Recently in Campaign 2008 Category
Although the vote was an extremely positive result, here are the ugly details about how some prominent senators voted. Notably, the top Democratic candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, once again demonstrated their pro-amnesty position.
Also, we saw some key Republican defections. A friend writes the following:
Senator Sam Brownback - a lost cause
Barely days after dropping out of the presidential race Senator Sam Brownback showed his true colors and voted AYE for the Amnesty. He never fooled many of us. Hopefully from this day on no one else will be fooled by this open borders/amnesty advocate. This duplicitous Senator should simply be ignored from now on. He is not to be trusted.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison - needs severe chastising
Senator Kay Baily Hutchison voted AYE as well - on this AMNESTY bill that had NO enforcement provisions whatsoever. Even the very flawed so called "comprehensive amnesty bill" defeated this past summer had some enforcement provisions. This bill had none. Senator Hutchison showed that she cares more about illegal aliens than she does about her own constituents and the law abiding citizens of the United States. Senator Hutchison is not however a lost cause. She does however, need to be reminded who voted for her and whom she is supposed to serve. She needs severe chastising by the people of Texas.
Further evidence we need to take a close look at candidates demonstrating radical changes of heart on illegal immigration - both of these went through some gyrations over the past two years on the previous amnesty measures. This also brings to mind that quisling-like fellow ...
I supported him in 2000, and he has my support again.
Just had to link this video montage about Mark Warner (worst governor ever, other than Timmy Kaine). Enjoy.
*WARNING* The linked video contains a movie clip with the F-bomb in it.
UPDATE: Timmy Kaine is at it again. I've never seen a man work so hard to earn title of "Worst Governor Ever."
UPDATE #2: Here's more from Bearing Drift with video.
The Petraeus hearings were a disgrace. The man was called a liar and a puppet before he ever uttered a word. Can this country have a political discourse under such conditions? When the moveOn.org message is indiscernible from the Senators' in the committee hearing room, there is a problem in our government. It means a foreign-born Hungarian socialist has hijacked the Democrat Party, for pennies on the dollar.
Why have the committee meet under such poisonous conditions? Aside from the political theater, was there any point to the exercise? We as a Nation still need to listen to each other. The only alternative is violence. To assume your political adversary is always lying is to end dialog.
When Reid proclaimed the war lost last April, the Democrat party announced publicly its investment in losing the war in Iraq in order to win the election in 2008 here in the US. It is this investment that set the stage for the Petraeus Report fiasco. With politics at home trumping the war abroad, do we really remember those who were killed on 9/11? Is this honoring their memory?
OK boys, girls and Legionaries (Tom, Realist et al). Petraeus actually did provide a report. Instead of rehashing what we have been chewing on for over a year now, lets get a copy of it, I will open a new thread if needed. There is plenty of passion here, but lets put some fresher meat on the table than "should we go to war in Iraq". Your vote in a comment would be appreciated. BTW, using the NIE and other sources is most definitely fair game etc. But the TOPIC is the current situation and Petraeus' veracity.
Despite the nay-saying by the competition, Senator Fred Thompson is enjoying a sizeable bounce from his recent announcment for President. A new Rassmussen poll has Fred at 26% with a 4 point lead over Rudy Giuliani in national polling of likely Republican primary voters.
Former Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney trails at 13%.
UPDATE: New Fred video (does not embed well, but here is the link)
The Sunday Washington Post was just full of interesting articles. You have the Dems playing the "word" game where there are no more "earmarks" on their bills. They change the name to something else and say that "....it is perfectly legal". Anybody that shows me a work-around and tells me that it is perfectly legal is skirting the rules. Earmark is earmark. The word carries a bad tone associated with "pork", "special interest" and the like. What that means is spending YOUR money wastefully. What the Dems do with proficiency (as well as some out-of-step Republicans). Let's just say that those people associated with the left are at it again!
The GOP is wanting to pander to the Hispanics and can't understand why no Republican candidates other than John McCain are willing to show up with the Democratic candidates for a forum tonight in Miami on Hispanic issues. I wonder if they are talking about foreign policy? Otherwise, why would a candidate single out an ethnic group? Special favors? I thought the object was to tell Americans (U.S.) what their positions were to help all? Does this smack of "special interest" also?
Al Gore is going to support one of the Dem candidates...any except the Clintons. Do you think that Hilly is better off because of this? I certainly have my own opinion.
And Mark (I'm the best Governor of Virginia in your lifetime) Warner is in a quandary as to which position to run for. If he chooses U.S. senator, he will be assessed with the other Democratic candidates (and he doesn't stomach that well). Does this say something? He wants to be governor of Virginia again and thinks that his record will landslide him right in. The governor who took a deficet and turned it into a surplus....with a tax increase! Heck, anybody can do that. The Dems are NOTORIOUS for that mindset. Kaine't wanted to save that surplus for a rainy day and increase taxes (and has) more. What is that surplus of our money for? I sure could use it. I forgot. The government under liberal thinking needs ALL your money so that it can manage your life since you are too inept to be able to do that yourself. Government for all. Viva Lenin!
I need more coffee so I can work the crossword.
Via Virtucon Industries
UPDATE #2: Fred's in this race now. His interview on Leno was good, and I hope the momentum continues. Unfortunately, his website is too busy for me to watch his announcement video, but maybe I'll see it tomorrow. Here's some more Fred that I found on YouTube. The musician sucks, but it's funny nonetheless.
UPDATE #3: Finally watched the video. He is an inspiring speaker. I hope he runs a campaign to match his ability. Go, Fred, go!
It appears that Fred Thompson is set to announce on Thursday 9/6 with a historic webcast. Former Senator Thompson has proven once again that he is the most web saavy candidate for President.
At this point, he has a lot of ground to make up, but no one has sown up this nomination yet. I don't believe that Rudy Giuliani is just going to disappear and has the chops to turn this race into a nail biter like McCain did in '00. Let's hope that it stays friendlier than 2000, and the deeply hurt feelings from that race are not reenacted.
The real battle will be between Mitt Romney and Thompson for the conservative base. Mitt has sown up many conservatives who have invested too much to just flip to Thompson and further don't believe that Thompson has the intestinal fortitude to capture the nomination.
I believe that these opinions are unjustified, but I also must admit that I don't have any proof to back up my assertion at this point. However, Fred can prove them wrong, and we're waiting to see him do it.
Talk about pandering. Watching Dems try to placate the gay agenda while not alienating the mainstream is always entertaining.
