From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
Yep. Since we're likely never to see a fence if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty (a rose by any name yada yada yada), use the money to build a highway from our southern border.
No traffic checks. No speed traps.
Name it the Ted Kennedy Freeway.
Provide full-service pull-off's (courtesy of US taxpayers, of course) every 200 miles or so. Preferably overlooking barren vistas, deep ravines or swampland.
Create an "exit only" ramp into the neighborhood of every friggin' senator who votes in favor of the current Immigration Reform bill.
At the bottom of each ramp, confiscate vehicles and bus each new American to the senator's front yard.
Otherwise --
Build the damn fence, hold employers accountable, register illegal immigrants and THEN reform existing immigration policies.
For those who register -- offer viable options for temporary work permits and/or temporary designated legal status to those without criminal records who also have proof of health insurance and financial support.
And while you're at it -- establish a class action suit for each state and all citizens who have been victimized by stolen social security numbers and/or personal identities to sue for compensation.
Even though the bill has yet to be formalized (i.e., written), Mitt Romney is one of the first to categorically reject the sound-bytes coming out of the Senate and the White House this week.
"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.
"Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."
Makes sense.
What does not make sense is how legislators are going to vote on a bill they have yet to read. Or write.
Back home, we'd call that "buying a pig in a poke." 'Course, with all the pork being served by Miss Piggy Pelosi and her pals -- tossing another sow's ear into the soup to sweeten the slop has become common DC grubbery.
But I digress.
Secure the borders FIRST. Then debate the needed immigration reforms. Concurrently, increase enforcement personnel. Starting with ID cards and holding employers accountable makes sense. But since when has sense (common or otherwise) been a hallmark in Congress?
It's hard to tell which side MSM will be taking, but expect lots of pot-stirring to boost sales.
Watch also for a back-lash from legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who are not pleased that THEY had to follow the law while illegals are supposedly being offered a free pass to citizenship.
If Republicans (and democrats) fail to listen to their constituents on this issue, we are likely to see an explosion of "third" (fourth and fifth?) parties on both sides of the aisle by 2008.
Meanwhile, across the border ..... (Not sure why I had to read this in the Jerusalem Post.) This is scary:
Police and Mexican army troops arrested four members of a criminal assault force that overran a town near the Arizona border and set off gunbattles and executions that left at least 22 dead in violence linked to drug cartels.
Luis Pena Molina, town secretary of Banamichi, said Thursday that "helicopters are combing the whole area" looking for the remnants of the estimated 50 gunmen who assaulted the nearby town of Cananea, 30 miles (20 kilometers) south of the U.S. border. He said four gunmen had been detained.
The violence began Wednesday, when men armed with assault rifles and riding in 10 to 15 vehicles pulled four lightly armed city police officers out of their cars and executed them in a park.
The assailants fled to the nearby hills with authorities in pursuit. The gunmen ditched their vehicles, commandeered horses and forced ranch hands to serve as guides, according to an account from a man abducted by the armed gang.
... Almost as alarming is the report that the number of illegal immigrants finding refuge in the Islamic movement in Florida and the southwest continues to grow:
The population of Hispanic Muslims has increased 30 percent to over 200,000 since 1999. This trend may be associated with post-9/11 profiling and the affinity of two prominent minority groups. There are several similarities which also explain the association: cultural focus on religion, family-orientation, poverty, health care needs and immigration status.
We need you at the helm, Mitt Romney. We don't need pork-barrel band-aids to temporarily "fix" our illegal immigration problem. We need new strategies to solve the problem. Now. More than ever.
Nothing to gain personally, actually. Just the satisfaction of participating in (hopefully) helping Mitt Romney gain a few of the 24,000+ supporters who signed on in the last 24 hours. I made a small pledge in the process. It's the least I can do. I'll likely pledge more later.
I'm impressed with the Romney organization. He's solidified his team with a youthful support-base. College kids. Young adults. Young professionals. It will be the grassroots that carry him in the long run, however. Including us elder-folks (i.e., our Over-the-Hill Coalition). Youth is good. They can blow up balloons and be go-fers. (Last time I tried to blow up a balloon, I nearly passed out. And I've never been too adept at go-fer-ing much except second helpings.) They can also carry the signs and banners. Over-the-Hill folks have problems waving those signs and banners more than half a block or so.
The youngsters who choose to supplement their summer earnings will be reimbursed a portion of funds raised for Romney. Nice gimmick. Hopefully, they'll be respectful when they start knocking on doors .... I'm sure there will be plenty of supervision.
I contributed directly to the campaign. I've not found other Romney support-sites too friendly or eager to exchange links. I'll just let them fend for themselves to earn their funds. Occasionally one or three have left comments on this blog. I thank them for stopping by and try to visit their sites. Most are Mitt Heads. Folks my age are called blue heads. (No -- even at nigh-on-to 65, I have less gray than Mitt Romney ===>) Guess them youngsters don't wanna be affiliated with a Blue Mitt Head. I don't knit, but a couple of O-T-H'ers do. If they were included, they could be called the Blue Knit Mitt Heads. One of the two gets snitty when she talks about Shrillary. She could belong to the Blue Knit SNIT Mitt Heads. Matter of fact -- she's so snitty she calls Shrillary supporters S**t-heads .... er-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r .....
