT on Thursday, September 20, 2007
By GROMER JEFFERS Jr. / The Dallas Morning News
gjeffers@dallasnews.com
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Thursday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be allowed into the country, much less at the World Trade Center site, when he travels to New York next week to address the United Nations.
"I know there would be ramifications in the United Nations" if the U.S. refused to let Mr. Ahmadinejad into the country, Mr. Thompson said during a brief news conference at Dallas Love Field. "I would deny this character a visa. What's he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own activities? I wouldn't let him in the country."
Mr. Thompson said the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly.
"They've been killing Americans here and there all over the world for some time," he said. "They're doing so in Iraq today."
On Thursday, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he would not allow Mr. Ahmadinejad anywhere near Ground Zero. The chance of a diplomatic showdown appeared to lessen when Mr. Ahmadinejad said he would abide by the decision.
But before the decision was announced, Mr. Thompson said a visit to the site by the Iranian would be a very bad idea.
"It's an insult to the America people and the civilized world," Mr. Thompson said. "He should not be allowed within miles of Ground Zero. In fact he shouldn't be allowed in the United States of America."
Mr. Thompson said he would "ratchet up" sanctions against Iran and help Iranians overthrow their government.
Mr. Thompson was in Dallas for a fundraiser, the end of a two-day Texas tour.
11:10 PM CDT on Thursday, September 20, 2007
By GROMER JEFFERS Jr. / The Dallas Morning News
gjeffers@dallasnews.com
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Thursday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be allowed into the country, much less at the World Trade Center site, when he travels to New York next week to address the United Nations.
"I know there would be ramifications in the United Nations" if the U.S. refused to let Mr. Ahmadinejad into the country, Mr. Thompson said during a brief news conference at Dallas Love Field. "I would deny this character a visa. What's he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own activities? I wouldn't let him in the country."
Mr. Thompson said the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly.
"They've been killing Americans here and there all over the world for some time," he said. "They're doing so in Iraq today."
On Thursday, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he would not allow Mr. Ahmadinejad anywhere near Ground Zero. The chance of a diplomatic showdown appeared to lessen when Mr. Ahmadinejad said he would abide by the decision.
But before the decision was announced, Mr. Thompson said a visit to the site by the Iranian would be a very bad idea.
"It's an insult to the America people and the civilized world," Mr. Thompson said. "He should not be allowed within miles of Ground Zero. In fact he shouldn't be allowed in the United States of America."
Mr. Thompson said he would "ratchet up" sanctions against Iran and help Iranians overthrow their government.
Mr. Thompson was in Dallas for a fundraiser, the end of a two-day Texas tour.
Fred Thompson toured Dell on Wednesday.
Another presidential hopeful made his way to Austin this week. Former Tennessee Sen. and Law & Order actor Fred Thompson toured Dell on Wednesday.
The computer company has invited all the presidential candidates to visit one of their plants, but so far, only Thompson has accepted the invitation.
Dell officials said they want to let politicians know of needed changes in patent and tax laws in order for companies to keep manufacturing in the United States.
Thompson agrees.
"What we might do in terms of policies in this country, tax policies and things like that, to make it easier for companies to keep their business here," said Thompson.
When Thompson went to the Driscoll for a reception later, he didn't receive as many warm welcomes.
Ron Paul supporters protested outside, saying Thompson's voting record goes against freedom.
The computer company has invited all the presidential candidates to visit one of their plants, but so far, only Thompson has accepted the invitation.
Dell officials said they want to let politicians know of needed changes in patent and tax laws in order for companies to keep manufacturing in the United States.
Thompson agrees.
"What we might do in terms of policies in this country, tax policies and things like that, to make it easier for companies to keep their business here," said Thompson.
When Thompson went to the Driscoll for a reception later, he didn't receive as many warm welcomes.
Ron Paul supporters protested outside, saying Thompson's voting record goes against freedom.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
PHOENIX Officer Shooting Suspect Deported Last Year
PHOENIX Officer Shooting Suspect Deported Last Year
Officer Dies Of Gunshot Wound; Police Shoot, Kill Suspect
PHOENIX -- The man suspected of killing a Phoenix police officer Tuesday was an illegal immigrant who had been deported last year, immigration officials said.
Erik Jovani Martinez, 22, was deported to Mexico on March 3, 2006 after he was convicted on a theft charge, according an Immigration Services spokesman.
Phoenix police shot and killed Martinez, who was suspected of shooting
and killing an officer, carjacking a vehicle and taking a man hostage.
IMAGES: Officer Killed; Suspect Dead In Carjacking Confrontation
"It is an unfortunate situation I have to inform you that the City of
Phoenix has suffered another tragedy," said Mike Frazier, assistant police chief.