Just wanted to link this as a reminder of how much we could lose next year if social conservatives don't work together.
UPDATE: As Joe would say, this thread has reached doctoral thesis length. I am not able to keep up with the deluge that will probably continue for some time to come. If anyone sees anything inappropriate, feel free to shoot me an email at email@example.com.
It appears that the county, state and federal governments are starting to get the picture; the citizens have had enough and we want the power back in our hands. Illegal Immigration is truly becoming a sweeping issue across the land and there are many changes starting to take place and issues discussed. Even the "Old Guard" is turning 180 degrees because of the consequences of elitist pomp raising the ire of the populace. This isn't due to the Republicans, Democrats, Christians or even you godless individuals ( calm down. I was just having fun). It is due to the left, right, middle, moderate; all idealogies coming together as one.
I am sincere in saying thank you to all who get involved. I believe if we stay away from the issues of most controversy (homosexuality, abortion, global warming, etc.) and relate to the real issues at hand; illegal immigration, american sovereignty, North American Union, China's death grip on the economy-that we can really get alot done and turn this political fiasco around. Blogs, phone calls, media editorials and interviews are getting peoples attention. You people are making a difference.
I may sound naive in what I believe but I do believe with a passion. Keep spreading the word to others to take back our governments. Let's make it the "We, the people..." land again. Yes, we will always continue to have those diverse discussions on issues but let's have more of the issues that count. Elections are coming oh so soon.
Fred Thompson just brought Spencer Abraham, former senator and Energy Secretary, onto his campaign team.
Spencer Abraham is, to put it mildly, an open borders guy
A good friend, who has been advocating for immigration enforcement since the 1980s, writes:
For years we were at war with Spencer Abraham. Worse than Ted Kennedy. He virtually killed any chance that the Senate would deal with legal immigration in 1996. He was a steady feature in the ANCIR newsletter back in those days. FAIR and Numbers launched an ad campaign against Abraham that caught him at a bad moment in the summer before his re-election. He was forced to drain his election coffers defending himself and he never recovered. FAIR and Numbers took a lot of heat for this (in 2000 people didn't care much about immigration) but it was enough to get Debbie Stabenow elected.
If the rumor that Abraham will be the campaign manager turns out to be true, Fred Thompson will not be the next president of the United States.
Pretty powerful stuff worth listening to till the end. I am sure we will be seeing a lot more of this in the coming months. The sheer number of illegals being brought across the southern border is shifting public perception of the issue, across party lines.
Another day, another rant. I'm getting frustrated with the concept that "we are trying to define ourselves". I can understand that whole-heartedly! We are a nation that pledges allegiance to a flag that law says can be desecrated as is our first amendment right. I see. If the flag means nothing to some of our citizens then an oath to it and the republic for which it stands also falls by the wayside. The logic follows that an oath of office holds no consequence as upholding the Constitution of the United States is just that....an oath that is hollow. So where do we focus on acceptability and accountability? Let's look.
As you may have heard, Judy Feder, who failed in her bid to unseat Congressman Frank Wolf last year, and who is generally recognized as "nice, in a weird sort of way," has been on a fundraising tear lately, reportedly raising over $110,000 in a month.
So Frank Wolf has his work cut out for him, right?
Actually, no, not quite yet.
Because, as a shadowy yet frequently reliable informant just told me, Judy has got HER work cut out for her, first.
At the recent Loudoun County Democratic Committee meeting, Judy apparently "got into it" with a gentleman named David Borne (that spelling might be off) from Leesburg, who announced that he, also, is planning to challenge for the 10th District seat. He appears to be well-funded and turns out to have the apparent support of LCDC Chair Thom Beres.
Mr. Borne is said to have testified after September 11 in support of the Air Line Pilots Association request that pilots be allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit.
On a related note, Vern McKinley, Frank Wolf's Republican primary challenger, is also rumored to be well-known in 2nd Amendment circles, which means both Feder and Wolf will have primary challenges from the right and the gun issue could be part of the arsenal against each.
The senators listed below the fold all voted for cloture on S. 1639, which would have allowed the bill to go forward.
There are some fairly prominent names on this list. Good. Some nice fat targets.
UPDATE: And let the gloating begin.
Courtesty of Hot Air - Campaign 2008 kicks off with "Muchas Gracias, Senor Graham":
In light of today's vote to move ahead with legislation to destroy America, I'd like to offer the public service of identifying available domain names which some of you may find useful.
All of the URLs below are available as of this moment. I personally prefer to reserve domain names at GoDaddy, but leave it to each of you to use the management tool of your choice.
The easiest move is to go to GoDaddy and reserve the domain there; it takes about 2 minutes.
Grab 'em while the grabbin' is good. But most importantly - USE 'EM!
Bottom line: Senator, please oppose the Grand Swindle!
Supervisor Mick Staton attended the Help Save Loudoun meeting Monday night, along with a number of other local dignitaries and candidates, and spent some quality time conversing with Loudoun County citizens.
Mick Staton announced the letter he has sent to our one possibly reasonably U.S. Senator, Jim Webb. This is an extremely intelligent act by Supervisor Staton, one which should be duplicated by all of our elected local officials statewide.
It is a slap to the face to every citizen of every community who has to deal with the day to day problems that illegal immigrants bring. Finally, it is a slap to the face of local officials, like myself, who are plagued by the problems created by illegal immigration, but are not even permitted to enforce existing immigration laws due to 'lack of jurisdiction.'
I urge you to vote against this fatally flawed legislation...
Bravo to Mick for initiating this. Let's hope all of our other local officials will follow suit.
According to the NYT, Bloomberg has renounced his ties to the Republican Party. Good riddance. Bloomberg only became a Republican after he lost the Democrat primary. He then ran for mayor as a Republican and won.
The implication is that he may make an independent run for the White House. So will he take more votes from the Democrats or the Republicans?
My guess is that the Democrats will lose more to Bloomberg than the Republicans will. Bloomberg is a liberal. He is pro-abortion rights and anti-gun rights. He believes more government is the solution to all problems. The only reasons Republicans in NYC voted for him is that they did not have a real Republican to vote for, and the alternative was even more liberal than Bloomberg. The Democratic nomination process tends to result in the most liberal candidate's being nominated. Thus, the blue-collar, union, deer-hunting Democrats may be drawn to the less liberal Bloomberg.
