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
Thursday, October 04, 2007
$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
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Poenix area Arizona to report illegals tips Hotline 602-876-4154
to report illegal aliens in the Phoenix / Mari Copa county area
MCSO Enforcement Hotline 602-876-4154
MCSO Enforcement Hotline 602-876-4154
Monday, September 17, 2007
Polling Shows Mr. Undecided Leads GOP Race
Polling Shows Mr. Undecided Leads GOP Race
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:02 AM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As many as 26 percent of likely Republican voters in key states have not decided which candidate will get their vote in 2008.
That conclusion comes from ccAdvertising, which conducts polls for a range of candidates and members of Congress.
“Undecided is winning,” Gabriel Joseph III, president of ccAdvertising, tells me. “The largest group of voters are people who just haven’t made up their minds yet.”
According to ccAdvertising’s latest poll, Rudy Giuliani challenges Mr. Undecided. Giuliani leads with support from 25.5 percent of those who say they will vote in Republican caucuses or primaries in California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina. Th next three candidates are essentially tied — Fred Thompson with 15.4 percent, Mitt Romney with 14.2 percent, and John McCain with 13.2 percent. Final results will be released Wednesday.
Most pollsters do not emphasize how many people are undecided. Given that recent presidential elections have been won by a margin of 5 percent of the tally or less, the number of undecided votes spotlights how ephemeral polls are.
Confirming that, pollster Joseph notes that polls are nothing more than a quick snapshot of voter sentiment. In fact, he says that polls right now mostly measure name recognition.
“What you’re seeing at this point is a popularity contest,” Joseph says. “The polls are measuring name-awareness. I believe that people are telling our surveys who they’re going to vote for by what they hear. Whether it’s good or bad right now, all they do is hear the names. Fred Thompson’s name has been bandied about a lot. People have heard Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson. So they’re more likely to say they’ll vote for him.”
Romney campaign operatives have been banking on Joseph’s take. They point out that in the states where they have focused their efforts — Iowa and New Hampshire — Romney is winning. But only 64 percent of Americans have heard of him.
On the other hand, John McCain’s name recognition is 87 percent, according to a Gallup Poll, and the fact that McCain has been going down in the polls suggests that more than name recognition is at stake. Just before he declared his candidacy, Thompson’s name recognition was a surprisingly low 56 percent.
Early presidential front-runners litter the political landscape — Elizabeth Dole, Howard Dean, and Edward M. Kennedy, to name a few. But it’s not in the interests of either political reporters or pollsters to emphasize their uncertainty in calling the horse race.
On top of these considerations, polling has been facing growing voter concerns about privacy.
“Pollsters right now are struggling to get people to respond to their surveys,” Joseph says. “Because fewer and fewer people are responding to their surveys, two things are happening: They’re going back to a pre-existing survey base — people that have answered before, will answer again. Number two, because when they get somebody willing to talk to them, they want to gather a lot of other data at the same time, the surveys are getting longer.”
When surveys become longer, fewer people complete them, and the results are not counted. So, Joseph says, polls are becoming less reliable as more responses are discarded. Joseph’s company asks a limited number of questions over the telephone using a computerized voice-recognition system for calling people.
“We have the databases and the speed to just keep going until we get the number of respondents that our company and our clients need,” Joseph says.
“What we are doing is measuring what people’s attitudes are today,” he says. “And right now, Mr. Undecided is the winner.”
Alan Greenspan’s Confusion
Alan Greenspan may have been a great Federal Reserve Board chairman, but his take on national security issues seems confused at best. First, Bob Woodward reported last week that Greenspan’s new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" refers to what Greenspan calls the “politically inconvenient” fact that the Iraq war was “largely about oil.”
Subsequently, Woodward interviewed Greenspan, who said it was he who believed that removal of Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan told Woodward for a Washington Post story. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Now, in a Wall Street Journal interview, Greenspan says he is puzzled over President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s continued advocacy of aggressive anti-terrorism policies that he says have the effect of curtailing civil liberties. If there had been additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. after Sept. 11, he said, “Cheney’s and Bush’s view would be now far more prevalent" in the U.S. But “when events changed, they held the views that they previously held.” He added that while he doesn’t like their stance, “I don’t know what should have been done otherwise” because he lacks the access to classified information that they have.
It doesn’t require a security clearance to know that al-Qaida and its franchises are plotting to wipe out the U.S. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C.
The primary reason we have not been attacked in more than six years is Bush’s aggressive policies and the hard work of the FBI and CIA, which constantly roll up plots and terrorists. Thus, the fact that we have not been attacked points to the success of Bush administration policies. Presumably, if Greenspan’s home alarm system never went off, he would drop the service because events had changed, and he no longer perceived a threat from intruders.
If Greenspan had applied the same heads-in-the-sand approach to the economy, we would be in big trouble.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-ma
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:02 AM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As many as 26 percent of likely Republican voters in key states have not decided which candidate will get their vote in 2008.