"We lost an officer who was killed in the line of duty," Frazier said.
VIDEO: Acting Phoenix Police Chief Mike Frazier Announces Officer's Death
Police said two officers, Nick Erfle and Rob Rodarme, stopped two women and a man who were jaywalking near 24th Street and Thomas Road around 8:30 a.m.
Police said the officers asked the three for identification and learned
the man, who identified himself as 24-year-old Anthony Sanchez, had a misdemeanor warrant out for his arrest. Phoenix police Sgt. Joel Tranter later
said Anthony Sanchez was one of many aliases used by Martinez, who was wanted in Tucson on a shoplifting charge.
Tranter said Martinez gave an alias because he was trying to conceal a felony warrant out for his arrest. The warrant was filed in Maricopa Superior
Court and was for aggravated assault.
Erfle walked back to Martinez and began to arrest him, Tranter said. Rodarme was nearby with the two women.
A physical confrontation quickly ensued and Martinez pulled a handgun
and fired multiple shots, Tranter said. One of them struck Erfle.
see more at http://www.kpho.com/news/14141284/detail.html
.
.
Officer Dies Of Gunshot Wound; Police Shoot, Kill Suspect
PHOENIX -- The man suspected of killing a Phoenix police officer Tuesday was an illegal immigrant who had been deported last year, immigration officials said.
Erik Jovani Martinez, 22, was deported to Mexico on March 3, 2006 after he was convicted on a theft charge, according an Immigration Services spokesman.
Phoenix police shot and killed Martinez, who was suspected of shooting
and killing an officer, carjacking a vehicle and taking a man hostage.
IMAGES: Officer Killed; Suspect Dead In Carjacking Confrontation
"It is an unfortunate situation I have to inform you that the City of
Phoenix has suffered another tragedy," said Mike Frazier, assistant police chief.
"We lost an officer who was killed in the line of duty," Frazier said.
VIDEO: Acting Phoenix Police Chief Mike Frazier Announces Officer's Death
Police said two officers, Nick Erfle and Rob Rodarme, stopped two women and a man who were jaywalking near 24th Street and Thomas Road around 8:30 a.m.
Police said the officers asked the three for identification and learned
the man, who identified himself as 24-year-old Anthony Sanchez, had a misdemeanor warrant out for his arrest. Phoenix police Sgt. Joel Tranter later
said Anthony Sanchez was one of many aliases used by Martinez, who was wanted in Tucson on a shoplifting charge.
Tranter said Martinez gave an alias because he was trying to conceal a felony warrant out for his arrest. The warrant was filed in Maricopa Superior
Court and was for aggravated assault.
Erfle walked back to Martinez and began to arrest him, Tranter said. Rodarme was nearby with the two women.
A physical confrontation quickly ensued and Martinez pulled a handgun
and fired multiple shots, Tranter said. One of them struck Erfle.
see more at http://www.kpho.com/news/14141284/detail.html
.
.
Friday, September 21, 2007
McCain Rallies For 'No Surrender'
McCain Rallies For 'No Surrender'
By Josh Voorhees, Aiken Standard
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
Looking to rally support for an unpopular war, Sen. John McCain and his presidential campaign turned to a group of potential voters Monday that needed little convincing.
Making his first campaign stop of the final day of his week-long "No Surrender" tour, the GOP presidential hopeful held a morning rally for supporters and veterans at VFW Savannah River Post 5877.
"We have a strategy that is succeeding," he told the gathering of roughly 200, most with strong ties to the United States military, who showed for the morning's veterans appreciation breakfast and rally.
The former Navy pilot's three-state tour through the early primary proving grounds of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina launched early last week in an effort to build support for the war in Iraq before what will likely be a heated debate on the issue begins in Congress this week.
McCain called on supporters to help convince his colleagues in Washington that despite the war's current unpopularity, the U.S. soldiers must be given a chance to win.
"A date for withdrawal ... is a date for surrender," he said.
While his week-long tour has placed McCain back in the national spotlight - something his campaign had struggled to accomplish since financial difficulties and a mass exodus of campaign staff caused problems earlier this year - his campaign appeared to be making an effort to keep most of the focus at the event on the war and not McCain's bid to succeed George W. Bush as president.
The dark blue stickers worn by campaign staff and handed out to supporters boasted simply the words "No Surrender," with the senator's name noticeably absent.
By Josh Voorhees, Aiken Standard
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
Looking to rally support for an unpopular war, Sen. John McCain and his presidential campaign turned to a group of potential voters Monday that needed little convincing.
Making his first campaign stop of the final day of his week-long "No Surrender" tour, the GOP presidential hopeful held a morning rally for supporters and veterans at VFW Savannah River Post 5877.