Bloomberg could take votes from the right side of the Democrat Party, as Ralph Nader took them from the left-side. Run, Mikey, run!
The clay pigeon cometh.
I've heard the first "motion to proceed" on what will likely be a REVISED COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL will take place later this week.
S 1348 is being rewritten as we speak.
Bottom line: The new bill will be introduced with a "clay pigeon" of amendments:
Under the tentative plan, Reid as early as Friday would launch his target - an amendment encompassing all 22 proposals - and shoot it into its component pieces. The Senate would then vote on ending debate on the immigration measure, which would take 60 votes and limit discussion of the bill to 30 more hours. After that interval, all 22 amendments would have to be voted on, with little opportunity for foes to interfere.
This is apparently hard to fight.
What this means is, at the outset of renewed debate there will be a motion to vote for cloture (shut off debate) on the motion to proceed. We need to fight that initial vote for cloture because once the new bill is moving forward in the Senate it will be hard to stop.
Two points grassroots opponents of the Grand Swindle need to continue to hammer on:
1). A vote for cloture on the FIRST motion to proceed is a vote for amnesty!
2). Senators who vote for cloture with the hope they can escape responsibility by later voting against the bill will not be let off the hook by voters this time: We understand that backroom negotiations on amendments and what will occur in committee will result in Senate passage and we will hold responsible any senator who votes for cloture.
Here is contact information for senators who need to be contacted:
No major surprise here:
It's immigration, an issue with a lot more life in it than the controversial bill recently put on the Senate's back burner, maybe permanently, maybe temporarily, in the face of mostly Republican opposition. Opponents say it offers amnesty for 12 million illegals; proponents, with justification, say it does no such thing, but who's reading the bill?
Top idea of the month: Whoever throws in against Lindsay Graham in a primary will immediately become the largest Internet fundraiser of all time
This follows on my post earlier in the week about how the Grand Swindle will overturn all local enforcement efforts:
Ragnar notes business executives look around at what the grassroots are beginning to demand from local and state officials and they are shaking in their Bostonians:
If you're an employer who's been skirting the law for years with a wink and a nod, this change in the winds has to be keeping you up at night--with good reason. Some CEOs looking at public opinion polls and knowing their employment rolls haven't been even close to right with God, have to be dealing with some serious heartburn at the thought of angry villagers at the corporate gates demanding massive fines and/or a few years in federal pound-me-in-the-*ss prison.
If the employers can just get across the line on this, they've significantly reduced their exposure. This Amnesty Bill represents a sort of "get out of jail free" card for these executives.
This seems plausible. We need to make sure this message gets out loud and clear the next few days. It is surprising there are not more Democratic politicians getting on board with the pro-enforcement efforts so far.
You could not make this stuff up.
Well now the Grand Swindle is supposedly back on track because - brace yourself - the president has now promised ... actual money to pay for the fence!!
Oh yeah, this is rich. And I mean Alice-in-Wonderland rich, 1984-rich.
Not only that, but the money will also pay for ... enforcement of immigration laws!
Which, incidentally, are already on the books, but why quibble over technicalities.
Not only that, but the money which is suddenly needed to do what was supposed to already be getting done will come from ... funds raised by this new legislation. As in, after millions of lawbreakers have received their "probationary" Z-visas and millions of would-be legal immigrants who were dumb enough to get in line after May 1, 2005 are pushed to the back of the line behind all the lawbreakers.
In other words, no time soon. Pretty sweet deal, huh?
We need to recall this entire government.
Along the lines of my post from last night: John Hawkins has an important brief on what is really happening with the "comprehensive" immigration reform bill in the Senate. Click here to read it which I HIGHLY recommend.
I'm probably going to just outright steal the post and reprint it here next week - it is that important - but for now I encourage you to visit John's site if you are concerned about this issue.
The president and a substantial portion of the U.S. Senate have essentially declared war on the American people.
The "bill" currently under discussion is so utterly detrimental to the interests of most Americans that if more of them simply understood what it contains, there would be talk not so much of "voting them out" in 2008, but of descending on the White House and Capitol with tar and feathers right now.
Howard Fineman makes this interesting but not entirely accurate observation:
His timing was perfect, as in wrong, just as he was preparing to attend the Senate Republicans' weekly luncheon on the Hill. "I'll see you at the bill signing," he said, chestier than usual.
He might live to regret such playground bravado. If you are president, the only thing worse than issuing a public threat to your own party is failing to make it stick.
It really is quite extraordinary. Here he is, an unpopular leader fighting an unpopular war. His two-term presidency is clattering to a conclusion, besieged on all sides, taking hits on everything from his attorney general to his general incompetence. And so he decides to do what? Climb into the ring for an ultimate fighting bout with the base of the very Republicans who got him to the White House.
The fissure in the Republican Party over immigration is significant, and - by the way - it precedes George W. Bush. There are far more powerful forces than the U.S. president advocating cheap labor and open borders. But Bush has chosen to ignore the concerns of the regular citizens.
These are now everywhere disingenuously referred to as "the base" whether "Republican" or "conservative." In reality, the outrage is coming from Americans of every ideological stripe who are now seeing the negative effects of the illegal alien invasion in their own communities.
There is no doubt the president is on course to destroy the Republican Party, although not because of besmirching it over the illegal alien issue. Certainly, many Americans will realize that if not for a handful of Republican senators this bill would have passed the Senate weeks ago.
He is going to destroy the GOP by forcing the question of party loyalty and deepening internal fractures to the breaking point in the 2007 and especially 2008 elections. As blogger Ace of Spades has promised:
Every single one of you voting for this bill is looking into your political grave. There will be casualties; there will be a bloodbath...
You're done. You've radicalized the right into a Kos-like political vendetta machine, and we will not only cut our own throats in order to slice yours, we'll enjoy doing so.
Read all of that, by the way.
Beyond the party, what Bush is saying to mainstream Americans is "trust me, and follow me over the cliff" by allowing him to open the floodgates once and for all. He is not just picking a fight with the hard core of his party - he is picking a fight with the citizenry as a whole. Luckily, Americans are now inclined to view the "trust me" exhortation skeptically and more and more of them are realizing they, their kids and their grandchildren are under attack.
The time is ripe for patriotism of the kind that inspired the "revolutionaries" here 231 years ago, who were not trying to overturn a social system but rather fight off a pernicious threat being imposed on their existing social and cultural order from above.