That conclusion comes from ccAdvertising, which conducts polls for a range of candidates and members of Congress.
“Undecided is winning,” Gabriel Joseph III, president of ccAdvertising, tells me. “The largest group of voters are people who just haven’t made up their minds yet.”
According to ccAdvertising’s latest poll, Rudy Giuliani challenges Mr. Undecided. Giuliani leads with support from 25.5 percent of those who say they will vote in Republican caucuses or primaries in California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina. Th next three candidates are essentially tied — Fred Thompson with 15.4 percent, Mitt Romney with 14.2 percent, and John McCain with 13.2 percent. Final results will be released Wednesday.
Most pollsters do not emphasize how many people are undecided. Given that recent presidential elections have been won by a margin of 5 percent of the tally or less, the number of undecided votes spotlights how ephemeral polls are.
Confirming that, pollster Joseph notes that polls are nothing more than a quick snapshot of voter sentiment. In fact, he says that polls right now mostly measure name recognition.
“What you’re seeing at this point is a popularity contest,” Joseph says. “The polls are measuring name-awareness. I believe that people are telling our surveys who they’re going to vote for by what they hear. Whether it’s good or bad right now, all they do is hear the names. Fred Thompson’s name has been bandied about a lot. People have heard Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson. So they’re more likely to say they’ll vote for him.”
Romney campaign operatives have been banking on Joseph’s take. They point out that in the states where they have focused their efforts — Iowa and New Hampshire — Romney is winning. But only 64 percent of Americans have heard of him.
On the other hand, John McCain’s name recognition is 87 percent, according to a Gallup Poll, and the fact that McCain has been going down in the polls suggests that more than name recognition is at stake. Just before he declared his candidacy, Thompson’s name recognition was a surprisingly low 56 percent.
Early presidential front-runners litter the political landscape — Elizabeth Dole, Howard Dean, and Edward M. Kennedy, to name a few. But it’s not in the interests of either political reporters or pollsters to emphasize their uncertainty in calling the horse race.
On top of these considerations, polling has been facing growing voter concerns about privacy.
“Pollsters right now are struggling to get people to respond to their surveys,” Joseph says. “Because fewer and fewer people are responding to their surveys, two things are happening: They’re going back to a pre-existing survey base — people that have answered before, will answer again. Number two, because when they get somebody willing to talk to them, they want to gather a lot of other data at the same time, the surveys are getting longer.”
When surveys become longer, fewer people complete them, and the results are not counted. So, Joseph says, polls are becoming less reliable as more responses are discarded. Joseph’s company asks a limited number of questions over the telephone using a computerized voice-recognition system for calling people.
“We have the databases and the speed to just keep going until we get the number of respondents that our company and our clients need,” Joseph says.
“What we are doing is measuring what people’s attitudes are today,” he says. “And right now, Mr. Undecided is the winner.”
Alan Greenspan’s Confusion
Alan Greenspan may have been a great Federal Reserve Board chairman, but his take on national security issues seems confused at best. First, Bob Woodward reported last week that Greenspan’s new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" refers to what Greenspan calls the “politically inconvenient” fact that the Iraq war was “largely about oil.”
Subsequently, Woodward interviewed Greenspan, who said it was he who believed that removal of Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan told Woodward for a Washington Post story. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Now, in a Wall Street Journal interview, Greenspan says he is puzzled over President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s continued advocacy of aggressive anti-terrorism policies that he says have the effect of curtailing civil liberties. If there had been additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. after Sept. 11, he said, “Cheney’s and Bush’s view would be now far more prevalent" in the U.S. But “when events changed, they held the views that they previously held.” He added that while he doesn’t like their stance, “I don’t know what should have been done otherwise” because he lacks the access to classified information that they have.
It doesn’t require a security clearance to know that al-Qaida and its franchises are plotting to wipe out the U.S. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C.
The primary reason we have not been attacked in more than six years is Bush’s aggressive policies and the hard work of the FBI and CIA, which constantly roll up plots and terrorists. Thus, the fact that we have not been attacked points to the success of Bush administration policies. Presumably, if Greenspan’s home alarm system never went off, he would drop the service because events had changed, and he no longer perceived a threat from intruders.
If Greenspan had applied the same heads-in-the-sand approach to the economy, we would be in big trouble.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-ma
Stand up against defeat
Senator Clinton said recently that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States.
I am prepared to be Commander-in-Chief and tough enough to face the challenges presented by a dangerous world. In fact, I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.
The choice we are presented with could not be more clear. Will we continue to support our new strategy in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists, as I've long advocated, or will we surrender in disgrace as the Democrats want us to do? For four years I've fought for more troops in Iraq, fought for the right strategy, and I will not give up the fight today as we are finally making progress on the ground. I will lead.
Right now I'm traveling through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina talking about the success of the surge and countering the shameless propaganda being put forth by the extreme left, and I need your financial support to continue. I believe it is critical for voters to hear the truth about this new strategy and the success of our troops in Iraq, and your help will allow me to continue bringing this message to voters.