"We have a strategy that is succeeding," he told the gathering of roughly 200, most with strong ties to the United States military, who showed for the morning's veterans appreciation breakfast and rally.
The former Navy pilot's three-state tour through the early primary proving grounds of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina launched early last week in an effort to build support for the war in Iraq before what will likely be a heated debate on the issue begins in Congress this week.
McCain called on supporters to help convince his colleagues in Washington that despite the war's current unpopularity, the U.S. soldiers must be given a chance to win.
"A date for withdrawal ... is a date for surrender," he said.
While his week-long tour has placed McCain back in the national spotlight - something his campaign had struggled to accomplish since financial difficulties and a mass exodus of campaign staff caused problems earlier this year - his campaign appeared to be making an effort to keep most of the focus at the event on the war and not McCain's bid to succeed George W. Bush as president.
The dark blue stickers worn by campaign staff and handed out to supporters boasted simply the words "No Surrender," with the senator's name noticeably absent.
At Tour's End, McCain Is On The Rise
At Tour's End, McCain Is On The Rise
By Dan Nowicki , The Arizona Republic
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Sen. John McCain implored veterans and cadets at one of America's most famous military colleges to oppose any premature troop withdrawal from Iraq, concluding a weeklong "No Surrender" tour that could fuel his resurgence in the presidential race.
McCain, R-Ariz., timed the series of rallies in key primary states to coincide with Capitol Hill's Iraq war debate, which is expected to start this week.
"We are trying to say to the American people, 'We understand your sorrow, we understand your frustration,' " McCain told approximately 1,000 people gathered at the Citadel. "We know that, for a long time, this war was mismanaged, and we know that an enormous sacrifice has already been made. ...
"But we know also that the region will deteriorate into chaos and genocide if we leave."
McCain delivered the same message last week at stops across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. ...
McCain still trails GOP front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, but a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll reflected a gain of 9 percentage points for McCain from last month.
Other polls also indicate that McCain's standing has improved. A CBS News/New York Times survey had him up 6 points while a USA Today/Gallup poll said he had risen 4 percentage points. ...
Playing to his strengths
McCain's No Surrender tour returns the spotlight to a debate in which he is solidly aligned with conservatives: the Iraq war and the battle against terrorism.
"In places like South Carolina, it's going to put the war upfront again and keep the immigration issue off the front pages," said Kyle Longley, an Arizona State University expert on Southern politics and foreign policy who taught at the Citadel.
"I think that plays to his advantage. Plus, I think he's getting a bump because he's gone back to being the insurrectionist, the outsider or person who is going to stir things up." ...
During the rally, former President George H.W. Bush echoed McCain's determination through a videotaped message. "The bottom line is we must persevere," said Bush, the father of President Bush. "We must not surrender. We must not quit and run away. God bless our troops and everyone involved in the No Surrender rally."
Uniformed cadets mixed with other military veterans and McCain fans in the packed Citadel ballroom. Several carried hand-written signs reading, "It's not politics ... it's patriotism." ...
"We all really do respect his military service," said Scott Barlow, a 19-year-old Citadel sophomore from Georgia who has yet to choose a candidate in next year's presidential election, the first in which he is eligible to vote.
McCain is known as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of President Bush's ongoing surge strategy, but McCain also repeatedly points out from the stump that for years he relentlessly criticized the way the White House conducted the war.
For years, he called for additional troops. He often denounces former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as one of the worst ever in the post.
Despite past mistakes, McCain maintains that the United States cannot abandon the Iraq mission or even set a specific date for withdrawal without buoying the spirits of terrorists and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions.
"I agree with Senator McCain," said Charles Furtado, 47, a 1982 Citadel graduate from Beaufort, S.C., and retired Marine who served in the Gulf War and in Iraq. "It's ugly. People are frustrated, but we've got to finish it. We started it, and we've got to see this thing through." ...
Please click here to read the entire article.
By Dan Nowicki , The Arizona Republic
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Sen. John McCain implored veterans and cadets at one of America's most famous military colleges to oppose any premature troop withdrawal from Iraq, concluding a weeklong "No Surrender" tour that could fuel his resurgence in the presidential race.
McCain, R-Ariz., timed the series of rallies in key primary states to coincide with Capitol Hill's Iraq war debate, which is expected to start this week.
"We are trying to say to the American people, 'We understand your sorrow, we understand your frustration,' " McCain told approximately 1,000 people gathered at the Citadel. "We know that, for a long time, this war was mismanaged, and we know that an enormous sacrifice has already been made. ...
"But we know also that the region will deteriorate into chaos and genocide if we leave."
McCain delivered the same message last week at stops across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. ...
McCain still trails GOP front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, but a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll reflected a gain of 9 percentage points for McCain from last month.