S 1348 is fatally flawed because it grants immediate amnesty to nearly anyone who applies through the 'Z-visa' program, it allows illegal aliens to jump in line ahead of millions of people who have applied for U.S. citizenship legally, and the "enforcement" provisions are totally bogus because of the simple fact that the fence we supposedly were going to get as a result of 2006 legislation does not yet exist.
Senator Harry Reid is trying to cut off debate and send this abortion of a bill - which has not even been written beyond draft form - to the full Senate for an up or down vote.
Call your senators and tell them to vote NO on cloture because of the reasons given above or any of these 20 good reasons to kill S 1348.
DC Office of Senator John Warner
Midlothian Office of Sen. John Warner
D.C. Office of Sen. James Webb
Virginia Beach Office of Sen. James Webb
Virginia Beach, VA
UPDATE: Cloture was voted down 61-34 a short time ago; supposedly it will be voted on again at 5:00 pm today. So don't stop calling, faxing, e-mailing, etc! Also, be sure to thank your senator if he or she voted against cloture in the earlier vote. Both Warner and Webb voted against cloture (see how your senator voted by clicking here).
Scenes from today's NumbersUSA "virtual rally" in Arlington. A few dozen volunteers showed up at the NumberUSA headquarters to join thousands of others who participated via telephone.
We spent a solid hour making calls and sending faxes. And blogging a wee bit.
Real time updated metrics on faxes going out throughout the U.S.
NumbersUSA's Caroline Espinosa and Rosemary Jenks participated on the call, along with their boss, Roy Beck and Congressman Tom Tancredo.
UPDATE: Yes that is Fox News' Major Garrett in the top photo. Also, Roy Beck announced that NumbersUSA's membeship has grown from something like 200,000 to 380,000 in the past few weeks since the Senate began considering the "reform" legislation.
Well, not really, and the way the Republican Party is going, I may just start calling myself a conservative, instead. Anyway, depending on how the nominations are turning out come primary time in Virginia, I may vote in the Democratic primary, rather than the Republican. (Who knows, the Republicans may have a caucus instead.)
Why would I do that? Am I a traitor to my party, as some Republicans would say? No. It is a matter of trying to lessen the evil in the greater of the evils. I would certainly prefer almost any Republican for President over any Democrat, with the exception of Bloomberg, who only became a Republican after losing the Democratic primary, and who is, like any good Democrat, an anti-gun, pro-abortion socialist.
If I do vote in the Democratic primary, I will be voting for Bill Richardson.
Simply put, Bill Richardson is a Democrat I could live with. Unlike Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, he has real foreign policy and governing experience. We may not agree on how to solve the immigration problem, but as the governor of a border state, he has an understanding of the problem that no other candidates have.
Finally, he is running on his resume, and on his policies, not on his looks.
As research by Heritage's Robert Rector details, the purported "immigration reform" bill would cause a seismic economic shift in the U.S. over the next decade - for the simple reason that low skilled, uneducated people are expensive to have in your economy in the first place, and making millions more eligible for entitlement benefits makes the problem exponentially worse.
But that's not the financial pinch this post is about.
This post is about the tragic, tragic news the National Republican Party is seeing a drop off in fundraising because prior contributors object to the Republican leadership's treasonous policy of encouraging and forgiving illegal aliens. A lot of people have stopped giving to the RNC altogether, apparently.
This is, on one level, an impressive development. But on another level, I have to say there is something juvenile and futile about suddenly cutting off one's contributions to the Party.
If we want to really send a message to the traitors, we have to do more than reduce their revenues: We have to cause reverse cash flow. We have to subtract money, not simply refuse to add it.
This can be done in a number of ways, but as explained in this post, it can be as simple as taping a Republican Party business reply card to a phone book and bringing it to the Post Office counter. Wrap the phone book in some wrapping paper or a brown paper bag and tape the BRC on there and you are good to go - works every time.
Do this over and over and eventually we'll make an impact. When was the last time you used any of your phone books, anyway? And with all the people who are dropping off the RNC's membership roster, they surely need all the contact information they can get. I challenge each of our readers to ship at least 2 phone books COD to the Republican National Committee or the Republican Senatorial Committee.
The Paper of Record also reports that a short list of state Republican parties have seen increases in donations because of the leadership's excellent advocacy for an enforcement-only policy.
Alas, my state's Republican party does not appear on that good-guy list. No huge surprise there.
[UPDATE: This is going to get linked by another post so it will be helpful to address the discussion in the comments. A deputy wrote in to say technically the responding deputies in this instance might have been following proper procedures if the subjects were juveniles. If the deputy was present that night with the four local residents who watched the entire episode unfold from 30 feet away, I'd have appreciated his commentary. And I do appreciate his compulsion to stick up for his colleagues. As it stands, the only hard evidence we have is the direct evidence of what me and my neighbors watched happen, which is two wasted individuals were let go without even a wrist slap, were given back the keys to their car, and that they did in fact drive away within the next four hours - not enough time to have sobered up if there was any intention to even do so. In addition, the episode was treated like a joke. Therefore the strong perception remains that this was treated like a non-event, and if the subjects had been citizens it would have been treated differently. The fact that no one from the Sheriff's Office responded to this inquiry from four citizens who watched the incident take place right in front of their faces indicates at best utter disdain for local residents' concerns. Finally, if the deputies were following correct protocol, then the protocol is screwed up because it completely ignores public safety - which proves the original point of this post.]
Our society is on the brink of crisis because of the increasing disconnect between politicians and American citizens.
Last week we were treated to the spectacle of U.S. senators debating an "immigration reform" bill which, in the very first clause of its very first paragraph, provides for an "exception of the probationary benefits" which - if you scroll down to section 600 - will allow over 12 million illegal aliens to receive "Z" visas "by the end of the next business day" after they apply for the visa if their background checks and other tests have not been completed. As the Washington Post reported yesterday, USCIS, the agency responsible for processing those applicants, is already an "agency mired in inefficiency."
What happens when millions more applications are added to the workload? Instant benefits of citizenship for millions of illegal aliens who, among other bonuses, "may not be detained or deported" regardless of criminal offenses or other legal infractions.
Pretty surreal, huh? Well, it gets worse. You don't even have to dig far into the document to notice that one of the "enforcement" provisions is construction of 370 miles of fence on our Mexican border. Great idea, right?
It was also a great idea last October when the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provided for over 700 miles of fence, was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Only 11 miles of that fence has been built and already we have a new proposed law which shortens it by about 400 miles.
