MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 28, 2007.
As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And he can win in Iowa.
When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one.
Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.
But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medical spending,” he says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money.
So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa, most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP contest, giving Rudy a big boost.
And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, sweeping the early primaries, Giuliani will have a very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It can be done, but it’s tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney.
In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations, their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to win.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTS HILLARY CLINTON?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTS HILLARY CLINTON?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on November 21, 2007.
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand."
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.
But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.
Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.
Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.
All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.
The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.
Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.
Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.
President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on November 21, 2007.
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand."
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.
But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.
Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.
Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.
All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.
The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.
Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.
Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.
President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration Reform
Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration Reform
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Ron Paul Campaign Announces New Arizona Leadership
Ron Paul Campaign Announces New Arizona Leadership
Roy Miller, Karen Johnson To Serve As Ron Paul 2008 Arizona Co-Chairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jesse Benton
September 27, 2007 202-246-6363
ARLINGTON, VA – As national support for his 2008 presidential campaign continues to grow,
Republican Congressman Ron Paul is pleased to announce the campaign appointments of Roy
Miller and Karen Johnson as Arizona co-chairs.
Roy and Karen both have extensive Arizona policy backgrounds.
Roy Miller earned his M.B.A. from Arizona State, and retired as a colonel after serving six years
as an active duty Air Force pilot and twenty-five years as an Air Force Reserve member. In the
Arizona Republican Party, he held the offices of precinct committeeman and platform and
resolutions chairman. Roy co-founded the Goldwater Institute and served as its executive
director, and also founded the Arizona Economic Forum. While on the staff of the Arizona
Corporation Commission, he authored a series of policy papers that were instrumental in
Arizona’s intrastate transportation deregulation.
State Senator Karen S. Johnson represents the 18th Legislative District in Arizona. She serves in
the State Senate as chairman of the Education Committee, K-12, and is a member of the Natural
Resources & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees. In the past, she worked
as the Arizona state campaign director for Pat Buchannan, office manager for Supervisor
Freestone in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and an assistant to David Schweikert,
Majority Whip in the Arizona State Legislature. In the Senate, Karen prioritizes lowering taxes
for individuals, families, and small businesses, and constructing a new East Valley and statewide
freeway system.
“With the addition of Karen and Roy, Dr. Paul’s campaign is poised to make a strong impact in
Arizona,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “With their impressive backgrounds and
experiences, they will be instrumental in spreading Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity,
and peace.”
The Arizona Presidential Preference Election is slated for February 5, 2008.
Roy Miller, Karen Johnson To Serve As Ron Paul 2008 Arizona Co-Chairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jesse Benton
September 27, 2007 202-246-6363
ARLINGTON, VA – As national support for his 2008 presidential campaign continues to grow,
Republican Congressman Ron Paul is pleased to announce the campaign appointments of Roy
Miller and Karen Johnson as Arizona co-chairs.
Roy and Karen both have extensive Arizona policy backgrounds.
Roy Miller earned his M.B.A. from Arizona State, and retired as a colonel after serving six years
as an active duty Air Force pilot and twenty-five years as an Air Force Reserve member. In the
Arizona Republican Party, he held the offices of precinct committeeman and platform and
resolutions chairman. Roy co-founded the Goldwater Institute and served as its executive
director, and also founded the Arizona Economic Forum. While on the staff of the Arizona
Corporation Commission, he authored a series of policy papers that were instrumental in
Arizona’s intrastate transportation deregulation.
State Senator Karen S. Johnson represents the 18th Legislative District in Arizona. She serves in
the State Senate as chairman of the Education Committee, K-12, and is a member of the Natural
Resources & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees. In the past, she worked
as the Arizona state campaign director for Pat Buchannan, office manager for Supervisor
Freestone in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and an assistant to David Schweikert,
Majority Whip in the Arizona State Legislature. In the Senate, Karen prioritizes lowering taxes
for individuals, families, and small businesses, and constructing a new East Valley and statewide
freeway system.
“With the addition of Karen and Roy, Dr. Paul’s campaign is poised to make a strong impact in
Arizona,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “With their impressive backgrounds and
experiences, they will be instrumental in spreading Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity,
and peace.”
The Arizona Presidential Preference Election is slated for February 5, 2008.
Help Wanted: replacement senator for the state of Arizona
Help Wanted: replacement senator for the state of Arizona
After Senator John Mccain loses yet another presidential bid who's going to replace him as senator for Arizona ?
most recent pools shoes him dead last at 6% in Iowa
www.mccainalert.com
more news on shithead Mccain
After Senator John Mccain loses yet another presidential bid who's going to replace him as senator for Arizona ?
most recent pools shoes him dead last at 6% in Iowa
www.mccainalert.com
more news on shithead Mccain
Friday, November 23, 2007
Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal
Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean
Today John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
Clinton leads the field in seeking earmarks.....
Clinton leads senators seeking presidency in use of earmarks
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
Hillary slippage in Iowa
WHAT IOWA SLIPPAGE MEANS FOR HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
John Mccain polls dead last in Iowa at 6%
John Mccain polls dead last in Iowa at 6%
about time, who's gonna replace him in the senate now ?
www.mccainalert.com
about time, who's gonna replace him in the senate now ?
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Border fence funding hoax exposed?
Border fence funding hoax exposed?
Grassfire.org Alliance We have the "smoking gun" on why the government
isn'tbuilding the double-layered fence mandated by law.
Please read below and forward to your friends.
As we reported to you last week, our government has built just fivemiles of the 854 miles of double-layer border fence mandated bythe Secure Fence Act of 2006. This outrageous fact begs a question... Why? If the law mandated a double layer fence covering 854 miles,then how come such little progress has been made? + + Border fence funding hoax of 2006 and 2007 Grassfire.org's research staff has blown the lid off a deceptiveand convoluted border fence funding sham being perpetrated onthe citizens of our nation. Warning -- reading this report will enrage you. It willinfuriate you. Go here to access the full report: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
As you will see in this report, Congress and the Administrationare pretending to support a real border fence but then workingbehind the scenes to ensure that the Secure Fence Act is neverreally implemented. It happened last year, and as I write, Congress is trying to repeatits Border Fence Funding Hoax on us again! Here's how... As you may know, last week an amendment providing $3 billion forborder security was stripped from the DOD appropriations bill. We fully expect that bill to be added to the DHS funding billin the next few days. But even if they pass the $3 billionfunding amendment, DHS may not be required to use any of thatmoney for the border fence. Not ONE DIME! That's because of another amendment by Sen. Hutchison that saysDHS does not have to build the fence! Sen. Hutchison's staff toldus this amendment (also removed from DOD appropriations) will alsobe re-attached to the DHS appropriations bill. + + Action Items: Help expose the Funding Hoax ed, I need your help to expose Congress’ Fence FundingHoax. We need to flood every House and Senate office with faxesdemanding action. Specifically, we are calling for an amendment (or amendments) tobe added to the DHS appropriations bill to fully fund thedouble-layer fence and directly tie that funding to the actualbuilding of the fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act. I am asking you to take two actions today:
1. Send faxes to your Senators, your Congressman and otherkey leaders exposing the Fence Funding Hoax Go here: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869 (As always you can use our FaxFire system or send your own faxes.All the information is provided at the above link.)
2. Call your Senators and Congressman today: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 To reach your representative, call the House Switchboard: 202-221-3121. Talking Points: 1. I am disappointed that Congress has not tied the border securityfunding directly to the double-layer fence mandated by the SecureFence Act. 2. I call on Congress to reject any amendments (such as theHutchison Amendment, SA 3176 to H.R. 3222) that gives HomelandSecurity total discretion over whether or not to build aborder fence.
3. I call on Congress to amend the DHS appropriations bill tofully fund 854 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER fening and directly tiesuch funding to the Secure Fence Act's two-layer fence mandate. Again, please read our full report. You will be outraged when yousee how the "fix was in" last year even before the Senate voted onthe Secure Fence Act -- and how Congress is trying to repeat thefunding hoax this year. The DHS appropriations bill is in House-Senate conference rightnow and could move quickly. Thank you for taking action. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S. Again, you can access Grassfire's complete Special Reporton the Fence Funding Hoax here:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111 P.P.S. I really want our feedback on this message and report.Please go here to post your comments/thoughts on a specialFireSociety.com page: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/Discussion/?src=111
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. Thise-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to changeyour status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Feedback or comments on this update? Go to FireSociety.com and post your comments so that the Grassfirestaff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from yourthoughts and opinions: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/?src=111
Grassfire.org Alliance We have the "smoking gun" on why the government
isn'tbuilding the double-layered fence mandated by law.
Please read below and forward to your friends.
As we reported to you last week, our government has built just fivemiles of the 854 miles of double-layer border fence mandated bythe Secure Fence Act of 2006. This outrageous fact begs a question... Why? If the law mandated a double layer fence covering 854 miles,then how come such little progress has been made? + + Border fence funding hoax of 2006 and 2007 Grassfire.org's research staff has blown the lid off a deceptiveand convoluted border fence funding sham being perpetrated onthe citizens of our nation. Warning -- reading this report will enrage you. It willinfuriate you. Go here to access the full report: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
As you will see in this report, Congress and the Administrationare pretending to support a real border fence but then workingbehind the scenes to ensure that the Secure Fence Act is neverreally implemented. It happened last year, and as I write, Congress is trying to repeatits Border Fence Funding Hoax on us again! Here's how... As you may know, last week an amendment providing $3 billion forborder security was stripped from the DOD appropriations bill. We fully expect that bill to be added to the DHS funding billin the next few days. But even if they pass the $3 billionfunding amendment, DHS may not be required to use any of thatmoney for the border fence. Not ONE DIME! That's because of another amendment by Sen. Hutchison that saysDHS does not have to build the fence! Sen. Hutchison's staff toldus this amendment (also removed from DOD appropriations) will alsobe re-attached to the DHS appropriations bill. + + Action Items: Help expose the Funding Hoax ed, I need your help to expose Congress’ Fence FundingHoax. We need to flood every House and Senate office with faxesdemanding action. Specifically, we are calling for an amendment (or amendments) tobe added to the DHS appropriations bill to fully fund thedouble-layer fence and directly tie that funding to the actualbuilding of the fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act. I am asking you to take two actions today:
1. Send faxes to your Senators, your Congressman and otherkey leaders exposing the Fence Funding Hoax Go here: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869 (As always you can use our FaxFire system or send your own faxes.All the information is provided at the above link.)
2. Call your Senators and Congressman today: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 To reach your representative, call the House Switchboard: 202-221-3121. Talking Points: 1. I am disappointed that Congress has not tied the border securityfunding directly to the double-layer fence mandated by the SecureFence Act. 2. I call on Congress to reject any amendments (such as theHutchison Amendment, SA 3176 to H.R. 3222) that gives HomelandSecurity total discretion over whether or not to build aborder fence.
