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.
Friday, November 02, 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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)