What sort of fools do our elected officials take us for? Class A morons.
This disconnect - which might also be considered indifference, ineptitude ... or corruption - afflicts our government at every level.
Here in Loudoun County, Virginia, some citizens have said the Sheriff's Department is not adequately addressing the illegal alien problem. Deputies allegedly have said things like "Why don't you move out of the barrio" to Sterling Park residents complaining about misbehavior by migrant workers in their neighborhoods.
Sheriff Steve Simpson's change of heart on requesting Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) training for local deputies brought a skeptical response from Greg Ahlemann, his challenger for the Republican nomination. The question of the Sheriff's commitment to dealing with the issue has been a topic of lively debate in the campaign.
Earlier this month, an incident occurred in front of my house which, in a nutshell, depicts the truly frightening situation citizens face when their governing officials adopt a culture of indifference.
I wrote to the Sheriff's Media Information Officer on Monday, May 14 about what happened. He wrote to me:
I am forwarding your email to the appropriate command staff so I can get you more information on the incident. I will get back to you as soon as I can.
It has now been two full weeks and there has been no reply. This confirms, I believe, the conclusions I drew about the incident. I live in a typical suburban subdivision. Following is the message I sent to the Sheriff's Office:
The debate is going on right now. Tancredo looks great - "We are the last, best hope of Western civilization." - Duncan Hunter is getting no chance to talk.
Initial observation: This event is so far superior to the one conducted by the idiots at MSNBC last week that I think all Americans should come to the conclusion that MSNBC does not deserve to exist. Fox News is no great shakes, but by comparison MSNBC is cow dung.
We are getting substantive responses to important questions, and truly learning about the candidates.
I submit from this point forward all Americans should feel the same way about MSNBC as they feel about soft porn when channel surfing. Clicking in probably earns you extra time in Hell or Purgatory or whatever.
UPDATE: The geniuses at Fox News set up a wiz-bang text message vote for the debate winner and, lo and behold, Ron Paul is on top.
This would be an instance where whoever the hell is in charge should have KILLED this stupid project real quick like. It's a veritable vote for the worst project transposed to the debate. How clueless not to see this happening. Bad management.
UPDATE II: One of America's best hopes, Tom Tancredo: "If I do well in the Iowa straw poll ... in the top five ... I get catapulted up."
You'll have to forgive me for being late on this post, but it was too good to not put up.
Michael Moore went to Cuba to push for communist health care.
Fred Thompson took issue.
Michael Moore challenged Thompson to debate.
Not to burst Mr. Moore's rotund bubble, but I read in a comment thread somewhere about an exception for Cuban cigars purchased legally in another country.
Duncan Hunter fans: Tomorrow night is another chance to the The Man on television, I believe hosted by Fox. His campaign people remind us that whenever there is a debate there should be Debate Watching Parties throughout the land.
Congressman Hunter said tomorrow's debate will have a slightly better opportunity for the candidates to speak, with each of the ten having a 90-second statement somewhere in the program. That's three times better than MSNBC gave them. Add to that the fact that the people at MSNBC are three times stupider than regular people, and I think we can say Tuesday's debate should be a vast improvement.
America's next president, Duncan Hunter, was in Tysons Corner tonight, where he spoke on the three key themes of his presidential campaign: National defense, securing the U.S. border, and fixing America's trade mess to ensure the "arsenal of democracy."
Youthful presidential candidate Duncan Hunter (left) takes a moment to
chat with an elderly Virginia man
The specific topics in tonight's speech (which you can listen to below the fold) were completing our missile defense program, building the border fence which has already been authorized by legislative action, and undoing the bad trade deals which have led to massive offshoring of manufacturing production and unfair advantages for other countries such as China.
Congressman Hunter's clear, specific policy proposals are a refreshing contrast to the mishmash of ideas voiced by most of his opponents. Listening to him talk, one gets the impression this is a leader and statesman rather than a politician.
This is a guy we can get behind, folks. Give a listen.
This entire "controversy" over Mitt Romney's religion is yet another example of big media myopia. Does anyone still actually believe it matters one whit which faith our president (or any other public official, for that matter) supposedly subscribes to?
I submit that integrity, intelligence and world view are the sort of qualities that matter in a president. "Religion" is about as relevant as whether he or she is a Yankees or Red Sox fan.
The reason is: It is nothing more than a self-reported credential, an item on the resume below "Education" and above "Personal Interests."
It would have been better to have a Zoroastrian or even an atheist with an ounce of integrity over either of these bozos.
There are plenty of relevant questions to ask a candidate, such as what exactly he would propose to do about radical Islam or our nation's borders. Mitt Romney's religion should be the least of our concerns.
Barack Hussein Obama Monday bashed American automakers for failing to make fuel-efficient cars: "Here in Detroit, three giants of American industry are hemorrhaging jobs and profits as foreign competitors answer the rising global demand for fuel-efficient cars."
So his solution, naturally involving government intervention, is to "[encourage] domestic automakers to make fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles by giving them health-care assistance for retirees."
One would think that, with "the rising global demand for fuel-efficient cars," profits would be enough to encourage auto-makers to produce fuel-efficient cars. Automakers make cars based on which models they think will make them the most profit. They certainly have a better handle on this information than politicians do, even magical politicians. Retiree health care is overhead, Mr. Obama. It does not change with different models.
Still, health care is an issue for our automakers. Japanese automakers do not pay for their employees' and retirees' health care, the government does. So to make our automakers competitive, Mr. Obama recommends giving ours assistance with their health care costs. (What does that have to do with fuel-efficient cars? Nothing.)
Now of course the Japanese government doesn't really pay for the workers' health care -- the taxpayers do. The taxpayers pay for everyone's health care in Japan. So the money goes in a big circle, and the workers, by paying taxes, pay for their own health care. The net effect is to lower their real income. Now we get to the real heart of the problem, which is that our autoworkers demanded too much in their union-negotiated deals. They had a good run of it, getting paid far more than other unskilled workers. The party is over, and they are now putting their employers out of business.
While I'm away, the best I'll be able to do is link stuff, but here's Fred's speech at the Lincoln Club in California. I've watched the first video, and he's looking very presidential at this point. Linked courtesy of MC.
By melding blue-collar Democrats' horror at what is happening to their lives and livelihoods as a result of illegal immigration with grass roots Republicans' frustration with the country club wing of their party, Lou Dobbs could in one fell stroke accomplish a paradigm-shifting, party-switching, stickin'-it-to-the-man revolution in American politics with much greater chance of succeeding than the third-party option. Lots of erstwhile Republicans are thinking about the latter, while lots of Democrats must be wishing their party had a modicum of sincere concern for working class Americans.