Other polls also indicate that McCain's standing has improved. A CBS News/New York Times survey had him up 6 points while a USA Today/Gallup poll said he had risen 4 percentage points. ...
Playing to his strengths
McCain's No Surrender tour returns the spotlight to a debate in which he is solidly aligned with conservatives: the Iraq war and the battle against terrorism.
"In places like South Carolina, it's going to put the war upfront again and keep the immigration issue off the front pages," said Kyle Longley, an Arizona State University expert on Southern politics and foreign policy who taught at the Citadel.
"I think that plays to his advantage. Plus, I think he's getting a bump because he's gone back to being the insurrectionist, the outsider or person who is going to stir things up." ...
During the rally, former President George H.W. Bush echoed McCain's determination through a videotaped message. "The bottom line is we must persevere," said Bush, the father of President Bush. "We must not surrender. We must not quit and run away. God bless our troops and everyone involved in the No Surrender rally."
Uniformed cadets mixed with other military veterans and McCain fans in the packed Citadel ballroom. Several carried hand-written signs reading, "It's not politics ... it's patriotism." ...
"We all really do respect his military service," said Scott Barlow, a 19-year-old Citadel sophomore from Georgia who has yet to choose a candidate in next year's presidential election, the first in which he is eligible to vote.
McCain is known as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of President Bush's ongoing surge strategy, but McCain also repeatedly points out from the stump that for years he relentlessly criticized the way the White House conducted the war.
For years, he called for additional troops. He often denounces former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as one of the worst ever in the post.
Despite past mistakes, McCain maintains that the United States cannot abandon the Iraq mission or even set a specific date for withdrawal without buoying the spirits of terrorists and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions.
"I agree with Senator McCain," said Charles Furtado, 47, a 1982 Citadel graduate from Beaufort, S.C., and retired Marine who served in the Gulf War and in Iraq. "It's ugly. People are frustrated, but we've got to finish it. We started it, and we've got to see this thing through." ...
Please click here to read the entire article.
McCain Gets Credit For Consistency
McCain Gets Credit For Consistency
The Orangeburg Times And Democrat
September 20, 2007
ISSUE: John McCain's campaign
OUR VIEW: Senator consistent in message about war
U.S. Sen John McCain went from presumptive nominee to sagging candidate. Now the Arizona senator's GOP presidential campaign is showing signs of life. ...
McCain is focusing on key early states in the primary process, making South Carolina a popular stop. Importantly, he here has the support of a majority of the GOP establishment.
More important, however, is the McCain message. Saying he favors exiting Iraq at the earliest feasible time, the senator has been steadfast in stating a pullout at this point would lead to chaos in Iraq and destabilization of the region. It would amount to a major American defeat. ...
In the war's first years, McCain was a consistent administration critic. He echoes that today, saying the Bush team badly mismanaged the war. He says that as much as anything is why Americans have become disillusioned with the battle.
McCain concluded the tour at The Citadel Monday night by imploring veterans, cadets and a wide demographic range of supporters to oppose any plan for a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq. ...
Give McCain credit for consistency. He has not shied away from supporting the war even when his popularity numbers were plummeting. His campaign may never regain the stature accorded it by prognosticators when the '08 presidential politicking began, but McCain is not surrendering. If the Iraq situation can be improved in the coming months, or at the very minimum does not deteriorate, McCain might well be back in the ball game.
The Orangeburg Times And Democrat
September 20, 2007
ISSUE: John McCain's campaign
OUR VIEW: Senator consistent in message about war
U.S. Sen John McCain went from presumptive nominee to sagging candidate. Now the Arizona senator's GOP presidential campaign is showing signs of life. ...
McCain is focusing on key early states in the primary process, making South Carolina a popular stop. Importantly, he here has the support of a majority of the GOP establishment.
More important, however, is the McCain message. Saying he favors exiting Iraq at the earliest feasible time, the senator has been steadfast in stating a pullout at this point would lead to chaos in Iraq and destabilization of the region. It would amount to a major American defeat. ...
In the war's first years, McCain was a consistent administration critic. He echoes that today, saying the Bush team badly mismanaged the war. He says that as much as anything is why Americans have become disillusioned with the battle.
McCain concluded the tour at The Citadel Monday night by imploring veterans, cadets and a wide demographic range of supporters to oppose any plan for a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq. ...
Give McCain credit for consistency. He has not shied away from supporting the war even when his popularity numbers were plummeting. His campaign may never regain the stature accorded it by prognosticators when the '08 presidential politicking began, but McCain is not surrendering. If the Iraq situation can be improved in the coming months, or at the very minimum does not deteriorate, McCain might well be back in the ball game.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Flake-Gutierrez Amnesty Bill
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Flake-Gutierrez Amnesty Bill
Last Thursday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty bill (H.R. 1645, otherwise known as the STRIVE Act). Chairwoman Zoë Lofgren (D-CA) began the hearing by stating she was personally disappointed when the Senate failed to enact "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation over the summer and vowed to continue working on this issue. Ranking Member Steve King (R-IA) decried the Flake-Gutierrez as amnesty and urged the witnesses to simply acknowledge that fact so that the debate could proceed openly.
