FBI Under Clinton Failed Often

Click the title piece and view what's there. The FBI was derelict in its duty numerous times during the Clinton administration, because the leader of the FBI was a Clinton guy. That's my take on it. Here's the timiline:

The report said the FBI had substantial evidence that Leung actually was a Chinese spy, but waited until May 2001 to begin investigating the matter and whether she had a source within the Los Angeles office. Fine faulted the senior bureau official in charge of the counterintelligence division for the delay.

Neil Gallagher headed the FBI's counterintelligence operations at the time. He retired in November 2001.

``It is particularly puzzling that the assistant director did not suspect Smith because the assistant director was overseeing the Robert Hanssen espionage investigation at the time,'' he said.

Even then, a preliminary report concluded that ``an espionage relationship between an FBI employee and Leung is unlikely,'' Fine said.

Finally, a special task force was created in 2002 after FBI Director Robert Mueller, on the job for only a few months, expressed concern about the pace and scope of the investigation. Mueller asked for the inspector general's review.

So Bush gets the new guy in at the FBI and things get fixed. Or at least recognized as a problem. Hey Bill, what would Monica say?

I'll be back

CC

Hastert Criticizes Bush For Raid On Congressman

In what I see as just a bunch of bellowing, in the wake of Bush's low public poll ratings, Dennis Hastert has claimed that the FBI's search and seizure of congressional documents in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office is unconstitutional. Jefferson is under investigation by the FBI for taking bribes. The FBI even got Jefferson to take a suitcase full of money ($100,000) from an FBI agent in a theoretical kickback scheme. Hastert is concerned that the separation of powers doctrine of the Comstitution has been violated with the searching of Jefferson's offices.
My response is this. What if it were an investigation of a murder? Or of an organized slavery/prostitution situation?
In each of those instances, time would be of the essence. Would Mr Hastert assert that an imminent threat is not enough to warrant a search?
And if the search would be OK under those circumstances, why not in the current?
Mr Hastert's assertions are tantamount to claiming "diplomatic immunity", which I find to be particularly offensive.

I'll be back

CC

Senate Votes To Allow Social Security For Illegals

On May 18, the Senate voted down an ammendment to S2611 that would have denied Social Security credits to illegals for the money they may or may not have put into the system. The list of Senators who love the illegals: (Yeas means to vote down the ammendment) Sorry I was late with this. The vote was to table (kill) the ammendment, thus yea meaning against.

YEAs ---50
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Again, it's time to reevaluate those who you may have voted for in the past. Check the list, and vote what you think is right, in the next election.

I'll be back

CC

Senate Votes To Consider Amnesty Bill As Is

The US Senate today voted for "cloture" of debate on the Senate sell-out bill, S2611. This means that a final vote can be taken on the HUGE AMNESTY BILL can be taken any time now. The following US Senators voted for this procedure:

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

When elections for these individuals come up, please do what you think is right. If you are against amnesty, then vote the miscreants out of office. If you want amnesty, go to your psychiatrist and find out why.

I'll be back

CC

Louisiana Church Shootings

With the latest news of multiple murder at a Louisiana church, one can only wonder if the individual who had his firearm was disarmed by the police during the illegal disarmament tactics that were exercised by the authorities in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Most law abiding gun owners in the New Orleans area had their legal firearms confiscated by the authorities in the wake of the devastation of the hurricane.
The excuse of the cops was "to secure law and order".
We saw how well that worked out. Roving bands of bandits and some of the police themselves proceeded to terrorize and rob the citizens of New Orleans and outlying areas, until the National Guard got involved.
Now, with most of the illegally confiscated weapons still not in the hands of their rightful owners, we see this news. A crazed gunman shoots up a church, kidnaps and then murders his ex-wife (estranged ?) and apparently just captured.
How many of the churchgoers might have been legally armed and packing if not for the actions of the "authorities" during the Katrina crisis?

And these morons have just re-elected Ray Nagin...

I'll be back

CC

NY Post On The Religous Badges

From Allah Pundit, click the title and read. It's the same story from just yesterday, May 20 2006.

Maybe the Post knows something?

Updates as necessary

I'll be back

CC

More Updates On The Religious Badges In Iran Via Allah Pundit

Click the title and check out the latest on the Jews/Christians badges stuff in Iran

More later, as necessary.

I'll be back

CC

A Note To Commenters

I have received a few comments recently that attack me personally, or are simply specious. Since those comments have been made anonymously, I will not bother to give the comments the light of day. If you wish to comment, (and have your comment posted on my site) you must reveal your identity. Either your own blog site, or your email address must be available for rebuttal. Sneak attacks are made only by cowards and terrorists.

I'll be back

CC

Congress Wants High Oil/Natural Gas Prices

The House of Representatives in Washington, DC has again prevented oil and natural gas exploration off shore around the country. Read the piece. Those who defended their votes seem to think that the tourism values available in their coastal states supercede the need for the country as a whole to have lower energy costs. Kind of ironic, though. Those same states seem to have the highest retail prices for gasoline and natural gas. California and Texas both have very high prices at the pump. I've traveled there..lived in California until recently. It's true.
To all of you who are reading this from those and other states affected by this most recent vote, consider who you will vote for (and against) in the next election.

I'll be back

CC

PS I just emailed one of the California reps about her statements against offshore drilling.
Her name is Lois Capps, from the Santa Barbara area of California. Her offices:

Contact Lois

Washington, D.C.
1707 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3601
Fax: (202) 225-5632

Santa Barbara
1216 State Street, Suite 403
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 730-1710
Fax: (805) 730-9153

San Luis Obispo
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 205
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: (805) 546-8348
Fax: (805) 546-8368

Oxnard
141 South A Street, Suite 204
Oxnard, CA 93030
Phone: (805) 385-3440
Fax: (805) 385-3399

Here's what I said. It took a little effort, but I got through.