The Lou Dobbs wing of the Democratic party? An actual loyal opposition? A "Help Save The U.S." caucus which would give the enforcement-first Republicans a rubric to run under and a bipartisan rallying point?
Oh, brother: Build it and they will come. People would take second mortgages on their homes to help Lou pull this off. Any Republicans who hitched their wagons to this star would sail into office.
"Lou Dobbs - Help Save The US:" Talk about a stick in the eye to Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Rove, Bush, McCain et. al. Reinvent the Democratic party and give distraught Republicans an alternative.
That was a game show, not a "debate".
Just about everything Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo got a chance to say was wonderful. Hunter was good on military issues and border security; Tancredo good on abortion and the illegal immigration crisis.
But limiting all speaking opportunities to half a minute is a guaranteed formula for a heapin' helpin' o' pablum. Eliminating Chris Matthews from the program and giving each candidate at least a two-minute speaking opportunity would have been a major improvement.
A thirty-second time limit to answers may not tell us much about the candidates, but it certainly demonstrates which will produce the best raw content for the evening news.
I think the best any candidate could have accomplished tonight would have been a headline-dominating statement or moment.
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore affirming explicitly he is pro-choice could have been such a moment, but no one in America besides me even remembers Mr. Gilmore participated, so that opportunity has been lost.
Let's hope whoever came up with this silly format has no input on future candidate forums.
UPDATE: Transcript is up at IHT. Here is the Jim Gilmore segment referenced above:
MR. MATTHEWS: We're looking for nuance here. Governor Gilmore, you have said in the past that you believe in the first eight to 12 weeks of pregnancy, that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. Do you still stick with that exception?
MR. GILMORE: I do, Chris. My views on this, my beliefs on this are a matter of conviction.
UPDATE II: The answer that someone should have given to the idiotic question "What do you dislike about America?"
This just came in. On Thursday, May 3, at 8:00 pm, there will be a televised Republican presidential candidates debate and the Duncan Hunter campaign is encouraging "house parties" throughout the country to a) watch the debate, b) build support for Duncan Hunter, and c) participate in a conference call with Congressman Hunter afterwards.
I have materials you can use to help spread the word and contact information for the Hunter campaign people so you can sign on as a host. Contact me via a comment here and I can forward you that information. And if you want to attend a local (Northern VA) get together next Thursday, I can give you directions.
The rest of this post is lifted directly from an e-mail I received from someone in contact with the Hunter campaign.
As most of you know, if we cannot elect a rule-of-law-enforcement candidate in 2008, we will have lost the battle against illegal immigration and, in all likelihood, our country as we have known it. As most of you also know, there are only two 2008 presidential candidates among all candidates from both parties we can trust on the illegal immigration issue -- Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. For the time being, or until the dust settles a bit, we should do as much as we can to boost both of their candidacies.
We have been asked by Duncan Hunter's campaign staff to put together "Debate Watching Parties" (DWPs) for the May 3rd Republican Primary Debate. As I understand it, the objectives of the DWPs are to generate additional momentum for candidate Hunter's campaign and campaign contributions, as well as to identify potential workers for his campaign.
Hosting or attending a DWP provides a good initial opportunity to support the Duncan Hunter campaign for President. We don't need to look at this as an elaborate work exercise. Rather, this can, and should be a fun exercise. Personally, I plan to invite a few friends and family members over for drinks and snacks and to discuss the debate. The schedule for the evening is as follows:
--8:00 PM (EST)to 9:30 Republican Primary Candidates Debate.
--10:00 PM to approximately 10:30 Q & A Conference Calls from attendees of DWPs to Duncan Hunter.
--10:00 to 10:08 Duncan Hunter comments on the debate results.
--10:08 to 10:30 Duncan Hunter takes call-in questions from attendees of Debate Parties across the Country.
Duncan Hunter has been a strong supporter of immigration reform for many years--since long before most of us realized illegal immigration was a serious problem. He played a pivotal role in the funding and construction of the 12-mile-long border fence in the San Diego area well before September 11. With his strong support nearly 50 more miles have been constructed. More recently, he put together one of the most sweeping (one must avoid the word "comprehensive") immigration reform bills ever -- HR 4313: the True Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2005.
With so much riding on the 2008 presidential election, we must do all we can to help build momentum for Duncan Hunter's campaign.
Contrary to the Post's report, this is not just "an organization in Georgia" but one led by D.A. King who has been in front of the immigration issue for years. Also, there were at least 800 people present during the first hour, not the 400 reported. The crowd had thinned to about half by the time it was over, though.
They brought together an amazing assortment of speakers - very much a unique experience to be able to listen to so many in such a short time period.
We'll have plenty of audio highlights up in the next 24 hours so stop back by.
...here comes the little guy:
Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, received a big financial boost for his presidential campaign from his home state, but also took in tens of thousands of dollars from Texas and California, according to federal election records...
Seventy-five percent of Tancredo's contributions were under $200, indicating a strong grassroots effort. The campaign is not legally required to itemize those donors but said the average contribution was $61...
Tancredo's fundraising pales in comparison with the top-tier candidates, many of whom have amassed more than $20 million. But he did outraise seven other contenders from both parties, including fellow Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. Tancredo is also financially running neck and neck with Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.
By the way, speaking of Huckabee, here is Jeremy Lott's excellent article from a couple weeks ago about the real office Huckabee is running for. Check it out.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, my boy for president, has lymphoma.
I wonder how the media got ahold of the story?
UPDATE: Thompson's statement.
UPDATE #2: Via MC, redstate has facts about what's going on.
I don't know if this fits into the sizing that you said we needed, but I put this together this morning. I suck at banner making, and hopefully, Fred will actually get into this race soon so someone who knows what they're doing will make a banner.
UPDATE: I did steal Mason Conservative's banner. Guilty as charged.
If the Sing-meister can come up with a nice, 150px wide graphic and link for his man, I will be happy to post it on the sidebar as well.
This will be your classic youthful exuberance vs age and treachery fight to the death. Let the chips fall where they may.
UPDATE: I am not giving up on Tom Tancredo, by the way. It's nice to have an abundance of good candidates. Tancredo is just a little behind in the graphics department.
UPDATE II: There are a number of Duncan Hunter images available, but I chose the one where he just finished smacking us in the side of the head. Because that's what America needs right now.