The hearing had two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The Second panel consisted of policy experts (including FAIR's Government Relations Director) and individuals involved in the immigration reform debate. Interestingly, Congressman Flake immediately acknowledged the unlikelihood that the bill would move this year or even before the next election. He then disputed Congressman King's claim that the bill was an amnesty and said the bill was not comparable to the 1986 amnesty because of the fines and other requirements. He argued that the definition of amnesty was an "unconditional pardon" and that this legislation represented nothing of the sort. Congressman Bilbray retorted that rewarding illegal activity was nothing if not amnesty and a sure-fire way to encourage more of it was to pass mass amnesty legislation such as the Flake-Gutierrez bill.
From the second panel, much attention was given to two witnesses, Mr. Tony Wasilewski and Mr. Eduardo Gonzales, both legal immigrants whose wives had been deported. Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) — who is both a Member of the Subcommittee and an author of the legislation — attempted to portray these individuals as examples of how the current system is unfair to aliens who violate the law. Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations at FAIR, argued that a legitimate immigration system is not one that rewards illegal aliens, but instead encourages those who come to the U.S. legally and wait patiently for years in their home countries in order to have their chance to live the American dream.
Last Thursday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty bill (H.R. 1645, otherwise known as the STRIVE Act). Chairwoman Zoë Lofgren (D-CA) began the hearing by stating she was personally disappointed when the Senate failed to enact "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation over the summer and vowed to continue working on this issue. Ranking Member Steve King (R-IA) decried the Flake-Gutierrez as amnesty and urged the witnesses to simply acknowledge that fact so that the debate could proceed openly.
The hearing had two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The Second panel consisted of policy experts (including FAIR's Government Relations Director) and individuals involved in the immigration reform debate. Interestingly, Congressman Flake immediately acknowledged the unlikelihood that the bill would move this year or even before the next election. He then disputed Congressman King's claim that the bill was an amnesty and said the bill was not comparable to the 1986 amnesty because of the fines and other requirements. He argued that the definition of amnesty was an "unconditional pardon" and that this legislation represented nothing of the sort. Congressman Bilbray retorted that rewarding illegal activity was nothing if not amnesty and a sure-fire way to encourage more of it was to pass mass amnesty legislation such as the Flake-Gutierrez bill.
From the second panel, much attention was given to two witnesses, Mr. Tony Wasilewski and Mr. Eduardo Gonzales, both legal immigrants whose wives had been deported. Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) — who is both a Member of the Subcommittee and an author of the legislation — attempted to portray these individuals as examples of how the current system is unfair to aliens who violate the law. Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations at FAIR, argued that a legitimate immigration system is not one that rewards illegal aliens, but instead encourages those who come to the U.S. legally and wait patiently for years in their home countries in order to have their chance to live the American dream.
"Mexico Does Not Stop at Its Border," Declares President of Mexico
"Mexico Does Not Stop at Its Border,"
Declares President of Mexico
On Sunday, September 9, Mexican President Felipe Calderon attacked efforts by the United States to exercise control the border, asserting that "Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." While this bizarre claim was ignored by members of the Bush Administration, various others in Washington attempted to decipher its meaning. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) read Calderon's "saber-rattling words" as "a renewed call by Mexico to colonize the United States." Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) issued a statement goading the Mexican president: "Perhaps Calderon should take a refresher course on geography, because Mexico does in fact end at the Rio Grande. . . ."
President Calderon also attacked what he termed "unilateral" measures by the United States government to enforce its immigration laws and vowed to redouble efforts on behalf of Mexican immigrants. "I'm sure the people of Mexico would be extremely grateful if Calderon showed as much concern over the well being of Mexicans unlucky enough to still live there as he does for the people who have successfully fled his country," responded Representative Tancredo.
Declares President of Mexico
On Sunday, September 9, Mexican President Felipe Calderon attacked efforts by the United States to exercise control the border, asserting that "Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." While this bizarre claim was ignored by members of the Bush Administration, various others in Washington attempted to decipher its meaning. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) read Calderon's "saber-rattling words" as "a renewed call by Mexico to colonize the United States." Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) issued a statement goading the Mexican president: "Perhaps Calderon should take a refresher course on geography, because Mexico does in fact end at the Rio Grande. . . ."