3. I call on Congress to amend the DHS appropriations bill tofully fund 854 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER fening and directly tiesuch funding to the Secure Fence Act's two-layer fence mandate. Again, please read our full report. You will be outraged when yousee how the "fix was in" last year even before the Senate voted onthe Secure Fence Act -- and how Congress is trying to repeat thefunding hoax this year. The DHS appropriations bill is in House-Senate conference rightnow and could move quickly. Thank you for taking action. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S. Again, you can access Grassfire's complete Special Reporton the Fence Funding Hoax here:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111 P.P.S. I really want our feedback on this message and report.Please go here to post your comments/thoughts on a specialFireSociety.com page: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/Discussion/?src=111
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. Thise-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to changeyour status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Feedback or comments on this update? Go to FireSociety.com and post your comments so that the Grassfirestaff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from yourthoughts and opinions: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/?src=111
Mr
invite to see Fred Thompson in Phoenix
Please join the Arizona Republican Party as we welcomePresidential Candidate
and
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson
For a Trunk and Tusk Speaker Series Event
November 29th, Phoenix Airport Marriott
1101 North 44 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Senator Fred Thompson
Registration will open at 11:00 a.
$2,300 Table Sponsor – includes 2 tickets to a private reception, 10 tickets to lunch
$150 Individual
Please RSVP to Amilyn Gordon at mailto="mailto:agordon@azgop.org" To=agordon@azgop.org or Please specify if you are a Trunk and Tusk member; you admission is included in your membership dues!
Please join the Arizona Republican Party as we welcomePresidential Candidate
and
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson
For a Trunk and Tusk Speaker Series Event
November 29th, Phoenix Airport Marriott
1101 North 44 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Senator Fred Thompson
Registration will open at 11:00 a.
$2,300 Table Sponsor – includes 2 tickets to a private reception, 10 tickets to lunch
$150 Individual
Please RSVP to Amilyn Gordon at mailto="mailto:agordon@azgop.org" To=agordon@azgop.org or Please specify if you are a Trunk and Tusk member; you admission is included in your membership dues!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
disappointed in Sentor Mccain
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
First Lady of Arkansas
Monday, November 12, 2007
Phoenix Country Club
2901 North 7Street, Phoenix, 85014
$100 per person
$500 for event sponsorship
$1,000 per table
To RSVP, please contact Amilyn at
(602) 957-7770
Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Contributions are
not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from
corporations, foreign nationals and minors are prohibited. Contributions are
subject to federal contributions limits of $10,000 from individuals and
$5,000 from PACs
www.mccainalert.com
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
First Lady of Arkansas
Monday, November 12, 2007
Phoenix Country Club
2901 North 7Street, Phoenix, 85014
$100 per person
$500 for event sponsorship
$1,000 per table
To RSVP, please contact Amilyn at
(602) 957-7770
Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Contributions are
not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from
corporations, foreign nationals and minors are prohibited. Contributions are
subject to federal contributions limits of $10,000 from individuals and
$5,000 from PACs
www.mccainalert.com
Friday, November 02, 2007
WHAT IF THE IOWA POLLS DON'T CHANGE?
WHAT IF THE IOWA POLLS DON'T CHANGE?
What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?
And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?
With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don’t change much from now until then.
On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.
Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here’s what might happen:
Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor.
Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man’s Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.
Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives.
Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.
And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.
Hillary’s vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.
And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).
And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.
Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.
But what if?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 31, 2007.
What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?
And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?
With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don’t change much from now until then.
On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.
Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here’s what might happen:
Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor.
Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man’s Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.
Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives.
Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.
And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.
Hillary’s vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.
And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).
And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.
Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.
But what if?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 31, 2007.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
HILLARY’S BAD NIGHT
HILLARY’S BAD NIGHT
Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
the American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.
It was a moment in the 2008 campaign akin to Ted Kennedy’s inability to explain to Roger Mudd why he was running for president in 1980. It was one of those few moments when the real candidate is on display and visible to all. It came about because Senator Chris Dodd had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of Spitzer’s plan to illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of is is. It was a Hillary moment and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated, with asperity, to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” but, indeed, she had been got!
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
the American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.
It was a moment in the 2008 campaign akin to Ted Kennedy’s inability to explain to Roger Mudd why he was running for president in 1980. It was one of those few moments when the real candidate is on display and visible to all. It came about because Senator Chris Dodd had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of Spitzer’s plan to illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of is is. It was a Hillary moment and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated, with asperity, to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” but, indeed, she had been got!
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET
THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on October 26, 2007.
Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is shaking up the Republican race.
Think of the primary process as a tennis tournament. On the center court, in the semi-final, Rudy Giuliani is defeating John McCain in straight sets. But on the right court, low-seeded Huckabee beat Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in the quarter-finals for the designation of "Christian Coalition" challenger - and now will face off against ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Massachusetts ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in the right-court semi-final. The winner will meet Rudy in the finals.
Huckabee's national poll numbers are rising. Scott Rasmussen has him at 10 percent nationally and in third place at 18 percent in Iowa, where he trails Thompson by 1 percent and Romney by 7 percent.
Thompson's campaign has been a disaster - from his comment that Osama bin Laden was entitled to due process to his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. The average of the last five national polls (see realclearpolitics.com) shows him trailing Rudy, 28-18, and only barely ahead of Romney and McCain.
Thanks to heavy advertising, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire - but his edge is dwindling, and he's never broken 16 percent in any national poll.
Why doesn't this charismatic, articulate candidate catch on? Part of it is blatant anti-Mormon bigotry. But part of it is his flip-flop-flip on abortion: As a candidate in liberal Massachusetts, he switched from pro-life to pro-choice; then, as he got ready for this race, he switched back to pro-life again.
Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, "I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you" - and came in strong anyway.
More recently, he swept last weekend's Values Voters convention among those who appeared in person. (He lost by less than one point overall to Romney, whose tally included a mass of Internet votes.)
Why the Huckabee boomlet? A gripping, humorous, passionate orator, he brings a spiritual dimension to public-policy problems. His ideas are interesting. Want lower health-care costs? Tackle obesity and smoking. Education reform? Music and art education are just as important to our national creativity as science and math.
He has a good chance to be the front-ranking challenger to Giuliani in the national primary on Feb. 5. He might beat Rudy - or at least earn a VP designation, because Giuliani will be anxious to appeal to Christian-right voters.
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on October 26, 2007.
Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is shaking up the Republican race.
Think of the primary process as a tennis tournament. On the center court, in the semi-final, Rudy Giuliani is defeating John McCain in straight sets. But on the right court, low-seeded Huckabee beat Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in the quarter-finals for the designation of "Christian Coalition" challenger - and now will face off against ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Massachusetts ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in the right-court semi-final. The winner will meet Rudy in the finals.
Huckabee's national poll numbers are rising. Scott Rasmussen has him at 10 percent nationally and in third place at 18 percent in Iowa, where he trails Thompson by 1 percent and Romney by 7 percent.
Thompson's campaign has been a disaster - from his comment that Osama bin Laden was entitled to due process to his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. The average of the last five national polls (see realclearpolitics.com) shows him trailing Rudy, 28-18, and only barely ahead of Romney and McCain.
Thanks to heavy advertising, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire - but his edge is dwindling, and he's never broken 16 percent in any national poll.
Why doesn't this charismatic, articulate candidate catch on? Part of it is blatant anti-Mormon bigotry. But part of it is his flip-flop-flip on abortion: As a candidate in liberal Massachusetts, he switched from pro-life to pro-choice; then, as he got ready for this race, he switched back to pro-life again.
Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, "I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you" - and came in strong anyway.
More recently, he swept last weekend's Values Voters convention among those who appeared in person. (He lost by less than one point overall to Romney, whose tally included a mass of Internet votes.)
Why the Huckabee boomlet? A gripping, humorous, passionate orator, he brings a spiritual dimension to public-policy problems. His ideas are interesting. Want lower health-care costs? Tackle obesity and smoking. Education reform? Music and art education are just as important to our national creativity as science and math.
He has a good chance to be the front-ranking challenger to Giuliani in the national primary on Feb. 5. He might beat Rudy - or at least earn a VP designation, because Giuliani will be anxious to appeal to Christian-right voters.
New Report from FAIR Finds More than 13 Million Illegal Aliens
New Report from FAIR Finds More than 13 Million Illegal Aliens Reside in the U.S.
2007 Figures Represent an 88 Percent Increase Since 2000
(Washington, D.C.) According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), How Many Illegal Aliens?, the illegal immigrant population of the United States now exceeds 13 million. In 2000, the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were a little more than 7 million people residing illegally in the U.S.
The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.
"These new estimates, showing explosive growth in illegal immigration in recent years, indicate why Americans all across the country are demanding that the government control our borders and block illegal immigrants from working or receiving benefits in this country," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Almost from the day the Bush Administration took office, they made it clear that their aim was to reward illegal immigration with amnesty and assorted other benefits. As a result, we have seen record increases in illegal immigration, mounting burdens on taxpayers, and unprecedented public concern about this issue."
At 13,175,000 people, the illegal population of the United States is now larger than the entire population of Illinois, the nation's fifth most populous state. The phenomenon has also become a national one in the past decade, finds How Many Illegal Aliens? More than three-fifths of the states have seen their illegal alien population more than double since 2000. In all, 24 states now have illegal populations that exceed 100,000.
"There are no overnight fixes to a problem that has been growing for years," commented Stein. "But the American public strongly supports an enforcement-first approach that discourages new people from coming illegally and encourages millions who are here to return home. What is clear, is that lack of enforcement and proposed amnesties have only exacerbated the problem."
How Many Illegal Aliens? is available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca
To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
To join or donate to FAIR, click here.
2007 Figures Represent an 88 Percent Increase Since 2000
(Washington, D.C.) According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), How Many Illegal Aliens?, the illegal immigrant population of the United States now exceeds 13 million. In 2000, the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were a little more than 7 million people residing illegally in the U.S.
The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.
"These new estimates, showing explosive growth in illegal immigration in recent years, indicate why Americans all across the country are demanding that the government control our borders and block illegal immigrants from working or receiving benefits in this country," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Almost from the day the Bush Administration took office, they made it clear that their aim was to reward illegal immigration with amnesty and assorted other benefits. As a result, we have seen record increases in illegal immigration, mounting burdens on taxpayers, and unprecedented public concern about this issue."