What issues does MSM want conservatives to focus on in the Presidential campaign?
You guessed it.
Not what conservatives consider relevant.
A recent Human Events survey identified 10 issues conservatives (and moderate conservatives, I might add) consider relevant to the 2008 election.
The final results of the survey ranked the Top Ten Conservative Issues as:
1. Illegal immigration -- 86% 2. War on terrorism -- 80% 3. Federal spending – 65% 4. Supreme Court and other judicial appointments -- 64% 5. Flat tax/tax cuts -- 61% 6. Size of government -- 61% 7. Iraq -- 55% 8. Social Security -- 45% 9. Entitlement programs -- 38% 10. Abortion -- 36%
Funny how the first debate -- organized by MSNBC -- focused almost exclusively on what democrats consider important OR what libs want conservatives discussing abortion, cloning, Iraq, Iran ....
More kudos to FoxNews and the moderators for zeroing in on what is important in the 2008 election.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.
The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.
The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."
Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."
The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.
"We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war," said Reid, D-Nev.
Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.
"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."
But other Democrats said the move was necessary.
"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Senate vote on Feingold's legislation was one of several expected Wednesday, as the Democratic-controlled Congress struggles to clear legislation for Bush's signature by the end of next week to continue U.S. military operations through Sept. 30.
The House last week passed legislation funding the war on two separate, 60-day installments.
The Senate must take the next step by passing its own measure. Given the political forces at work, that legislation will be a placeholder, its only purpose to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise.
As a result, officials said Tuesday that Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had discussed jointly advancing a bill so barebones that it would contain no funds and do little more than express congressional support for the troops.
Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days.
Wednesday's votes on Feingold and other proposals "will provide strong guidance to our conferees and help shape the conference negotiations we have ahead of us," said Reid.
In addition to Feingold's measure, members were expected to vote on legislation by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would threaten billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on certain military and political reforms.
Reid said he would oppose Warner's measure because it doesn't go far enough; the proposal would allow the president to waive the restriction on foreign aid.
"It is nothing," said Reid.
Levin pulled from the floor his proposal to set an Oct. 1 date to begin troop withdrawals, but allow the president to waive that requirement. He had pitched the idea with the expectation that the president would accept it because of the waiver; but, Levin said Wednesday he had been advised by the White House that the president would veto the measure regardless.
Finally. Here's hoping Sen. Warner's legislation suffers the same fate.
If you haven't done so already, join Team Mitt and Sign Up, America! This is a carry-through project from the Mitt Romney Debate Parties held through-out the nation last night.
Mitt did very well in the debates. If you didn't watch it live, you can find the full text and videos at FoxNews.com.
All they want to talk about is GeorgeBushGeorgeBushGeorgeBush.
World to Dems and liberals: George Bush is not running in 2008.
And no wonder dems didn't want to participate in a FoxNews Debate -- they might have had to answer questions relating to their candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.
Kudos to FoxNews and the moderators: Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Wendell Goler. The format was professionally delivered. I'd prefer, however, to see audience (internet) questions be offered in a less formal setting with fewer participants ....
I'm still not confident that front-runners had the opportunity to sufficiently expound on questions or hypotheticals ..... After tonight, I don't really care what Ron Paul thinks. (Obviously libs and his extended call-base love to shake things up by voting for him in every poll --- just as conservatives tend to vote for Bill Richardson.) There are likely two to three others who are out of their element, but I'll leave those names to more astute observers ....
Who won? Mitt Romney. Head over heels above the others in clarity and carriage. No question in my mind.
It was noble of Rudy to interrupt Ron Paul (others tried) during Paul's tirade against the U.S., but surely this was NOT the first time Rudy had heard the accusation that "we" were responsible for 9/11.
Rudy didn't answer the question on criticism of his liberal "leanings" .... McCain explained his liberal associations as "bipartisanship" .... It wasn't my bias that heard Romney address his conservative position(s) in a liberal state.
And it's those three -- Romney, Rudy and McCain -- who should be featured in future debates.
They should be allowed to expound on their conservatism while addressing the issues that will be relevant to 2008 and beyond. And let the dems continue to attack George Bush, cowering from the relevant questions for which they obviously have no answers.
Fortunately, I seldom have opportunity to encounter too many hounds of hatred. At least, none like those spewing their glee over Jerry Falwell's death across liberal comment boards.
Pick a left-wing moonbat blog. The farther the left and/or the younger the activist, the more venomous the response. On the prominent blogs, you'll likely find comment sections closed. Why? The moonbat faithful are frothing in full-force over the death of one man -- Jerry Falwell. The man who launched the concept of the "moral majority" and sank a few liberal hags and hacks in its aftermath ....
I won't be quoting the low-life's directly, but I did respond to one poster who belittled moderate-conservative bloggers who were (not sure why) amazed at the depth of hatred -- i.e., twisted, deranged happiness -- at Falwell's death.
I commented:
"...Sniffing out the Huff Haters....? It isn't the Huffsters. It's the hatred.