President Calderon also attacked what he termed "unilateral" measures by the United States government to enforce its immigration laws and vowed to redouble efforts on behalf of Mexican immigrants. "I'm sure the people of Mexico would be extremely grateful if Calderon showed as much concern over the well being of Mexicans unlucky enough to still live there as he does for the people who have successfully fled his country," responded Representative Tancredo.
Mexican Trucks Start Hitting the U.S. Highways
Mexican Trucks Start Hitting the U.S. Highways
On Thursday, September 6, the Bush Administration began granting authority to Mexican trucks to travel U.S. highways under a one-year pilot project. (http://www.dot.gov/) Pursuant to an agreement reached by the Bush Administration with Mexico in February, up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies that have met certain safety, licensing and other requirements will be allowed to operate anywhere in the country. (Department of Transportation Briefing, February 23, 2007) While this agreement was to go into effect within 60 days after it was announced, Congress delayed its implementation in May by adding a provision to the Iraq War emergency supplemental appropriations bill requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report on the safety of the program before it could proceed. (See P.L. 110-28 § 6901)
The first Mexican trucking company allowed to travel inside the United States is Transportes Olympic of Nuevo Leon, which says it plans to use two trucks to carry goods within the U.S. Transportes Olympic sent its first truck across the Texas border early Saturday morning, where it underwent an inspection and then departed for North Carolina. (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2007) Another 37 Mexican firms are presently set to obtain the U.S. driving permits. (Bloomberg, September 7, 2007.)
The pilot project with Mexico marks the first time Mexican trucks will be allowed to transport goods outside of a twenty-five mile border zone since the North American Free Trade Agreement authorizing this cross-border travel went into effect in 1994. The expansion of Mexican trucking under NAFTA was halted when then-President Bill Clinton refused to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone citing highway safety. In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. government to open all of its highways to Mexican trucks despite safety concerns. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
Opposition to the Administration's decision to push ahead with the Mexican Trucking pilot project is growing in various corners. Last week, dozens of truckers let by the Teamsters plus anti-illegal immigration activists protested the trucking program near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, holding signs that read 'NAFTA Kills' and 'Save American Highways.' (ABCNews September 6, 2007) In a written statement, Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa criticized the Administration, calling the pilot project an "illegal program" that was "announced under the cover of darkness." Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), declared the project to be "another attack on the working people of the United States." (Bloomberg, September 6, 2007)
The Bush Administration defended the Mexican Trucking program, insisting it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. However, in a recent report, the DOT Inspector General said the Administration had no coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the test program, and that the motor carrier safety group needed to do more to help enforce the English requirement for drivers. (Associated Press, September 8, 2007)
The Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen took further action to block the pilot program last week by filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petition. The Teamsters, the Sierra Club and other groups said they would continue their legal fight to stop the program because of "serious safety, environmental, smuggling and security concerns." (New York Times, September 9, 2007) Interestingly, Teamsters Spokesman Leslie Miller said American truckers were most concerned about sharing the roads with potentially unsafe Mexican vehicles, not the potential of increased competition from lower-wage workers. "We have nothing against Mexican truck drivers; it's the companies that exploit them that we oppose," she said. "We're absolutely not ready for this." (New York Times, September 9, 2007)
Opponents of the program are also hoping Congress will intervene. The House version of the Transportation Department Appropriations bill contains language that would halt the project on public safety grounds. The legislation comes before the Senate next week. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
On Thursday, September 6, the Bush Administration began granting authority to Mexican trucks to travel U.S. highways under a one-year pilot project. (http://www.dot.gov/) Pursuant to an agreement reached by the Bush Administration with Mexico in February, up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies that have met certain safety, licensing and other requirements will be allowed to operate anywhere in the country. (Department of Transportation Briefing, February 23, 2007) While this agreement was to go into effect within 60 days after it was announced, Congress delayed its implementation in May by adding a provision to the Iraq War emergency supplemental appropriations bill requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report on the safety of the program before it could proceed. (See P.L. 110-28 § 6901)
The first Mexican trucking company allowed to travel inside the United States is Transportes Olympic of Nuevo Leon, which says it plans to use two trucks to carry goods within the U.S. Transportes Olympic sent its first truck across the Texas border early Saturday morning, where it underwent an inspection and then departed for North Carolina. (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2007) Another 37 Mexican firms are presently set to obtain the U.S. driving permits. (Bloomberg, September 7, 2007.)