At 13,175,000 people, the illegal population of the United States is now larger than the entire population of Illinois, the nation's fifth most populous state. The phenomenon has also become a national one in the past decade, finds How Many Illegal Aliens? More than three-fifths of the states have seen their illegal alien population more than double since 2000. In all, 24 states now have illegal populations that exceed 100,000.
"There are no overnight fixes to a problem that has been growing for years," commented Stein. "But the American public strongly supports an enforcement-first approach that discourages new people from coming illegally and encourages millions who are here to return home. What is clear, is that lack of enforcement and proposed amnesties have only exacerbated the problem."
How Many Illegal Aliens? is available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca
To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
To join or donate to FAIR, click here.
Monday, October 29, 2007
new popular web site www.hillary-uncensored.com web
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Something for everyone if you are White.
Something for everyone if you are White.
http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
http://www.halturnershow.com/ Hal Turner Show
http://www.natall.com/ National Alliance
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/ Vanguard News Network
http://www.stormfront.org/ Stormfront
http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World Wide
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ White Civil Rights
ted
http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
http://www.halturnershow.com/ Hal Turner Show
http://www.natall.com/ National Alliance
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/ Vanguard News Network
http://www.stormfront.org/ Stormfront
http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World Wide
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ White Civil Rights
ted
Friday, October 26, 2007
John Mccain playing the war hero card? with all due repect?
John Mccain playing the war hero card? with all due repect?
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow poilots gave him the nick name of "crash".
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow poilots gave him the nick name of "crash".
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, October 25, 2007
will Senator Ted Kennedy lose his personal off shore tax shelters?
will Senator Ted Kennedy lose his personal off shore tax shelters?
with the new proposed tax change law announced by dems today ?
www.mccainalert.com
with the new proposed tax change law announced by dems today ?
www.mccainalert.com
when's that shithead senator dick durbin up for reelection?
when's that shithead senator dick durbin up for reelection?
i think he personally pulling down approval rating for the senate with his absurb amensty projects.
www.mccainalert.com
i think he personally pulling down approval rating for the senate with his absurb amensty projects.
www.mccainalert.com
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
FAIR Congratulates New York Senate
FAIR Congratulates New York Senate for Opposing
Plan to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens
(Washington DC) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which represents some 12,000 members in New York State, issued the following statement regarding the passage of S. 6484, a bill before the New York State Senate requiring proof of legal U.S. residence to obtain a driver's license. The bill was approved Monday by a 39-19 vote:
"FAIR congratulates Sen. Frank Padavan and a bipartisan coalition of legislators for their swift and decisive action to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to reward illegal aliens in New York with driver's license privileges. S. 6484 is a victory for common sense, the rule of law and national security. The bill also reflects the overwhelming opinion of New Yorkers, more than 70 percent of whom oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
"A driver's license is the de facto document that Americans use to identify themselves in a variety of situations, including boarding airplanes. The terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York on September 11, 2001 used driver's licenses issued by New Jersey, Virginia and Florida to board flights that morning. It is inconceivable to most New Yorkers that given the enormous price that the state has already paid for lax issuance of these vital identity documents, that Gov. Spitzer is intent on reversing the state's longstanding policy of requiring proof of legal residence to obtain a New York license or identity card.
"We urge the Assembly to follow the lead of the State Senate and reaffirm New York's commitment to protecting the security of its people and the nation. Ensuring road safety in New York can and should be accomplished by enforcing existing motor vehicle codes against people who drive without licenses and insurance, not by capitulating to the demands of the illegal alien lobby.
"It is time for Gov. Spitzer to listen to the law-abiding people of New York, to national security experts, and to local officials who issue licenses. He needs to abandon his ill-advised efforts which reward illegal immigrants at great risk to the public.
Plan to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens
(Washington DC) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which represents some 12,000 members in New York State, issued the following statement regarding the passage of S. 6484, a bill before the New York State Senate requiring proof of legal U.S. residence to obtain a driver's license. The bill was approved Monday by a 39-19 vote:
"FAIR congratulates Sen. Frank Padavan and a bipartisan coalition of legislators for their swift and decisive action to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to reward illegal aliens in New York with driver's license privileges. S. 6484 is a victory for common sense, the rule of law and national security. The bill also reflects the overwhelming opinion of New Yorkers, more than 70 percent of whom oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
"A driver's license is the de facto document that Americans use to identify themselves in a variety of situations, including boarding airplanes. The terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York on September 11, 2001 used driver's licenses issued by New Jersey, Virginia and Florida to board flights that morning. It is inconceivable to most New Yorkers that given the enormous price that the state has already paid for lax issuance of these vital identity documents, that Gov. Spitzer is intent on reversing the state's longstanding policy of requiring proof of legal residence to obtain a New York license or identity card.
"We urge the Assembly to follow the lead of the State Senate and reaffirm New York's commitment to protecting the security of its people and the nation. Ensuring road safety in New York can and should be accomplished by enforcing existing motor vehicle codes against people who drive without licenses and insurance, not by capitulating to the demands of the illegal alien lobby.
"It is time for Gov. Spitzer to listen to the law-abiding people of New York, to national security experts, and to local officials who issue licenses. He needs to abandon his ill-advised efforts which reward illegal immigrants at great risk to the public.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Muslins don't like women as political leaders, why do we keep sending Condi Rice to the Muslim world ?
Muslins don't like women as political leaders, why do we keep sending Condi Rice to the Muslim world ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, October 18, 2007
New Jersey Cash 5 lottery NJ lotto
see the hottest/coldest lotto numbers for the
New Jersey Cash 5 lottery
Popularity Report
Hot numbers ???
=================================================
times Last
Ranking Number occurred hit on
1 B37 105 10/18/07
2 B33 97 10/18/07
3 B04 93 10/17/07
4 B14 90 10/17/07
5 B10 89 10/12/07
6 B03 88 10/18/07
7 B09 88 10/16/07
8 B15 87 10/17/07
9 B32 87 10/18/07
10 B39 87 10/08/07
11 B16 86 10/11/07
12 B30 86 10/11/07
13 B08 84 10/13/07
14 B28 84 10/13/07
15 B18 83 10/09/07
16 B21 82 10/10/07
17 B05 81 10/06/07
18 B12 81 10/01/07
19 B13 81 10/09/07
20 B27 81 10/02/07
21 B11 80 10/06/07
22 B19 80 09/30/07
23 B20 80 10/18/07
24 B01 79 10/16/07
25 B22 79 10/12/07
26 B29 79 10/08/07
27 B34 79 10/13/07
28 B35 79 10/17/07
29 B38 79 09/18/07
30 B24 78 10/11/07
31 B25 78 10/12/07
32 B06 76 10/15/07
33 B07 76 09/29/07
34 B31 76 09/23/07
35 B23 75 10/17/07
36 B02 74 10/07/07
37 B26 74 10/12/07
38 B40 74 10/13/07
39 B36 73 09/12/07
40 B17 62 10/09/07
=====================================
= end of pop report =
see more New Jersey Take 5 Lotto reporting and stats
at www.needto.net/newjersey.htm
best of luck in the next New Jersey Cash 5 Lotto
www.needto.net/newjersey.htm more New Jersey lotto reports
see more lottery reporting and stats at www.needto.net
including New Jersey Mega Millions lotto
report for New Jersey Cash 5 lotto prepared on 10/18/2007
New Jersey Pick 6 lottery
see the hottest/coldest lotto numbers for the
New Jersey Pick 6 lottery
Popularity Report
Hot numbers ???
=================================================
times Last
Ranking Number occurred hit on
1 B02 34 10/18/07
2 B34 33 10/18/07
3 B48 32 09/20/07
4 B05 30 10/08/07
5 B13 30 08/30/07
6 B28 30 10/18/07
7 B33 30 10/08/07
8 B07 29 09/06/07
9 B01 28 08/20/07
10 B03 27 10/08/07
11 B29 27 09/24/07
12 B10 26 10/15/07
13 B24 26 10/18/07
14 B41 26 07/05/07
15 B23 25 10/15/07
16 B38 25 10/11/07
17 B43 25 09/17/07
18 B44 25 10/04/07
19 B04 24 10/01/07
20 B08 24 10/04/07
21 B18 24 09/24/07
22 B32 24 07/19/07
23 B26 23 07/26/07
24 B35 23 10/15/07
25 B39 23 10/04/07
26 B40 23 07/12/07
27 B06 22 09/10/07
28 B09 22 10/11/07
29 B30 22 09/24/07
30 B49 22 09/27/07
31 B17 21 09/27/07
32 B27 21 08/30/07
33 B36 21 10/11/07
34 B11 20 10/11/07
35 B12 20 09/24/07
36 B19 20 10/01/07
37 B14 19 10/18/07
38 B20 19 07/12/07
39 B31 19 10/15/07
40 B46 19 09/10/07
41 B25 18 09/17/07
42 B37 18 10/18/07
43 B16 17 09/06/07
44 B21 17 10/04/07
45 B22 17 09/03/07
46 B47 17 09/17/07
47 B15 14 10/04/07
48 B45 14 09/03/07
49 B42 13 09/13/07
=====================================
= end of pop report =
see more New Jersey Lotto reporting and stats
at www.needto.net/newjersey.htm
best of luck in the next New Jersey Pick 6 Lotto
www.needto.net/newjersey.htm more New Jersey lotto reports
see more lottery reporting and stats at www.needto.net
including New Jersey Mega Millions lotto
report for New Jersey Pick lotto prepared on 10/18/2007
from the desk of Janet Napolitano
Education has been one of my top priorities since the day I took office, which is why I am excited to announce that October 2007 is Arizona’s first College Savings Month. To succeed in our 21st century global economy, every Arizona student should have the opportunity to pursue education beyond high school. Not only does higher education allow for tremendous personal growth, but it also provides endless professional opportunities and higher earning potential.
In the Arizona economy, less than two percent of top-earning jobs will be available to workers whose educations end at a high school diploma. College Savings Month recognizes that a family saving a little money at a time can make a big difference in a child’s future – and there are tools available to help.
This month, the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education is reaching out to families to share information about new saving options that can help facilitate what was once a complicated process. These options include the Arizona Family College Savings Program (AFCSP), a 529 plan that allows Arizonans to save for post-secondary education in much the same way as a retirement account.
Families who use the AFCSP, or contribute to any other 529 plan, will be eligible for a state tax deduction effective January 1, 2008. Single tax filers can receive up to a $750 deduction; taxpayers who are married and filing jointly will be permitted up to a $1,500 deduction.
College Savings Month organizers are offering a series of seminars providing information on the new state tax incentive and the AFCSP. For more information on these seminars or to download a planner, visit www.az529.gov.