UPDATE III: Geez, by the time Singleton gets back online there may be no room left for any more candidates! There's always room for Tom Tancredo around here, but I'm just not sure if we can squeeze that Thompson fellow in.
Giuliani has reaffirmed his position that, "Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure people are protected."
Of course, he was talking about the right to murder one's unborn child, not the right to protect oneself from a murderer, but if he is a man of principle, then that principle must hold for our Second Amendment rights, too. Naturally, one could also expect free telephone and internet service to protect our First Amendment rights, too.
Despite Sen. Clinton's "we're going to get it done" rhetoric, she won't say what, exactly, she would do. The fact is, she has no plan.
If she had a plan, and cared about the "nearly 47 million people [who] don't have health insurance," she would draft a bill and put it before the Senate now, not wait two years when, she hopes, she will be the President.
This is the same "plan" that Kerry had to get us out of Iraq when he was campaigning. He didn't have a plan then (nor did he propose one after he won re-election to his Senate seat), nor does she have one now.
With the resurgence of his wife's cancer, John Edwards is in a very difficult position.
If he stays in, he will be accused of being callous -- that the stress of campaigning may exacerbate the cancer, that his political career is more important to him than his wife. The truth may be that his political career is more important to HER, and SHE does not want him to drop out.
If he does drop out of the race, he loses what may be his best shot at being President. Furthermore, he may be accused of playing the sympathy card for a later run.
To all of our friends on the local scene who are battling on the illegal immigration issue, I have some good news.
There is reason for hope. The reason is Duncan Hunter.
One candidate who has formally announced that he is running for president is serious about border security and enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. This candidate is not only serious - he is viable.
Duncan Hunter spoke to a group of Virginia grassroots activists in Virginia last night.
He explained how the existing fence on the U.S. border near San Diego has greatly reduced crime in that local area. He also explained how his bill to extend the fence for over 800 miles in key sections of the U.S.-Mexico border from California to Texas - a bill approved by the U.S. House and Senate and signed by President Bush - will make a huge dent in smuggling, illegal immigration and other criminal activity coming across from Mexico.
This is the time to focus on the upcoming Presidential election, and we have a real live candidate to support for President in 2008.
Duncan Hunter can win.
You can learn more about Duncan Hunter here.
Here's what I like most about Congressman Duncan Hunter: Tom Tancredo has had kind words for him, and Hunter talks in depth about three key issues which should be central to the current political debate.
Duncan Hunter is on the 2008 map. He woke up the Day 2 CPAC audience with a machine-gun like 20 minute address focused largely on the issues of our misbegotten trade policies, the war and illegal immigration. Did not try to do too much, and he did it very well.
Listen to Hunter's address here.
Mike Huckabee, who spoke about an hour later, was by contrast too cerebral and tried to cover too much, and consequently received a more subdued response. (Huckabee was not bad though. That coverage will come tonight).
March 1, 2007. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo addresses crowd of young folks at an evening which was not on the agenda and appeared to be hosted by the Leadership Institute.
After having heard Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush in person during recent weeks, I will suggest that anyone saying Tancredo is "not presidential" either has not listened to Tancredo or has not listened to the other people often spoken of as having the right stuff.
Here's an excerpt:
This is so much more important than the argument over jobs, the argument over the costs of education, of helath care - all the rest of it. All those things are true and real problems we have with massive illegal immigration in the country. But beyond that, I'm telling you, there's something much more dangerous that we have to deal with, and it is an assault on the culture itself.
And it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an assault on the idea of America. We are losing connection to that. And we are doing so for a lot of reasons. There is this cult of multiculturalism for one thing, that permeates our society.
It pushes us in directions that I think are dangerous. It separates us. It does nothing but continually draw us apart and divide us into camps and hyphenated Americans, and camps that are ethnically or linguistically separated - and we say, yeah that's good. We'll teach you in a language other than English. Yes, absolutely, keep your connections, your philosphical, your ethnic, your linguistic, your cultural - keep all your connections to the places you came from. Do not connect with America, after all what good is it to connect with America? Why would you want to do that? What do we offer you
This is the problem; this is the cult of multiculturalism, and that's what's happening here. It's not driven necessarily by immigration: It's exacerbated by it. It's exacerbated by millions of people coming here who do not want to be Americans. They come for the purpose of a variety of things, and certainly the economic opportunities that America affords them, and that is wonderful. That's why my grandparents came; that's what most people's parents or grandparents or great grandparents came for. Most of them came for that economic opportunity.
I do not fault them for that. But is it too much to ask, that along with that economic opportunity that this country affords you, that you accept something else: And that is the idea of being an American. That's it: American.
This is the battle we're fighting. As I said, it's more important than some of the other peripheral issues that we seem to get involved with and get in arguments about when we talk about immigration.
These are big issues; they are controversial. They're worthy, however, of your involvement; they're worthy of your commitment; because the country is worthy of it. What we're trying to say is worthy of it. It is western civilization that is at stake.
We are not simply a lot of people who happen to reside on the North American continent - which is what a lot of people want us to think of when we think about ourselves: It's just one big happy family that extends from Canada to Teira del Fuego.
No, it's not. Sandwiched in there is this place called America. And it's not the continent I'm talking about. It's the country. And there's something good, and unique, and different, and admirable, and worthy of saving. And it takes more than just the force of arms to do it. It takes the force of ideas.
By the way, there is a group of people coming over from Virginia for Tom's address this afternoon at 1:00 pm. IIf you are in the area, drop by the Omni Shoreham Hotel.
If you want an eyebrow-raising experience, go visit Drudge right now.
No links to anything yet, so all I can say is if the story is a fabrication it will go down as one of the dirtiest tricks of all time. If it's true, plenty of people will scratch their heads and say "I thought October suprises were supposed to happen to Republicans."
"Rove you magnificent bastard" indeed.
UPDATE: Now Drudge has a report. My appraisal: Webb wrote the novels to convey reality rather than invent it, so this news would not change my voting decision either way. But that's easy for me to say because I skew libertarian, and I'm voting for George Allen anyway on the basis of trusting him more than Webb to do the right thing on 2nd Amendment and immigration enforcement decisions.
I think a good argument could be made that some aspects of reality, as represented in a couple of Webb's passages, don't need to be conveyed. On that basis one could question Webb's judgment. But I say this without having read the context, ie the rest of the books in question.