The pilot project with Mexico marks the first time Mexican trucks will be allowed to transport goods outside of a twenty-five mile border zone since the North American Free Trade Agreement authorizing this cross-border travel went into effect in 1994. The expansion of Mexican trucking under NAFTA was halted when then-President Bill Clinton refused to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone citing highway safety. In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. government to open all of its highways to Mexican trucks despite safety concerns. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
Opposition to the Administration's decision to push ahead with the Mexican Trucking pilot project is growing in various corners. Last week, dozens of truckers let by the Teamsters plus anti-illegal immigration activists protested the trucking program near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, holding signs that read 'NAFTA Kills' and 'Save American Highways.' (ABCNews September 6, 2007) In a written statement, Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa criticized the Administration, calling the pilot project an "illegal program" that was "announced under the cover of darkness." Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), declared the project to be "another attack on the working people of the United States." (Bloomberg, September 6, 2007)
The Bush Administration defended the Mexican Trucking program, insisting it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. However, in a recent report, the DOT Inspector General said the Administration had no coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the test program, and that the motor carrier safety group needed to do more to help enforce the English requirement for drivers. (Associated Press, September 8, 2007)
The Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen took further action to block the pilot program last week by filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petition. The Teamsters, the Sierra Club and other groups said they would continue their legal fight to stop the program because of "serious safety, environmental, smuggling and security concerns." (New York Times, September 9, 2007) Interestingly, Teamsters Spokesman Leslie Miller said American truckers were most concerned about sharing the roads with potentially unsafe Mexican vehicles, not the potential of increased competition from lower-wage workers. "We have nothing against Mexican truck drivers; it's the companies that exploit them that we oppose," she said. "We're absolutely not ready for this." (New York Times, September 9, 2007)
Opponents of the program are also hoping Congress will intervene. The House version of the Transportation Department Appropriations bill contains language that would halt the project on public safety grounds. The legislation comes before the Senate next week. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.
There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.
But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.
Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.
Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.
Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.
Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.
But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.
Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.
Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:
Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)
• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner
Registered Lobbyist Contributors:
• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
Other:
• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.
There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.
But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.
Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.
Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.
Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.
Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.
But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.
Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.
Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:
Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)
• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner
Registered Lobbyist Contributors:
• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
Other:
• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?
IOWA VS. AMERICA
IOWA VS. AMERICA
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 12, 2007.
In America, Hillary Clinton holds a solid and enduring 15- to 20-point lead over Barack Obama, who, in turn, enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over John Edwards, who languishes in third place. But in Iowa, Edwards is often in first place in the polls and, at best, Hillary is locked in a three-way tie with her rivals.
In America, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican field by 10 points while Fred Thompson edges past the ill-fated Mitt Romney and the snakebit John McCain. But in Iowa, it is all Romney all the time as the former Massachusetts governor, riding a wave of paid television ads, has first place all to himself and has been atop the Iowa polls for four or five months. Meanwhile, Arkansas’s former governor, Mike Huckabee, way down in the national polls, is surging in Iowa and now boasts 14 percent in the polls. Ahead of McCain, he is challenging Thompson and Giuliani in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
So which is reality? Is it the relatively stable national leads of Hillary and Rudy, or the three-way tie on the Democratic side in Iowa and the Romney romp among the state’s Republicans?
The theory is that with the obsessive national focus on the presidential race, which started as soon as the ballots were counted in 2006, the early states no longer are the only ones to get an overdose of the campaign early on. Thus they will conform, some say, to the national trends before long. But Edwards’s enduring strength and Romney’s surge in Iowa may challenge this conventional wisdom.
Edwards’s strong showing in Iowa is largely an historical artifact, the product of his efforts there in 2004 and the assiduous attention he has paid to the state ever since. As such, it’s probable that his strong performance will be overtaken by the national perception that the race is really between Hillary and Obama. As the two national front-runners begin to run ads in Iowa, they should be able to leave Edwards behind. Indeed, there is no reason not to expect Hillary to surge into the lead in Iowa as she already has in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But on the Republican side, the situation is more problematic. Romney’s surge is entirely Rudy Giuliani’s fault. Ineptly, his campaign chose not to advertise early on in Iowa and ceded the airwaves to Romney. Anxious to display the largest cash on hand, Giuliani made a possibly fatal mistake in letting Romney get a large and sustained lead in the first caucus state.
It remains to be seen whether Rudy and/or Thompson can play catch-up and challenge Romney in Iowa. If Mitt Romney wins in Iowa, he can probably expect to prevail in New Hampshire, where he is also well ahead.
It is one of the media’s blind spots that, while it discounts the performance of a presidential candidate in his home state (Tom Harkin, for example, got no bounce from winning in Iowa in 1992), it does not realize that, in media terms, Massachusetts and New Hampshire might as well be the same state. Most of the Granite State’s residents watch Boston television at night and are used to seeing ex-Gov. Romney in their living rooms on the nightly news, giving him an edge as significant as if it were his home state. In 1992, Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary and the media accepted it at face value, as they are likely to do if Romney prevails.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, will anti-Mormon prejudice and his flip-flop-flip on abortion bring him down, or will he cruise to the nomination?