As always, if you have suggestions or questions, or if you would like information, please call my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services, or visit www.azgovernor.gov for more information from my office.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
In the Arizona economy, less than two percent of top-earning jobs will be available to workers whose educations end at a high school diploma. College Savings Month recognizes that a family saving a little money at a time can make a big difference in a child’s future – and there are tools available to help.
This month, the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education is reaching out to families to share information about new saving options that can help facilitate what was once a complicated process. These options include the Arizona Family College Savings Program (AFCSP), a 529 plan that allows Arizonans to save for post-secondary education in much the same way as a retirement account.
Families who use the AFCSP, or contribute to any other 529 plan, will be eligible for a state tax deduction effective January 1, 2008. Single tax filers can receive up to a $750 deduction; taxpayers who are married and filing jointly will be permitted up to a $1,500 deduction.
College Savings Month organizers are offering a series of seminars providing information on the new state tax incentive and the AFCSP. For more information on these seminars or to download a planner, visit www.az529.gov.
As always, if you have suggestions or questions, or if you would like information, please call my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services, or visit www.azgovernor.gov for more information from my office.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
what's that shithead NY Governor "no balls" Spitzer up to?
what's that shithead NY Governor "no balls" Spitzer up to?
he doesn't have the balls to appear on any talk show to discuss his absurb ideal of giving away NY driver licenses ?
he doesn't have the balls to appear on any talk show to discuss his absurb ideal of giving away NY driver licenses ?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Rush's letter from Reid is now on ebay.
private citizen, forty-one of them sent a letter demanding the "repudiation" of their inaccurate interpretation of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Jesse Al-Zaid (a.k.a. Jesse MacBeth) and other "phony soldiers" who falsify their service. This letter was delivered to Mark Mays of Clear Channel Communications, Rush Limbaugh's syndication partner, and widely quoted in the Drive-By Media.
Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers.
The entire proceeds of this auction.. the entire high bid... will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. All costs of this auction will be paid by the seller... every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million.
Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers.
The entire proceeds of this auction.. the entire high bid... will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. All costs of this auction will be paid by the seller... every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
CHANCE OF INCREASED TAXES IF HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED
CHANCE OF INCREASED TAXES IF HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Hillary Clinton would raise taxes if she is elected president. Sharply. As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.
As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.
It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.
She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.
But that is far from all.
She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes. This levy is currently enforced on the first $97,000 of income. Hillary would probably follow the lead of Democratic liberals and either raise the limit — at least doubling it — or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both close Hillary allies (it was Rangel who first suggested she run for Senate in New York), are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.) Each year, inflation threatens to expand to cover more and more middle class families and replace it with a 35 percent tax on all "carried interest" earnings of hedge funds and other venture capital partnerships.
Robert Novak reports that Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system." Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation "the mother of all tax reforms."
Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.
Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.
In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:
"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."
On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”
She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.’”
Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Hillary Clinton would raise taxes if she is elected president. Sharply. As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.
As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.
It also likely means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.
She certainly would repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.
But that is far from all.
She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes. This levy is currently enforced on the first $97,000 of income. Hillary would probably follow the lead of Democratic liberals and either raise the limit — at least doubling it — or eliminating it altogether. A self-employed American making $250,000 a year currently pays $12,125 in FICA taxes (12.5 percent x $97,000). If the threshold were eliminated, his FICA tax would jump to $31,250!
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both close Hillary allies (it was Rangel who first suggested she run for Senate in New York), are paving the way by their proposed tax increases. The Schumer-Rangel bill was first, superficially, an attempt to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.) Each year, inflation threatens to expand to cover more and more middle class families and replace it with a 35 percent tax on all "carried interest" earnings of hedge funds and other venture capital partnerships.
Robert Novak reports that Rangel's staff is "hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system." Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation "the mother of all tax reforms."
Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.
Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.
In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:
"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."
On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”
She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.’”
Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Uncontrolled immigration (illegal) is a cancer
Crossbow Says:
October 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Uncontrolled immigration (illegal) is a cancer and it is spreading throughout the country, depressing wages and destroying neighborhoods. An example can be found in Santa Ana California. I can remember in the late ‘50’s and early ‘60’s Santa Ana California was a nice upper middle class community. According to the 2000 census figures it is now home to over 347,000 people 76 % of the population is Latino 180,000 were not born in this country; 156,000 of these people speak English poorly if at all. Most of the Latino population has less than a 9th grade education. The Latino population had an average annual income less than $10,000.00 per year. Once, a nice place to live much of Santa Ana is now plagued by gang violence. Drive-by shootings are common occurrences. Santa Ana has been turned into a barrio. It doesn’t seem like the people in Santa Ana have made any progress in assimilating into the American culture. Do you know why? It’s because they don’t want to assimilate. They want to live in their neighborhoods, speak their language and do things the way they did them in their native country, and they would like to spread that lifestyle to other communities until the place resembles the place that they came from and that includes the corruption and everything else that goes along with it. Other parts of the country are beginning to feel the burden of supporting these families whose incomes cannot possibly sustain the number of mothers and children needing to be fed, schooled and medicated. Now Americans, with the exception of those who have something to gain, complain that the federal government isn’t doing its job, and the federal government complains that they need help from local authorities, and so every agency passes the buck in an attempt to fool the electorate into believing that they really would do something if only they could. The taxpayer is the one left holding the bag. We are constantly fed the lie that things would be so much more expensive without the illegals. Without them our economy would collapse, blah, blah, blah. Things are really not any cheaper now when you consider the costs of supporting these people. Do you really think that businesses that hire these people are giving you deep discounts due to their low labor costs? What they are doing is pocketing the difference of what they would have to pay an American to do the same job, and you still pay the same price plus the cost of benefits that the business doesn’t pay.
Uncontrolled immigration is a cancer that feeds off of corrupt politicians and greedy business owners, expecting them to do anything to abate illegal immigration is an exercise in futility. The only thing that will change these people is to force the government to use existing laws to punish business owners who hire illegal aliens. How do you force the government to do this? You stay on their case. You write them every time you hear even a rumor about an amnesty proposal. Politicians are not interested in doing what is good for this country they are only interested in staying in office. They look at their mail and decide where the votes are and that’s where they go with their decisions. If you don’t participate in this process then you will get what you deserve.
Let people come here legally. Let them assimilate and then let some more come in. That’s the way it should be done. In the meantime if businesses say they can’t get help let them recruit from outside provided they pay the cost of benefits for their “guest workers” up to and including the cost of benefits for the workers family’s; food; clothing; medical care etc. etc. Let’s see how economical it would become to simply raise the wages offered to Americans to do the work. Until then: arrest employers breaking the law and put them in jail; arrest, punish and then deport those who use other’s social security numbers; vote out or impeach politicians who refuse to uphold their sworn duty. It’s not too late.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Uncontrolled immigration (illegal) is a cancer and it is spreading throughout the country, depressing wages and destroying neighborhoods. An example can be found in Santa Ana California. I can remember in the late ‘50’s and early ‘60’s Santa Ana California was a nice upper middle class community. According to the 2000 census figures it is now home to over 347,000 people 76 % of the population is Latino 180,000 were not born in this country; 156,000 of these people speak English poorly if at all. Most of the Latino population has less than a 9th grade education. The Latino population had an average annual income less than $10,000.00 per year. Once, a nice place to live much of Santa Ana is now plagued by gang violence. Drive-by shootings are common occurrences. Santa Ana has been turned into a barrio. It doesn’t seem like the people in Santa Ana have made any progress in assimilating into the American culture. Do you know why? It’s because they don’t want to assimilate. They want to live in their neighborhoods, speak their language and do things the way they did them in their native country, and they would like to spread that lifestyle to other communities until the place resembles the place that they came from and that includes the corruption and everything else that goes along with it. Other parts of the country are beginning to feel the burden of supporting these families whose incomes cannot possibly sustain the number of mothers and children needing to be fed, schooled and medicated. Now Americans, with the exception of those who have something to gain, complain that the federal government isn’t doing its job, and the federal government complains that they need help from local authorities, and so every agency passes the buck in an attempt to fool the electorate into believing that they really would do something if only they could. The taxpayer is the one left holding the bag. We are constantly fed the lie that things would be so much more expensive without the illegals. Without them our economy would collapse, blah, blah, blah. Things are really not any cheaper now when you consider the costs of supporting these people. Do you really think that businesses that hire these people are giving you deep discounts due to their low labor costs? What they are doing is pocketing the difference of what they would have to pay an American to do the same job, and you still pay the same price plus the cost of benefits that the business doesn’t pay.
Uncontrolled immigration is a cancer that feeds off of corrupt politicians and greedy business owners, expecting them to do anything to abate illegal immigration is an exercise in futility. The only thing that will change these people is to force the government to use existing laws to punish business owners who hire illegal aliens. How do you force the government to do this? You stay on their case. You write them every time you hear even a rumor about an amnesty proposal. Politicians are not interested in doing what is good for this country they are only interested in staying in office. They look at their mail and decide where the votes are and that’s where they go with their decisions. If you don’t participate in this process then you will get what you deserve.
Let people come here legally. Let them assimilate and then let some more come in. That’s the way it should be done. In the meantime if businesses say they can’t get help let them recruit from outside provided they pay the cost of benefits for their “guest workers” up to and including the cost of benefits for the workers family’s; food; clothing; medical care etc. etc. Let’s see how economical it would become to simply raise the wages offered to Americans to do the work. Until then: arrest employers breaking the law and put them in jail; arrest, punish and then deport those who use other’s social security numbers; vote out or impeach politicians who refuse to uphold their sworn duty. It’s not too late.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE BACKING HILLARY
WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE BACKING HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 10, 2007.
The question looms over the Democratic primary: Why are rank-and-file Democrats so determined to nominate Hillary Clinton for president? With her lead now growing and her vote share registering in the mid-40s, she is increasingly likely to win the nomination. Why?
There is every reason why the Democrats should be more cautious. Desperate to win and bring eight years of Republican rule to a close, they realize that Hillary is a red flag to many voters and would be the most polarizing nominee they could select. While Obama or Edwards could likely reach out to independents and even Republicans, Hillary cannot. One either loves her or hates her. Her very candidacy elicits memories of all the Clinton scandals, from Whitewater and Marc Rich to the gifts to the Rose Law Firm, the Chinese campaign contributions, the New Square Hasidic pardons, the Lincoln Bedroom and Monica. Why do Democrats willingly take on that baggage when two relative virgins beckon as alternatives? And why do they want to nominate the first woman to run for president when there is an obvious danger that sexism could yet rear its ugly head? Why take these risks? Indeed, why do they seem to almost insist on taking them?