Really. No one needs to sniff -- the stench is easy to follow. Hatred does that to ya, kwim? Smells to high heaven ....
I dare say that if either Carter or Clinton or Pelosi were to die unexpectedly, the overwhelming majority of moderate-conservatives would utter a "RIP" .... After all -- to disagree with someone politically or philosophically does not change the reality that each of us, in time, are more "equal" than "opposite" and will face the same fate.
I neither identified with nor gave Mr. Falwell much credence as a spokesman for my beliefs, but I have no difficulty in wishing his family strength in their loss or in saying, "Rest in Peace, Mr. Falwell."
Now I know another reason I'd never make a "good" liberal. I'm not much on harboring, much less celebrating hatred.
Tonight is the second debate. Depending on your perspective, it may (or may not) be something to shout about. We're hosting a Mitt Romney Sign Up America! party.
It won't compare with a memorable early-60's scene from the Polo Grill in Winston-Salem yearrrrrs ago when Maurice Williams and/or the Hot Nuts sang this favorite ditty, but it will be a close 6 or 7 ..... If you know what I mean .....
FLASHBACK to Katrina and claims that federal authorities failed to respond appropriately ..... Why DID local authorities NOT ask for immediate federal assistance? Were the LA governor and New Orleans mayor taking cues from the DNC in a(nother) attempt to sacrifice human lives in order to discredit George Bush?
This blogger (who, coincidentally lost two friends in that tragedy) believes that BDS and the blind-hatred of George Bush are far stronger motivations than any regard for the lives and safety of the American people.
Why did Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius subsequently withdraw her charge(s) that critical National Guard equipment had been sent to Iraq?
This is a radio interview of the breaking story from Hannity Radio.
Check out the ONLINE trail of posts, letter from a DNC attorney to Free Republic and the radio station, and comments from PowerLine blog.
I was listening to the Quinn & Rose show this morning on XM radio when Host, Jim Quinn told his audience that Howard Dean called Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response to the aftermath.
He also said that she, Gov. Sebelius, called Senator Sam Brownback's office only to learn he wasn't there but then called him on his cell phone and reached him while he was in his car were she confessed to him that she had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for the lack of immediate response.
That would explain her public statements to the press that proved later to be untrue. She made statements to the effect that the Iraq war and the deployment of the national guard units to Iraq from her state has left Kansas without the equipment and man power needed to respond more quickly to the tornado's aftermath. This all turns out to be false and the governor herself has back tracked on her own claims.
Mr. Quinn also revealed that she confessed to Brownback that she couldn't pass up such an opportunity like this to attack the President whose approval ratings, in this hostile political climate, is so low.
These revelations are startling and if true should call into question the governors competence and her judgment. Quinn adamantly stressed that his source, who he didn't name because he was sure it would jeopardize his job, was extremely reliable and in a position that would give him direct knowledge of these revelations.
The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons, we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original story appeared.
Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you intend to comply with these requests.
The attorney who sent the letter on behalf of the DNC is attorney Joseph Sandler, representing the Democratic National Committee. In my view, Sandler is a thug representing a bunch of reprobates and bullies. Here's why.
Under the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard as to whether they are false or not.
Accordingly, our reader's Free Republic post based on the statements of Jim Quinn is constitutionally immune from a defamation claim. Whether Quinn and those who broadcast his program have such immunity is a different question, but the same constitutional protection applies to them. Professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh coincidentally makes a closely related point based on the Sullivan case today.
"Actual malice" is a tough standard for public figures to overcome. That's why defamation claims by public figures have essentially disappeared since the Sullivan case. Under the Sullivan case, the First Amendment affords wide latitude for the discussion of public figures as well as issues of public concern.
Sandler's letter to Free Republic incorporates no element of "actual malice." It is couched in the traditional common law of defamation that the Supreme Court killed for public figures in the Sullivan case. Sandler's letter carries Governor Dean's denial of Quinn's assertions, but it does not even allege that Jim Quinn had knowledge of the statements' falsity or made them with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.
We therefore associate ourselves with our reader's statements regarding Governor Dean and invite Mr. Sandler to sue us for defamation as he threatens to sue Free Republic. This is to put him and his client on notice, however, that we intend to seek our attorney's fees under federal law for the assertion of a frivolous claim if he does so.
I have minimal legal background, but wholeheartedly concur. No entity -- especially Howard Dean and the DNC -- has the right to control the blogosphere. So sue us, too. Sue every blogger who dares to exercise their right to speak.
Maybe Brownback will be asked to comment about this during the debate on Thursday. He should be.
Maybe it's also time to revisit the Katrina tragedy -- with a review of actual cell phone and email records from the DNC to LA.
eads. (No -- even at nigh-on-to 65, I have less gray than Mitt Romney ===>) Guess them youngsters don't wanna be affiliated with a Blue Mitt Head. I don't knit, but a couple of O-T-H'ers do. If they were included, they could be called the Blue Knit Mitt Heads. One of the two gets snitty when she talks about Shrillary. She could belong to the Blue Knit SNIT Mitt Heads. Matter of fact -- she's so snitty she calls Shrillary supporters S**t-heads .... er-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r ..... 