It is also possible that something else is going on in Iowa. Jaded by the massive amounts of money spent in the state by presidential aspirants, Mike Huckabee seems to be developing a unique appeal as the candidate without money. As he said before the Ames straw poll, where Romney wrote out $35 checks for any of his supporters who wished to pay the obligatory poll tax and vote, “I can’t afford to buy you. I can’t even afford to rent you.” Huckabee’s second-place 18 percent finish at Ames might give an indication of a broader surge behind his candidacy as his electric personality, warm wit and sincere spirituality attract Republicans in droves. (In Texas, California Congressman Duncan Hunter may have shown a similar strength, winning the straw poll with 40 percent of the vote.)
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 12, 2007.
In America, Hillary Clinton holds a solid and enduring 15- to 20-point lead over Barack Obama, who, in turn, enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over John Edwards, who languishes in third place. But in Iowa, Edwards is often in first place in the polls and, at best, Hillary is locked in a three-way tie with her rivals.
In America, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican field by 10 points while Fred Thompson edges past the ill-fated Mitt Romney and the snakebit John McCain. But in Iowa, it is all Romney all the time as the former Massachusetts governor, riding a wave of paid television ads, has first place all to himself and has been atop the Iowa polls for four or five months. Meanwhile, Arkansas’s former governor, Mike Huckabee, way down in the national polls, is surging in Iowa and now boasts 14 percent in the polls. Ahead of McCain, he is challenging Thompson and Giuliani in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
So which is reality? Is it the relatively stable national leads of Hillary and Rudy, or the three-way tie on the Democratic side in Iowa and the Romney romp among the state’s Republicans?
The theory is that with the obsessive national focus on the presidential race, which started as soon as the ballots were counted in 2006, the early states no longer are the only ones to get an overdose of the campaign early on. Thus they will conform, some say, to the national trends before long. But Edwards’s enduring strength and Romney’s surge in Iowa may challenge this conventional wisdom.
Edwards’s strong showing in Iowa is largely an historical artifact, the product of his efforts there in 2004 and the assiduous attention he has paid to the state ever since. As such, it’s probable that his strong performance will be overtaken by the national perception that the race is really between Hillary and Obama. As the two national front-runners begin to run ads in Iowa, they should be able to leave Edwards behind. Indeed, there is no reason not to expect Hillary to surge into the lead in Iowa as she already has in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But on the Republican side, the situation is more problematic. Romney’s surge is entirely Rudy Giuliani’s fault. Ineptly, his campaign chose not to advertise early on in Iowa and ceded the airwaves to Romney. Anxious to display the largest cash on hand, Giuliani made a possibly fatal mistake in letting Romney get a large and sustained lead in the first caucus state.
It remains to be seen whether Rudy and/or Thompson can play catch-up and challenge Romney in Iowa. If Mitt Romney wins in Iowa, he can probably expect to prevail in New Hampshire, where he is also well ahead.
It is one of the media’s blind spots that, while it discounts the performance of a presidential candidate in his home state (Tom Harkin, for example, got no bounce from winning in Iowa in 1992), it does not realize that, in media terms, Massachusetts and New Hampshire might as well be the same state. Most of the Granite State’s residents watch Boston television at night and are used to seeing ex-Gov. Romney in their living rooms on the nightly news, giving him an edge as significant as if it were his home state. In 1992, Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary and the media accepted it at face value, as they are likely to do if Romney prevails.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, will anti-Mormon prejudice and his flip-flop-flip on abortion bring him down, or will he cruise to the nomination?
It is also possible that something else is going on in Iowa. Jaded by the massive amounts of money spent in the state by presidential aspirants, Mike Huckabee seems to be developing a unique appeal as the candidate without money. As he said before the Ames straw poll, where Romney wrote out $35 checks for any of his supporters who wished to pay the obligatory poll tax and vote, “I can’t afford to buy you. I can’t even afford to rent you.” Huckabee’s second-place 18 percent finish at Ames might give an indication of a broader surge behind his candidacy as his electric personality, warm wit and sincere spirituality attract Republicans in droves. (In Texas, California Congressman Duncan Hunter may have shown a similar strength, winning the straw poll with 40 percent of the vote.)
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
THE DARK SIDE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
THE DARK SIDE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.
In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.
Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)
Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.
Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.
In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.
Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.
So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.
But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.
It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.
For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.
Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?
In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?
Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."
That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.
In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.
Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)
Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.
Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.
In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.
Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.
So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.
But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.
It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.
For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.
Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?
In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?
Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."
That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
new method to promote your political blog........
interesting new method to promote your political blog........
how will this John Reese's new venture be treated by Google / Adwords ?
very exciting new ideal
new blogrush
www.blogrush.com/r29559027
get traffic tfor your blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)