Democrats today are seeking a warrior, a gladiator, not a president when they cast their ballots in their primaries and caucuses. Angered by the so-called defeat of 2000 and scarred by the upset of 2004, there is an intensity to their desire to win that dwarfs all other emotions and considerations. They are not nominating a president. They are nominating a candidate. They are not interested in the credentials of a possible president in selecting their standard-bearer; they seek the characteristics of a fighter, a combatant, one who will win.
Hillary’s demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and triumph is the quality that most appeals to Democrats. Were she to star in a reality TV show, it would be “Survivor.” She has taken the worst the Republican machine can deal and overcome it. She has mastered the Karl Roves of our politics and earned the affection of her party’s voters for doing so.
Her battle scars are her accolades. Her ability to come back from Gennifer Flowers, healthcare reform, the loss of Congress, the grand jury subpoenas of Kenneth Starr, the denouement of the truth about Lewinsky, the ensuing impeachment, the carpetbagger issue as she journeyed to New York, the pardon and White House gifts scandals and her early support of the war in Iraq are the real items in her résumé that interest her party’s voters. They care less what kind of president she would be and more that she probably can become the president.
When she says she can “hit the ground running,” she pretends that she is addressing her vast public policy experience. But it is irrelevant that she was in the White House for eight years. So was the pastry chef. But what is relevant, and inescapable, is that she did lead the president’s crusade to overcome the efforts of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring him down, and it is that experience which endears her to the base.
This affection for Hillary the Gladiator makes the appeals of Obama and Edwards largely irrelevant. They might be good men. They might be good presidents. But can they win? Are Edwards’s decency and civility barriers to being tough enough to beat the GOP machine? Is Obama’s desire to rise above partisanship the right attitude to take into a food fight with the GOP? Democrats have their doubts. But about Hillary’s zest for combat and her ruthlessness once in the ring, they have no concerns.
So Hillary does not polarize her party ideologically. Instead, she compares with her opponents in a time warp. She is the candidate of the present. Edwards is the candidate of the past, the man who, like Rocky’s brother-in-law Paulie, might have been a contender and would have been very good. Obama is the candidate of the future, the young man with promise and so much talent. But for today, for now — it’s Hillary.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 10, 2007.
The question looms over the Democratic primary: Why are rank-and-file Democrats so determined to nominate Hillary Clinton for president? With her lead now growing and her vote share registering in the mid-40s, she is increasingly likely to win the nomination. Why?
There is every reason why the Democrats should be more cautious. Desperate to win and bring eight years of Republican rule to a close, they realize that Hillary is a red flag to many voters and would be the most polarizing nominee they could select. While Obama or Edwards could likely reach out to independents and even Republicans, Hillary cannot. One either loves her or hates her. Her very candidacy elicits memories of all the Clinton scandals, from Whitewater and Marc Rich to the gifts to the Rose Law Firm, the Chinese campaign contributions, the New Square Hasidic pardons, the Lincoln Bedroom and Monica. Why do Democrats willingly take on that baggage when two relative virgins beckon as alternatives? And why do they want to nominate the first woman to run for president when there is an obvious danger that sexism could yet rear its ugly head? Why take these risks? Indeed, why do they seem to almost insist on taking them?
Democrats today are seeking a warrior, a gladiator, not a president when they cast their ballots in their primaries and caucuses. Angered by the so-called defeat of 2000 and scarred by the upset of 2004, there is an intensity to their desire to win that dwarfs all other emotions and considerations. They are not nominating a president. They are nominating a candidate. They are not interested in the credentials of a possible president in selecting their standard-bearer; they seek the characteristics of a fighter, a combatant, one who will win.
Hillary’s demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and triumph is the quality that most appeals to Democrats. Were she to star in a reality TV show, it would be “Survivor.” She has taken the worst the Republican machine can deal and overcome it. She has mastered the Karl Roves of our politics and earned the affection of her party’s voters for doing so.
Her battle scars are her accolades. Her ability to come back from Gennifer Flowers, healthcare reform, the loss of Congress, the grand jury subpoenas of Kenneth Starr, the denouement of the truth about Lewinsky, the ensuing impeachment, the carpetbagger issue as she journeyed to New York, the pardon and White House gifts scandals and her early support of the war in Iraq are the real items in her résumé that interest her party’s voters. They care less what kind of president she would be and more that she probably can become the president.
When she says she can “hit the ground running,” she pretends that she is addressing her vast public policy experience. But it is irrelevant that she was in the White House for eight years. So was the pastry chef. But what is relevant, and inescapable, is that she did lead the president’s crusade to overcome the efforts of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring him down, and it is that experience which endears her to the base.
This affection for Hillary the Gladiator makes the appeals of Obama and Edwards largely irrelevant. They might be good men. They might be good presidents. But can they win? Are Edwards’s decency and civility barriers to being tough enough to beat the GOP machine? Is Obama’s desire to rise above partisanship the right attitude to take into a food fight with the GOP? Democrats have their doubts. But about Hillary’s zest for combat and her ruthlessness once in the ring, they have no concerns.
So Hillary does not polarize her party ideologically. Instead, she compares with her opponents in a time warp. She is the candidate of the present. Edwards is the candidate of the past, the man who, like Rocky’s brother-in-law Paulie, might have been a contender and would have been very good. Obama is the candidate of the future, the young man with promise and so much talent. But for today, for now — it’s Hillary.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Senate Amendments Increase Funding for Border Security
Senate Amendments Increase Funding for Border Security
On Wednesday, two significant border-related amendments were added to the Defense Appropriations bill currently before the Senate (H.R. 3222). The first of these was an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to continue funding for 6,000 National Guard troops stationed on the southern border (S.A. 3192). Since May, the Administration has drawn down half of the National Guardsmen originally stationed on the border as part of Operation Jump Start. The Administration plans to draw down the remainder at the beginning of 2008.
The Sessions Amendment, which was added to the bill on a voice vote, reverses the Administration's efforts to end Operation Jump Start by keeping troops funded on the border through fiscal year 2008. "The number of illegal aliens attempting to cross the border decreased by about 25 percent since National Guard troops were deployed," said Sen. Sessions. "This program is a proven success and it would be unthinkable to back away so soon from this critical part of our border enforcement strategy." (Reuters, Oct. 4, 2007)
Earlier in the day, the Senate adopted by a vote of 95-1 an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill authored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would provide $3 billion for security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) spoke in support of the amendment, saying, "There's no greater domestic issue in this country than the problems on our southern border with Mexico, and it is time that Congress makes a commitment to make border security a reality." The amendment sets aside money for selected purposes at the discretion of the Administration. The Administration may spend this $3 billion to hire additional border patrol agents, to install fencing and vehicle barriers along the border, for removal and detention of illegal aliens, and to reimburse states and localities utilizing a 287(g) program. The only money dedicated to a specific enforcement area is $60,000,000 designated for employment eligibility verification programs.
During the debate on the amendment Senator Graham demonstrated that he had no intent of giving up on "comprehensive immigration reform." Indicating that the enforcement package was aimed at laying the predicate for further legislative action, he said, "People who want border security first, this is a recognition that we've listened to you, we understand what you're saying, and we're putting money aside to make sure we secure our border." (Houston Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2007; The State, Oct. 4, 2007)
On Wednesday, two significant border-related amendments were added to the Defense Appropriations bill currently before the Senate (H.R. 3222). The first of these was an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to continue funding for 6,000 National Guard troops stationed on the southern border (S.A. 3192). Since May, the Administration has drawn down half of the National Guardsmen originally stationed on the border as part of Operation Jump Start. The Administration plans to draw down the remainder at the beginning of 2008.
The Sessions Amendment, which was added to the bill on a voice vote, reverses the Administration's efforts to end Operation Jump Start by keeping troops funded on the border through fiscal year 2008. "The number of illegal aliens attempting to cross the border decreased by about 25 percent since National Guard troops were deployed," said Sen. Sessions. "This program is a proven success and it would be unthinkable to back away so soon from this critical part of our border enforcement strategy." (Reuters, Oct. 4, 2007)
Earlier in the day, the Senate adopted by a vote of 95-1 an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill authored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would provide $3 billion for security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) spoke in support of the amendment, saying, "There's no greater domestic issue in this country than the problems on our southern border with Mexico, and it is time that Congress makes a commitment to make border security a reality." The amendment sets aside money for selected purposes at the discretion of the Administration. The Administration may spend this $3 billion to hire additional border patrol agents, to install fencing and vehicle barriers along the border, for removal and detention of illegal aliens, and to reimburse states and localities utilizing a 287(g) program. The only money dedicated to a specific enforcement area is $60,000,000 designated for employment eligibility verification programs.
During the debate on the amendment Senator Graham demonstrated that he had no intent of giving up on "comprehensive immigration reform." Indicating that the enforcement package was aimed at laying the predicate for further legislative action, he said, "People who want border security first, this is a recognition that we've listened to you, we understand what you're saying, and we're putting money aside to make sure we secure our border." (Houston Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2007; The State, Oct. 4, 2007)
Lawmakers Working Under the Radar to Increase H-2B Visas
Lawmakers Working Under the Radar to Increase H-2B Visas
Reports are coming from the Hill that certain lawmakers are quietly working to increase the number of unskilled workers allowed into the U.S. by surreptitiously raising the H-2B visa cap. The leading proponents of such a move are Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), who have introduced the "Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007" (S.988/H.R.1843) and are going from Member to Member to gain support. This legislation would increase the number of unskilled foreign workers in the U.S. by exempting H-2B workers who have been in the U.S. "during any 1 of the preceding 3 years" from the 66,000 cap when they reenter the U.S.
The H-2B program is a temporary non-immigrant worker program through which U.S. businesses import tens of thousands of unskilled foreign laborers each year to perform non-agricultural work. Last year, for example, over 134,000 non-immigrants were brought into the U.S. as H-2B workers, nearly one-third of whom were employed as landscapers and at least one-tenth of whom worked in the resort industry. (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Performance Report: March 28, 2005-September 30, 2006, September 17, 2007). The maximum duration of an H-2B visa is one year.
Under long-standing law, the number of H-2B visas issued in a year is capped at 66,000. Each fiscal year, half of these visas become available in October and the other half becomes available beginning in April. Often, these H-2B visas are all apportioned before they are even released. In this year, for example, applications for the visas coming available in April were already over 33,000 in March. (Denver Post, October 4, 2007).
However, instead of putting pressure on employers to increase wages or seek out American workers to make up any labor shortfalls, Congress increased H-2B visas in both 2005 and 2006. This was the result of Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) successfully offering amendments that provided a temporary back-door way to avoid the H-2B cap. The Mikulski language allowed an H-2B worker who had received his or her visa in any of the previous three years to return without being counted toward the cap. Thus, a business could get around the cap entirely by rehiring previous H-2B workers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal year 2006, the total number of admissions of returning workers into the U.S. was 36,792. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, 2006 Statistical Yearbook, Table 26: Nonimmigrant Admissions (I-94 Only) By Class Of Admission: Fiscal Years 1998 To 2006, 2007).