Unlike my opponents in the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no trouble denouncing this ad for what it is - an ill-informed, partisan attack ad that has no place in this serious debate about the safety and security of our nation.
America needs serious leaders ready to stand up to the tough challenges facing our nation. I'm running for President of the United States because I am prepared to lead and I understand the grave threats our nation must face.
I am out on the road, on the No Surrender Tour, spreading this message of support for our troops and support for the surge, and I need your help to get this message out. With your support, I will continue to stand strong.
Sincerely,
John McCain
I am prepared to be Commander-in-Chief and tough enough to face the challenges presented by a dangerous world. In fact, I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.
The choice we are presented with could not be more clear. Will we continue to support our new strategy in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists, as I've long advocated, or will we surrender in disgrace as the Democrats want us to do? For four years I've fought for more troops in Iraq, fought for the right strategy, and I will not give up the fight today as we are finally making progress on the ground. I will lead.
Right now I'm traveling through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina talking about the success of the surge and countering the shameless propaganda being put forth by the extreme left, and I need your financial support to continue. I believe it is critical for voters to hear the truth about this new strategy and the success of our troops in Iraq, and your help will allow me to continue bringing this message to voters.
Unlike my opponents in the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no trouble denouncing this ad for what it is - an ill-informed, partisan attack ad that has no place in this serious debate about the safety and security of our nation.
America needs serious leaders ready to stand up to the tough challenges facing our nation. I'm running for President of the United States because I am prepared to lead and I understand the grave threats our nation must face.
I am out on the road, on the No Surrender Tour, spreading this message of support for our troops and support for the surge, and I need your help to get this message out. With your support, I will continue to stand strong.
Sincerely,
John McCain
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on September 12, 2007.
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
Published in the New York Post on September 12, 2007.
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.
Alert! Bill would eliminate birthright citizenship!
Alert! Bill would eliminate birthright citizenship!
HR 1940 would end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Nearly every other country, including all members of the European Union, requires that at least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to automatically become a citizen.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, by Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA), would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Our current policy results in over 300,000 additional citizens from anchor babies each year. The demographic impact is far greater because their families stay and bring in additional relatives. Anchor babies are eligible to sponsor their illegal alien parents and other relatives when they turn 21. Moreover, taxpayers pick up the tab for the medical costs and subsequent welfare outlays because of the child's citizenship status.
HR 1940 would end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Nearly every other country, including all members of the European Union, requires that at least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to automatically become a citizen.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, by Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA), would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Our current policy results in over 300,000 additional citizens from anchor babies each year. The demographic impact is far greater because their families stay and bring in additional relatives. Anchor babies are eligible to sponsor their illegal alien parents and other relatives when they turn 21. Moreover, taxpayers pick up the tab for the medical costs and subsequent welfare outlays because of the child's citizenship status.
85,000 petitions to be delivered to save American jobs!
Alert! 85,000 petitions to be delivered to save American jobs!
AMERICAN WORKERS TO DELIVER 85,000 PETITIONS TO
HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN EDWARDS SATURDAY
Will Call For Clinton And Edwards To Sign Petition And
Stand Up For The American Worker
Saturday, American workers will gather in front of Presidential candidates John Edwards Des Moines, Iowa campaign headquarters and Hillary Clinton's Columbia, South Carolina campaign headquarters to deliver 85,000 petitions to save American jobs. The workers will ask the candidates to sign the petition and stand up for the American worker.
The petitions were signed by Americans across the country who object to Big Business hiring foreign workers here at home without even giving American workers a fair chance at the jobs. The petitions were gathered over a short period around Labor Day as the result of a Coalition for the Future American Worker TV ad. The TV ad shows actual footage of a Pittsburgh law firm teaching its corporate clients how to hire foreign workers and avoid American workers with no consequences. The petitions are being delivered as 27 million US jobs are occupied by foreign workers here at home, millions of Americans can’t find jobs and many are losing their homes.
AMERICAN WORKERS TO DELIVER 85,000 PETITIONS TO
HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN EDWARDS SATURDAY
Will Call For Clinton And Edwards To Sign Petition And
Stand Up For The American Worker
Saturday, American workers will gather in front of Presidential candidates John Edwards Des Moines, Iowa campaign headquarters and Hillary Clinton's Columbia, South Carolina campaign headquarters to deliver 85,000 petitions to save American jobs. The workers will ask the candidates to sign the petition and stand up for the American worker.
The petitions were signed by Americans across the country who object to Big Business hiring foreign workers here at home without even giving American workers a fair chance at the jobs. The petitions were gathered over a short period around Labor Day as the result of a Coalition for the Future American Worker TV ad. The TV ad shows actual footage of a Pittsburgh law firm teaching its corporate clients how to hire foreign workers and avoid American workers with no consequences. The petitions are being delivered as 27 million US jobs are occupied by foreign workers here at home, millions of Americans can’t find jobs and many are losing their homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)