UPDATE II: It's still not on the Allen Web site, though. I wonder if they are having second thoughts or just can't figure out how to frame NC-17 prose on a Web site accessible by children.
UPDATE III: Y'know, after reading through the bombshell press release again, I have to wonder if anyone in the Republican party even knows how to pull off a proper October surprise. A couple of Webb's passages are a bit weird to say the least, but some of them don't seem strange at all. I mean, "AMERICAN ASS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT"?
A few others fall in the same category (not to be reprinted on this wholesome blog, however). Except for bad language, there's nothing particularly scandalous. So what in the heck are they doing here? If you dig up some questionable writings by a political opponent, you make a bigger impact of you don't dilute the message with a bunch of stuff that most people will simply shrug off. Oh well, they're the political geniuses and I'm the one sitting in my pajamas typing.
UPDATE IV: Ok, I read the stuff a third time and never mind the "libertarian" remark above. That one passage from Lost Soldiers is just weird. Why would anyone need to write that?
Jim Webb, what were you thinking?
The Allen team could have simply printed this paragraph in their press release with the question: Does the person who wrote this belong in the U.S. Senate representing the state of Virginia?
A commenter here immediately took the obvious route of claiming it "sleazy" of the Allen campaign to publicize this, and I suspect shortly if not already this charge will resound through the liberal side of the blogosphere. THAT'S going to backfire. They don't want to be putting the word "sleaze" in people's minds while Webb's very questionable little vignette is also fresh in their minds. That is one nasty bit of writing, probably sleazier than many Virginians have seen, and trying to redirect the charge at Allen will not work. The people know sleaze when they see it.
UPDATE V: Heh. That's why they call it "politics," as opposed to "baking cookies."
Thanks Joe. I had fun with "Amnesty week." School-related work is piling up, so I'm going to have to stop taking so many study breaks! So as we head toward November I'd like to leave everyone with one final message:
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Marshmallow, our liberal denizen in chief, has earned our respect for his knowledge, research skills and feistiness. But I wonder openly and marvel at his claim that asking for an alternative to the President's plan is a 'cheap tactic.' Marshamallow is not engaging in simple name calling, for he reasons that "The gov. has billions of dollars and legions of intelligent folks who they can put to work problem-solving these issues" which is true, on its face. Further more, there are think tanks from both ends of the political spectrum that ponder all that goes on in Iraq and they too attack the problem.
Marshmallow then uses the great sport of baseball to make an analogy, and basically says that one does not need to pitch better than Bonderman to criticize Bonderman's pitching performance in a particular game. This statement is also true on its face. Marshmallow by using baseball to make a point has proven that he is a great American. However, I am not asking Gnossis to pitch. What I am asking him is, "What in particular can Bonderman do to improve his pitching?"
Lost in the backroom debates and New Hampshire coffee klatches is the question of ideology. Until recently, the conservative objection to such "competence" worship was that it steals an intellectual base; it takes it as a given that the government is the solution to our problems. This is the opposite of the Reaganite view that the government, more often than not, is the problem. As of now, the only GOP candidate vying for the Reagan mantle is Virginia Sen. George Allen.
A new poll of likely caucus attendees in Iowa shows that Marky Mark has failed to catch on in Iowa, finishing tied for a distant fifth with 3% (along with Tom Daschle, not good company in a poll for President). I thought the national democrats were failling in love with him. This should be a sobering moment for his handlers as they have a long way to go in the next year, perhaps too far. Maybe the Washington Post will be able to push Warner into the national spotlight all on its own, but this is not a good sign at all for our former governor.
A very timely Guard the Borders Blogburst from Euphoric Reality: Two conservatives, a Reformer and a Revolutionary, debate whether the Republican Party's apparent failure on immigration is the last straw. Let's hope the president's speech tonight does not have everyone in the GOP asking these same questions.
Tonight, the President will address the nation on his plans for illegal immigration. Unfortunately, he's already given his word to Vicente Fox on Sunday that his plan to put a few National Guard troops on the border is just a temporary formality, of sorts, and not meant to intimidate anyone. Right. Heaven forbid we intimidate anyone to deter them from breaking our laws!
The question then arises, who does Bush feel more compelled to explain himself to - us Americans or the Mexicans? He owes the American people everything , and the Mexican government nothing! So why is he assuring Fox of anything concerning our internal national policies?!
I have no illusions about what we'll hear from President Bush tonight. But before he tries to lull anyone into complacency tonight, let's look at the reality of the Goode Amendment, which Bush will no doubt reference in his speech tonight. Troops on the border to bolster security? It's not what it sounds like:
OK, here are the dirty little secrets.
â€œ(d) Conditions of Use- (1) Whenever a member who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Bureau of Border Security or the United States Customs Service is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany the member.â€
So, each military member will simply now be a buddy for a Border Patrol guy.
Now look at this;
â€œ(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed toâ€“
(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest;â€
So, the military has nada authority.
BUT it gets better;
â€œ(h) Termination of Authority- No assignment may be made or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 2007.â€™â€
This is a ONE YEAR DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush's speech tonight seems to be a weak bid to stem the hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. As the party's leader, Bush has a responsibility to lead and direct his party, and he may just be leading it to a crushing defeat in the upcoming elections. People who voted for Bush not once, but twice, are abandoning the Republican Party in droves. On a recent news radio poll, 80% of the callers who had voted for Bush twice, now heartily disapprove of him. Of that 80%, 90% of them said it was due to his mishandling of our border security. But Democrats shouldnâ€™t celebrate any victories yet, because itâ€™s not just Republicans - what it's doing to the two-party system is even worse.
This issue is splitting the American people into a majority who demand border security and immigration enforcement and a small, but vocal minority who demand amnesty. There are now two schools of thought coalescing around the faltering Republican Party and its bumbling missteps. The debate is happening now and we need to be a part of it. So letâ€™s debate!
Kit and I dove into this a little deeper and have each represented a school of thought concerning the future of the Party, and by extension, our two party-system. In the interest of full disclosure, Kit is an increasingly-reluctant Republican and I am a furious Independent (formerly Republican who split from the party over a year ago).
(Read the debate, below the fold)
"And, you know, John McCain is a strong conservative. He's pro-life. He's strong national defense. He's a national hero. His view on family is just where most conservative Christians' views are. It's just that we had another champion back then."
Perhaps Senator Allen's people need to have a sit-down with Reverend Falwell. More from the AP.
Credit to Drudge.