Through the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007, Congress is once again entertaining pleas from business to renew the returning worker exception. And because simply renewing the returning worker exemption would not be enough to appease business interests, the legislation offered by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Stupak this year has no sunset. The legislation would immediately permit up to 264,000 people to enter the country under the H-2B program—66,000 per year for the three previous years and 66,000 more for fiscal year 2008. This number could then grow at a rate of 66,000 workers per year and by 2017, the potential number of H-2B workers allowed into the country could reach 858,000.
Reports are coming from the Hill that certain lawmakers are quietly working to increase the number of unskilled workers allowed into the U.S. by surreptitiously raising the H-2B visa cap. The leading proponents of such a move are Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), who have introduced the "Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007" (S.988/H.R.1843) and are going from Member to Member to gain support. This legislation would increase the number of unskilled foreign workers in the U.S. by exempting H-2B workers who have been in the U.S. "during any 1 of the preceding 3 years" from the 66,000 cap when they reenter the U.S.
The H-2B program is a temporary non-immigrant worker program through which U.S. businesses import tens of thousands of unskilled foreign laborers each year to perform non-agricultural work. Last year, for example, over 134,000 non-immigrants were brought into the U.S. as H-2B workers, nearly one-third of whom were employed as landscapers and at least one-tenth of whom worked in the resort industry. (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Performance Report: March 28, 2005-September 30, 2006, September 17, 2007). The maximum duration of an H-2B visa is one year.
Under long-standing law, the number of H-2B visas issued in a year is capped at 66,000. Each fiscal year, half of these visas become available in October and the other half becomes available beginning in April. Often, these H-2B visas are all apportioned before they are even released. In this year, for example, applications for the visas coming available in April were already over 33,000 in March. (Denver Post, October 4, 2007).
However, instead of putting pressure on employers to increase wages or seek out American workers to make up any labor shortfalls, Congress increased H-2B visas in both 2005 and 2006. This was the result of Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) successfully offering amendments that provided a temporary back-door way to avoid the H-2B cap. The Mikulski language allowed an H-2B worker who had received his or her visa in any of the previous three years to return without being counted toward the cap. Thus, a business could get around the cap entirely by rehiring previous H-2B workers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal year 2006, the total number of admissions of returning workers into the U.S. was 36,792. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, 2006 Statistical Yearbook, Table 26: Nonimmigrant Admissions (I-94 Only) By Class Of Admission: Fiscal Years 1998 To 2006, 2007).
Through the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007, Congress is once again entertaining pleas from business to renew the returning worker exception. And because simply renewing the returning worker exemption would not be enough to appease business interests, the legislation offered by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Stupak this year has no sunset. The legislation would immediately permit up to 264,000 people to enter the country under the H-2B program—66,000 per year for the three previous years and 66,000 more for fiscal year 2008. This number could then grow at a rate of 66,000 workers per year and by 2017, the potential number of H-2B workers allowed into the country could reach 858,000.
ICE Sweep Nets over 1300 Illegal Aliens
ICE Sweep Nets over 1300 Illegal Aliens in Southern California
On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced one of the country's largest immigration sweeps on record, netting over 1300 illegal aliens across 5 counties in Southern California. (San Diego Union Tribute, October 4). The operation, taken in concert with local sheriffs, focused on aliens who had been processed at southern California jails and were discovered to be deportable.
Of those arrested in the sweep, about 530 were apprehended at their homes and workplaces, while 800 others were removed immediately after the completion of their jail terms. Nearly 1100 of those arrested came from Mexico, but the remainder originated from over 30 countries, including Armenia, India and Ireland. While the vast majority of the aliens were in the country illegally, several of those arrested were lawful residents whose felonies made them deportable. More than 600 of those arrested had been deported by Wednesday. (AFP, October 4; Deutsche Press-Agentur, October 3).
Jim Hayes, the Los Angeles field director for ICE, indicated that the sweep reflects the agency's newfound aggressive stance towards enforcement of immigration laws. "Where the laws may not have been enforced in the past," he said, "that has changed." Nonetheless, there remain nearly 597,000 immigration fugitives in the U.S. While this figure is down 35,000 from last year, it is evidence that ICE has only scratched the surface when it comes to enforcing our country's immigration laws.
On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced one of the country's largest immigration sweeps on record, netting over 1300 illegal aliens across 5 counties in Southern California. (San Diego Union Tribute, October 4). The operation, taken in concert with local sheriffs, focused on aliens who had been processed at southern California jails and were discovered to be deportable.
Of those arrested in the sweep, about 530 were apprehended at their homes and workplaces, while 800 others were removed immediately after the completion of their jail terms. Nearly 1100 of those arrested came from Mexico, but the remainder originated from over 30 countries, including Armenia, India and Ireland. While the vast majority of the aliens were in the country illegally, several of those arrested were lawful residents whose felonies made them deportable. More than 600 of those arrested had been deported by Wednesday. (AFP, October 4; Deutsche Press-Agentur, October 3).
Jim Hayes, the Los Angeles field director for ICE, indicated that the sweep reflects the agency's newfound aggressive stance towards enforcement of immigration laws. "Where the laws may not have been enforced in the past," he said, "that has changed." Nonetheless, there remain nearly 597,000 immigration fugitives in the U.S. While this figure is down 35,000 from last year, it is evidence that ICE has only scratched the surface when it comes to enforcing our country's immigration laws.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
holy shit, senator Mccain shows his face in Tucson, Arizona ….
holy shit, senator Mccain shows his face in Tucson, Arizona ….
maybe he trying to sell some books or dvds?
who’s gonna replace him, he’a 72 now,next senate term is ?
anybody got a count of the trips/time he spends in his own state ?
desperate people do desperate things................
www.mccainalert.com
maybe he trying to sell some books or dvds?
who’s gonna replace him, he’a 72 now,next senate term is ?
anybody got a count of the trips/time he spends in his own state ?
desperate people do desperate things................
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, October 04, 2007
2007 Arizona governor desk
Thursday, October 4, 2007 Arizona governor desk
Dear Friends,
Last week, I had the opportunity at the annual Border Governors Conference to come together with leaders from both the U.S. and Mexico to make important progress on issues where Arizonans demand results. During the conference, I forged new agreements on the border with fellow governors and spoke with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about issues critical to Arizona especially border security and human and drug smuggling.
Our federal government seems stuck in dealing with problems at the border, leaving the people of border states like Arizona waiting for solutions. Amid this gridlock, it’s important that we as states make progress where we can, and keep pressure on the federal government to act where it must.
For one example, border states in the U.S. and Mexico are now on the same page in combating methamphetamines. Our porous border with Mexico is fueling meth in Arizona – the drug’s precursor chemicals are now imported to the U.S., brought to Mexico, made into meth, and smuggled back. At the conference, border states committed to sharing information to combat smugglers. We pressured the federal government to do the same and help Mexican authorities crack down on meth manufacturing.
While border states in general are taking the lead on border issues, Arizona in particular is standing out as a trailblazer on border security. For border security to be most effective, we need innovative and aggressive ideas to be adopted all across the border, and not just on one stretch – and now, other states are following our lead.
To attack human and drug smuggling, Arizona pioneered the use of damming warrants. The phenomenon of human and drug smuggling is driven by criminal syndicates, and with this tool, we are drying up their financial backbone by targeting their wire transfers. Other states are looking into using this tool as well.
Arizona is developing enhanced drivers’ licenses to reduce fraud and assist employers in verifying whether their employees are legal to work. Other states will be observing our lead on these 3-in-1 IDs.
Even if Washington is putting off border problems, border states are dedicated to taking action wherever we can, and to getting the federal government to keep its eye on the ball.
And as always, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact my office at 1-800-253-0883 and ask to speak to Constituent Services.
Yours very truly, Janet Napolitano Governor
Senator Craig to remain in the Senate
Senator Craig to remain in the Senate
how much will this cost the Republican Party ?
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, defying the wishes of many in his own Republican Party, said today that he would remain in the Senate through next year despite a court ruling against him in Minnesota, where he sought to rescind his guilty plea stemming from an undercover sex sting
how much will this cost the Republican Party ?
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, defying the wishes of many in his own Republican Party, said today that he would remain in the Senate through next year despite a court ruling against him in Minnesota, where he sought to rescind his guilty plea stemming from an undercover sex sting
$300-a-night prostitutes for Rep Cunningham
$300-a-night prostitutes for California's Rep Cunningham
In 2003, Wilkes got a $16.5 million contract through Cunningham, prosecutors say. In the same year, he purchased Super Bowl tickets and a vacation in Hawaii for Cunningham where he provided the congressman with $300-a-night prostitutes for two nights, prosecutors allege.
In 2004, Wilkes, using Michael and the firm owned by Kontogiannis, gave Cunningham $525,000 to pay off part of a mortgage on the congressman's Rancho Santa Fe estate, the prosecution alleges.
'Never bribed'
Among the potential witnesses are former Cunningham staffers, including three men who served at different times as his chief of staff. Kontogiannis, who faces up to 10 years when he is sentenced in November, also may be called to testify.
Wade, of the former Washington defense firm MZM, who provided Cunningham with a cabin cruiser named the Duke-Stir to live on at a Washington marina, also may appear.
Wade has been cooperating with authorities, prosecutors say, since pleading guilty last year to giving Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes. He faces up to 11 years in prison.
Michael and his attorneys have said little other than to declare his innocence. Efforts to reach them Friday were unsuccessful.
In 2003, Wilkes got a $16.5 million contract through Cunningham, prosecutors say. In the same year, he purchased Super Bowl tickets and a vacation in Hawaii for Cunningham where he provided the congressman with $300-a-night prostitutes for two nights, prosecutors allege.
In 2004, Wilkes, using Michael and the firm owned by Kontogiannis, gave Cunningham $525,000 to pay off part of a mortgage on the congressman's Rancho Santa Fe estate, the prosecution alleges.
'Never bribed'
Among the potential witnesses are former Cunningham staffers, including three men who served at different times as his chief of staff. Kontogiannis, who faces up to 10 years when he is sentenced in November, also may be called to testify.
Wade, of the former Washington defense firm MZM, who provided Cunningham with a cabin cruiser named the Duke-Stir to live on at a Washington marina, also may appear.
Wade has been cooperating with authorities, prosecutors say, since pleading guilty last year to giving Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes. He faces up to 11 years in prison.
Michael and his attorneys have said little other than to declare his innocence. Efforts to reach them Friday were unsuccessful.
Tales of hookers in Hawaii, Cunningham corruption trial
Cunningham corruption trial set to begin
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO ---- Tales of hookers in Hawaii, lavish Capitol Hill dinner parties, private jet junkets and free-flowing cash are expected to be heard when a trial for two men tied to the tawdry corruption of former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham begins in San Diego on Tuesday.
Facing multiple counts of money laundering and bribery are former Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes and New York financier John T. Michael. Each man has declared he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
A 28-page trial memorandum filed by federal prosecutors this week suggests that the government has a wealth of evidence to the contrary. And some of their most damaging material may come directly from Cunningham, who is listed as one of more than 40 potential prosecution witnesses.
The government contends that over an eight-year period starting in 1998, Wilkes obtained more than $80 million in defense contracts for his now-defunct firm, ADCS Inc., in exchange for more than $700,000 in cash and material bribes to Cunningham.
Michael is accused of laundering some of the money through his mortgage company, accepting several thousand dollars in exchange for his services.
Michael's uncle, Thomas Kontogiannis of New York, played a key role in those transactions, the government contends, describing both as "professional money launderers." Kontogiannis has pleaded guilty to bribing Cunningham and is awaiting sentencing.
'Chance to learn'
The trial is expected to last at least three weeks and may expose the inner workings of congressional appropriations, particularly "earmarks" ---- legislative moves that lawmakers use to insert money for pet projects into spending bills.
"Beyond the good, bad and ugly of how Brent Wilkes bribed Duke Cunningham is a chance to learn about the system and why Mr. Wilkes decided the only way he could get ahead in Washington was to bribe a prominent appropriator," said Keith Ashdown of a Washington watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Cunningham, a former North County Republican congressman, pleaded guilty in late 2005 to tax evasion and receiving more than $2.4 million in bribes.
His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, would not say Friday if Cunningham will take the witness stand in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, the same judge who sentenced him to more than eight years in prison.
"That's up to the attorneys trying the case," Blalack said during a telephone interview.
That Cunningham has been transferred from an Arizona prison to the Metropolitan Correctional Center near San Diego's Front Street federal courthouse suggests he will appear.
'Hired gun'
Prosecutors contend in documents filed earlier this week that much of the graft that wound up in Cunningham's pockets came directly from Wilkes with Michael's help. Court documents name them as two of four major co-conspirators in the largest congressional corruption case ever uncovered.
Prosecutors allege Wilkes' bribes included trips, arranging prostitutes for Cunningham during a trip to Hawaii, Babylonian meals with fine wines costing thousands of dollars, a speed boat and cash.
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO ---- Tales of hookers in Hawaii, lavish Capitol Hill dinner parties, private jet junkets and free-flowing cash are expected to be heard when a trial for two men tied to the tawdry corruption of former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham begins in San Diego on Tuesday.
Facing multiple counts of money laundering and bribery are former Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes and New York financier John T. Michael. Each man has declared he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
A 28-page trial memorandum filed by federal prosecutors this week suggests that the government has a wealth of evidence to the contrary. And some of their most damaging material may come directly from Cunningham, who is listed as one of more than 40 potential prosecution witnesses.
The government contends that over an eight-year period starting in 1998, Wilkes obtained more than $80 million in defense contracts for his now-defunct firm, ADCS Inc., in exchange for more than $700,000 in cash and material bribes to Cunningham.
Michael is accused of laundering some of the money through his mortgage company, accepting several thousand dollars in exchange for his services.
Michael's uncle, Thomas Kontogiannis of New York, played a key role in those transactions, the government contends, describing both as "professional money launderers." Kontogiannis has pleaded guilty to bribing Cunningham and is awaiting sentencing.
'Chance to learn'
The trial is expected to last at least three weeks and may expose the inner workings of congressional appropriations, particularly "earmarks" ---- legislative moves that lawmakers use to insert money for pet projects into spending bills.
"Beyond the good, bad and ugly of how Brent Wilkes bribed Duke Cunningham is a chance to learn about the system and why Mr. Wilkes decided the only way he could get ahead in Washington was to bribe a prominent appropriator," said Keith Ashdown of a Washington watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Cunningham, a former North County Republican congressman, pleaded guilty in late 2005 to tax evasion and receiving more than $2.4 million in bribes.
His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, would not say Friday if Cunningham will take the witness stand in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, the same judge who sentenced him to more than eight years in prison.
"That's up to the attorneys trying the case," Blalack said during a telephone interview.
That Cunningham has been transferred from an Arizona prison to the Metropolitan Correctional Center near San Diego's Front Street federal courthouse suggests he will appear.
'Hired gun'
Prosecutors contend in documents filed earlier this week that much of the graft that wound up in Cunningham's pockets came directly from Wilkes with Michael's help. Court documents name them as two of four major co-conspirators in the largest congressional corruption case ever uncovered.
Prosecutors allege Wilkes' bribes included trips, arranging prostitutes for Cunningham during a trip to Hawaii, Babylonian meals with fine wines costing thousands of dollars, a speed boat and cash.
Where's the Fence Fridays
Where's the Fence Fridays ed, P. Patrick, a Grassfire team member sent us a brilliantidea she calls "Where's the Fence Fridays" that we are kickingoff this Friday. Every Friday until the Border Fence is completed, we are askingALL members of our team to contact their two Senators andCongressman asking each one "Where's the Fence?" As taxpayers, we have a right to know the status of the fence--especially since it has been long promised us. So please take amoment this Friday to contact your lawmakers and candidly askthem "Where's The Fence?" Here's your contact information: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (for your Congressman) If they cannot give you specifics, take a moment to fillthem in. Let them know that since the Secure Fence Actwas passed, only 18 miles of the promised 854 mileshave been built! Let them know that based on TIME magazine's estimate, morethan 8,000 illegal aliens cross our borders EVERY DAY! we need to be holding leadership accountable,and this is one way everyone in Congress can get a weeklyreminder that we are watching. Be sure to call this Friday. Finally, we need to continue growing our grassroots army ofcitizens, so please forward this message to 15-20 of yourfriends and encourage them to add their names to our growingpetition by clicking here: http://www.grassfire.org/42/petition.asp?PID=11222869
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
DHS Lawsuit Against Illinois Sends Clear Message to Local Governments
DHS Lawsuit Against Illinois Sends Clear Message to Local Governments to Quit Interfering in Immigration Enforcement
FAIR Applauds Administration for Decisive Step to Stop Employment of Illegal Aliens
Washington DC - The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) today applauded the decision by the Department of Homeland Security for filing suit against the State of Illinois and its attempt to thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws. A state law, approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, would bar employers in Illinois from using a federal database to verify the work eligibility of prospective employees. In recent years, Illinois has repeatedly instituted policies aimed at shielding illegal aliens.
Responding to overwhelming public sentiment in favor of enforcement of immigration laws, especially in the workplace, the Bush Administration has begun notifying employers when workers' Social Security numbers do not match information in the government's database. In an effort to assist employers who wish to comply with laws against hiring illegal aliens, the federal government has been encouraging them to utilize a database that allows them to verify Social Security numbers.
"Easy access to jobs in this country has long been the magnet that has drawn millions of illegal aliens here. As much, or perhaps even more, than securing the borders, preventing illegal aliens from finding jobs is the key to reversing mass illegal immigration," noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "In taking steps to bar employers from using the Social Security Administration's database to verify work eligibility until that database is virtually error free, is nothing more than a blatant attempt by state officials to further undermine immigration law enforcement. Perfection does not exist in this world, and we cannot expect it to be the standard for employment verification."
The policy that Illinois is attempting to thwart includes generous provisions to allow individuals to correct errors in the database that might be found during the verification process. "The state's effort is not about preventing errors, it is a politically motivated effort to prevent employers from identifying illegal aliens and complying with federal law," charged Stein. "The suit by DHS to block implementation of state's transparent effort to impede immigration enforcement in the workplace is the appropriate response to Illinois officials and a signal to other local governments that the federal government is serious about cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens."
The federal suit also addresses serious constitutional issues by asserting the federal government's right to enforce immigration laws everywhere in the country, even in jurisdictions that have made themselves de facto or formal sanctuaries for illegal aliens. "No state or local government can be permitted to stand in the way of the federal government's unassailable right to carry out immigration enforcement. Federal law allows local governments to assist in immigration enforcement, but there is no opt-out provision that allows them to prevent immigration laws from being enforced. Employers in Illinois must be permitted to comply with the same laws as employers in the other 49 states," concluded Stein.
FAIR Applauds Administration for Decisive Step to Stop Employment of Illegal Aliens
Washington DC - The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) today applauded the decision by the Department of Homeland Security for filing suit against the State of Illinois and its attempt to thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws. A state law, approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, would bar employers in Illinois from using a federal database to verify the work eligibility of prospective employees. In recent years, Illinois has repeatedly instituted policies aimed at shielding illegal aliens.
Responding to overwhelming public sentiment in favor of enforcement of immigration laws, especially in the workplace, the Bush Administration has begun notifying employers when workers' Social Security numbers do not match information in the government's database. In an effort to assist employers who wish to comply with laws against hiring illegal aliens, the federal government has been encouraging them to utilize a database that allows them to verify Social Security numbers.
"Easy access to jobs in this country has long been the magnet that has drawn millions of illegal aliens here. As much, or perhaps even more, than securing the borders, preventing illegal aliens from finding jobs is the key to reversing mass illegal immigration," noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "In taking steps to bar employers from using the Social Security Administration's database to verify work eligibility until that database is virtually error free, is nothing more than a blatant attempt by state officials to further undermine immigration law enforcement. Perfection does not exist in this world, and we cannot expect it to be the standard for employment verification."
The policy that Illinois is attempting to thwart includes generous provisions to allow individuals to correct errors in the database that might be found during the verification process. "The state's effort is not about preventing errors, it is a politically motivated effort to prevent employers from identifying illegal aliens and complying with federal law," charged Stein. "The suit by DHS to block implementation of state's transparent effort to impede immigration enforcement in the workplace is the appropriate response to Illinois officials and a signal to other local governments that the federal government is serious about cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens."
The federal suit also addresses serious constitutional issues by asserting the federal government's right to enforce immigration laws everywhere in the country, even in jurisdictions that have made themselves de facto or formal sanctuaries for illegal aliens. "No state or local government can be permitted to stand in the way of the federal government's unassailable right to carry out immigration enforcement. Federal law allows local governments to assist in immigration enforcement, but there is no opt-out provision that allows them to prevent immigration laws from being enforced. Employers in Illinois must be permitted to comply with the same laws as employers in the other 49 states," concluded Stein.
The Federal Government Sues Illinois to use E-Verify
The Federal Government Sues Illinois to Allow Employers to Use E-Verify
Last Monday, the federal government sued the State of Illinois to strike down a state law making it illegal for employers to use the federal government's E-Verify program. "E-Verify" is the new name for "Basic Pilot," currently a volunteer program that permits employers to verify the legal status of job applicants electronically. According to DHS, by August of this year, the program had been used by over 22,000 employers, who had sent nearly 3 million queries for verification of employment eligibility to the agency. Nearly 93 percent of these queries were answered within one day. The remainders received tentative non-confirmations. Under E-Verify a worker can challenge a non-confirmation, which takes about a week or sometimes longer for DHS to resolve. The legislation passed by Illinois makes it illegal for businesses in the state to use E-Verify until 99 percent of E-Verify results can be returned within 3 days of a request.
The complaint filed by Homeland Security asserts that the Illinois statute is in clear violation the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2), which declares that federal law trumps any contrary state or local law. As stated by Secretary Chertoff, "What we can't do when we pass a federal law is have the states decide they want to modify that law." Crystal Williams, Deputy Director for Programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the lawsuit filed by DHS selective enforcement, noting that a number of states and localities have enacted laws directed at stopping illegal immigration, describing them as "clearly violations of the supremacy clause." According to Chertoff, the federal government has finally decided to go on the offensive. Noting that he understood the message of the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill, Chertoff remarked, "We will vigorously contest any effort to impede our enforcement efforts." (New York Times, September 25, 2007; Chicago Tribune, September 25 2007)
Last Monday, the federal government sued the State of Illinois to strike down a state law making it illegal for employers to use the federal government's E-Verify program. "E-Verify" is the new name for "Basic Pilot," currently a volunteer program that permits employers to verify the legal status of job applicants electronically. According to DHS, by August of this year, the program had been used by over 22,000 employers, who had sent nearly 3 million queries for verification of employment eligibility to the agency. Nearly 93 percent of these queries were answered within one day. The remainders received tentative non-confirmations. Under E-Verify a worker can challenge a non-confirmation, which takes about a week or sometimes longer for DHS to resolve. The legislation passed by Illinois makes it illegal for businesses in the state to use E-Verify until 99 percent of E-Verify results can be returned within 3 days of a request.
The complaint filed by Homeland Security asserts that the Illinois statute is in clear violation the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2), which declares that federal law trumps any contrary state or local law. As stated by Secretary Chertoff, "What we can't do when we pass a federal law is have the states decide they want to modify that law." Crystal Williams, Deputy Director for Programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the lawsuit filed by DHS selective enforcement, noting that a number of states and localities have enacted laws directed at stopping illegal immigration, describing them as "clearly violations of the supremacy clause." According to Chertoff, the federal government has finally decided to go on the offensive. Noting that he understood the message of the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill, Chertoff remarked, "We will vigorously contest any effort to impede our enforcement efforts." (New York Times, September 25, 2007; Chicago Tribune, September 25 2007)
Attempt to Pass DREAM Act Stalls after Public Outcry
Attempt to Pass DREAM Act Stalls after Public Outcry
The efforts of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other amnesty proponents to amend the DREAM Act onto the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585) were scuttled last week after public outcry threatened to derail the Defense Bill entirely. Over the past two weeks tens of thousands of phone calls, emails and faxes in opposition to the DREAM Act barraged Senate offices, keeping Senator Durbin from finding the 60 votes he needed to proceed with the debate on his amendment. Although the Senator circulated various versions of the amendment and spent days trying to strike a deal behind closed doors, in the end he could not overcome public opinion. Wednesday evening, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the DREAM Act would not be brought to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.
The DREAM Act would have granted amnesty to those who had entered the country before they were 16 and had lived here 5 years if they were in the military or school and under the age of 30. However, the age limit did not affect the ability of illegal aliens to receive retroactive benefits if they already met the other criteria of the amnesty program. In addition, illegal aliens who were granted legal status under the program would have been eligible to receive federal financial aid for college tuition and been able to claim residency for purposes of in-state tuition.
Although the DREAM Act stalled as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to make every effort to return the legislation to the floor before the Thanksgiving recess. Reid declared: "We will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here. I'm going to do my utmost to do it by November 16."
The efforts of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and other amnesty proponents to amend the DREAM Act onto the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585) were scuttled last week after public outcry threatened to derail the Defense Bill entirely. Over the past two weeks tens of thousands of phone calls, emails and faxes in opposition to the DREAM Act barraged Senate offices, keeping Senator Durbin from finding the 60 votes he needed to proceed with the debate on his amendment. Although the Senator circulated various versions of the amendment and spent days trying to strike a deal behind closed doors, in the end he could not overcome public opinion. Wednesday evening, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the DREAM Act would not be brought to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.
The DREAM Act would have granted amnesty to those who had entered the country before they were 16 and had lived here 5 years if they were in the military or school and under the age of 30. However, the age limit did not affect the ability of illegal aliens to receive retroactive benefits if they already met the other criteria of the amnesty program. In addition, illegal aliens who were granted legal status under the program would have been eligible to receive federal financial aid for college tuition and been able to claim residency for purposes of in-state tuition.
Although the DREAM Act stalled as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to make every effort to return the legislation to the floor before the Thanksgiving recess. Reid declared: "We will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here. I'm going to do my utmost to do it by November 16."
Monday, October 01, 2007
HILLARY AND BILL'S TRUE COLORS UNFOLD ON FOX NEWS
HILLARY AND BILL'S TRUE COLORS UNFOLD ON FOX NEWS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 27, 2007.
Chris Wallace brings out the real Bill and Hillary each time he interviews one of them.
For those who have ever visited Clintonland, it’s sometimes hard to recognize the slickly-scripted, post-White House media personalities of the Clintons: the affable, smiling Hillary seen on the campaign trial or the laid back, take-it-as-it-comes Bill who periodically surfaces for softball interviews.
But every once in a while, there’s a rare moment of clarity. That happened last year when Wallace interviewed the former president. At the end of the interview, Bill lost it. Suddenly the veneer was off, exposing the enraged, snarling, lunging Bill accusing Wallace of “do[ing] his nice little right wing hit job” when he forced Clinton to address his inability to capture or kill bin Laden.
Not a pretty sight.
And Wallace did it again in his recent interview of Hillary. Asked about the extreme partisan politics espoused by her and her husband, the real Hillary challenged Wallace. “Well, Chris, if you'd walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years I'm sure you'd understand."
Hillary preceded her passing moment of reality by a loud, inappropriate and mirthless laugh – a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech. She was quick to follow it with a scripted recitation about how she wants to rise above partisanship. (Of course) But, in between, we saw a fleeting glimpse of the pervasive sense of victimization and self-righteousness that even now underscores the vicious partisanship with which both Clintons play the game of politics.
Amazingly, they seem to genuinely believe that they are still the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that they are alone and under attack despite their manifest virtue and singular desire to do good.
You don’t see this authenticity very often. Hillary’s handlers have taken great pains to teach her the art of concealment, hiding her raw partisanship behind a smile and, when necessary, even a forced laugh. A laugh that’s often too long and too loud.
And so, at the beginning and the end of the Wallace interview, Hillary sounded just like a laughing hyena. Watch the video on FOX News or YouTube. You won’t laugh.
It’s part of the Hillary defense. Just as Hillary’s answers are scripted, so is her "spontaneous" laughter. This is truly learned behavior — laughing — or pretending to laugh at will. Over the past 15 years, she’s perfected the art of responding to people, questions and networks that she doesn’t like. In the past, she would sneer and answer sarcastically, as in, “Maybe I should have stayed home and baked cookies.” But those days are over. Now she smiles constantly and dissolves into a flood of loud giggles. It’s been a big part of her media training.
The mainstream media hasn’t had much to say about the laughing candidate. But can you imagine if Rudy Giuliani responded to a network interviewer by laughing loudly and hysterically for five seconds? No doubt The New York Times would seriously wonder about his state of mind. But they don’t find it odd with Hillary.
It’ll likely be a long time before we see the real Hillary again. So next time you hear her special laugh, think about what it really means.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 27, 2007.
Chris Wallace brings out the real Bill and Hillary each time he interviews one of them.
For those who have ever visited Clintonland, it’s sometimes hard to recognize the slickly-scripted, post-White House media personalities of the Clintons: the affable, smiling Hillary seen on the campaign trial or the laid back, take-it-as-it-comes Bill who periodically surfaces for softball interviews.
But every once in a while, there’s a rare moment of clarity. That happened last year when Wallace interviewed the former president. At the end of the interview, Bill lost it. Suddenly the veneer was off, exposing the enraged, snarling, lunging Bill accusing Wallace of “do[ing] his nice little right wing hit job” when he forced Clinton to address his inability to capture or kill bin Laden.
Not a pretty sight.
And Wallace did it again in his recent interview of Hillary. Asked about the extreme partisan politics espoused by her and her husband, the real Hillary challenged Wallace. “Well, Chris, if you'd walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years I'm sure you'd understand."
Hillary preceded her passing moment of reality by a loud, inappropriate and mirthless laugh – a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech. She was quick to follow it with a scripted recitation about how she wants to rise above partisanship. (Of course) But, in between, we saw a fleeting glimpse of the pervasive sense of victimization and self-righteousness that even now underscores the vicious partisanship with which both Clintons play the game of politics.
Amazingly, they seem to genuinely believe that they are still the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that they are alone and under attack despite their manifest virtue and singular desire to do good.
You don’t see this authenticity very often. Hillary’s handlers have taken great pains to teach her the art of concealment, hiding her raw partisanship behind a smile and, when necessary, even a forced laugh. A laugh that’s often too long and too loud.
And so, at the beginning and the end of the Wallace interview, Hillary sounded just like a laughing hyena. Watch the video on FOX News or YouTube. You won’t laugh.
It’s part of the Hillary defense. Just as Hillary’s answers are scripted, so is her "spontaneous" laughter. This is truly learned behavior — laughing — or pretending to laugh at will. Over the past 15 years, she’s perfected the art of responding to people, questions and networks that she doesn’t like. In the past, she would sneer and answer sarcastically, as in, “Maybe I should have stayed home and baked cookies.” But those days are over. Now she smiles constantly and dissolves into a flood of loud giggles. It’s been a big part of her media training.
The mainstream media hasn’t had much to say about the laughing candidate. But can you imagine if Rudy Giuliani responded to a network interviewer by laughing loudly and hysterically for five seconds? No doubt The New York Times would seriously wonder about his state of mind. But they don’t find it odd with Hillary.
It’ll likely be a long time before we see the real Hillary again. So next time you hear her special laugh, think about what it really means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)