Kind of hard to dig through your defences, but this is the best for now.
I used to live in California, up until the end of 2004. 50+ years in the Los Angeles area. The final time 1978-2004 in Panorama City, SFV. I read your statement on offshore drilling, and had to respond. Here is what I read from Drudge:
"Drilling for natural gas means drilling for oil," argued Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., citing industry pronouncements that where there is gas, often oil is found and probably would be developed. "Drilling three miles off our coast will not lower gas prices today or anytime in the near future."
Now if you didn't say it, that's OK. But if you did, it shows all you care about is pandering to your constituency.
Our country is in an energy crisis. All means of obtaining new sources of oil and natural gas are essential to our well being and to the future of our country as the leader of the world.
My grandfather lives in Santa Barbara. I've seen the oil platforms out there in the water, and see no reason to not continue exploration and drilling offshore in that area. The myopic view that it will "hurt tourism" is the height of selfishness. The beaches suck anyway, and the water is too cold.
Sure, it takes years to develop new oil and natural gas resources. That's just the way it goes. But the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be once it finally does happen. And believe me, it will eventually happen.
I see your title. "Honorable". Maybe it's time to live up to it.

Each little step to eliminate the elitism in Congress. Step by Step.

Nevada Senator Reid Courting Hispanic Vote

Senator Harry Reid claims that making English the official language of our country, (which was supported by Washington, Madison, Adams, etc) is now suddenly racist. Note that the senator is from Nevada, which has a fairly large Hispanic population.
Could it be he is courting those voters? Nah....
Here is the text of an email I just sent to this person of integrity.

I read about your claim that making a law to make English the official language of our country is racist. Pander, pander, pander. It is a racist statement to call things that are clearly NOT RACIST, racist. You are just trying to get reelected. Being in Nevada, I guess it will work. But your statement is transparent on the face of it, and tiresome, at best.
http://blogresponder.blogspot.com

Hopefully the voters will get rid of this opportunistic SOB.

I'll be back

CC

I have received a comment that attempts to defend the use of "racist" as an attack, when it is false. Since the wording was done as a personal attack and anonymously, I have rejected it. I invite the commenter to comment without protecting him/her self by commenting anonymously.

5/21/2006

Iran Like Nazi Germany? Read This

Here's a perfect example of why the US needs to intervene in Iran immediately. There is a new law proposed in Iran that would require the wearing of badges describing an individual's faith. Jews and Christians would be singled out under this new law to wear identification on their clothing letting others know their religious beliefs.
The next step, arrest and.....????

From the piece quoted:

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

And this last:

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

That's the least of its ramifications, as is readily discernable to those who have listened to the diatribes of Iran's leader over the last several months/years.

I'll be back

CC

It has come to my attention that Canada.com has removed the piece on this issue. I will put up a link to another source to verify the statements I made before. Thank goodness I put enough blockquotes in my original post to show the gist of the piece.

5/21/2006

Allah Pundit has an update:here,and here is another

Heritage Foundation Weighs In On Immigration

In a chilling report, The Heritage Foundation outlines the potential (and likely) outcome of the passing of the new immigration bill now before the Senate. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611), will result in a massive increase in all forms of immigration (both legal and not) over the next 20 years.
From the report:

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

And on the "Temporary Guest Worker" part of the bill:

CIRA creates an entirely new “temporary guest worker” (H-2C) program. There is nothing temporary about this program; nearly all “guest workers” would have the right to become permanent residents and then citizens.

And further down in the piece:

The “guest worker” program, then, is an open door program, based on the demands of U.S. business, that would allow an almost unlimited number of workers and dependents to enter the U.S. from anywhere in world and become citizens. It is essentially an “open border” provision.

The adoption of this bill will make the illegal immigration problem seem small:

Legal Flow Compared to Illegal Immigration

All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.

So it's now or never folks. Call your Senator. Scream at him or her over the phone if necessary. This is our worst nightmare.

I'll be back

CC

Latest Sellout Vote By GOP Senators

Click the title, and read the names of the Republican Senators who voted against a bill to require securing of the border prior to any "guest worker" program.
Thanx to Michelle Malkin for the story.

If you know people in the states of these sellout Senators, please give them the names of their ungrateful (for electing them in the first place) representatives.

I'll include the names here, just in case you don't care to read the entire piece:

The GOP Senators who oppose Enforcement First and sided with the open-borders Dems:

Bennett (UT)
Brownback (R-KS),
Chafee (RI),
Coleman (MN),
Collins (ME),
Craig (ID),
DeWine (OH),
Graham (SC),
Hagel (NE),
Lugar (IN),
Martinez (FL),
Murkowski (AK),
Shelby (AL),
Snow (ME),
Specter (PA),
Stevens (AK),
Voinovich (OH),
Warner (VA)

I'll be back

CC

Nebraska Votes Against Football Coach Who Favors Illegals

Tom Osborne ran for the office of Governor of Nebraska, and with his advocating of in-state tuition for illegals, he was defeated.

From Numbers USA:

Congressman Tom Osborne lost his primary attempt to run for governor. As a long-time hero football coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, with huge margins of victory in the past and with an endorsement by Sen. McCain just before the primary, Osborne had looked like a sure thing.

But he lost. And even he said that one of the main reasons for his loss was his support for in-state tuition for illegal aliens. His opponent stood firm against providing incentives for illegal aliens.

Osborne was a lackluster Member of Congress on our issues, with a B-minus. He wasn't that bad. But Nebraska voters made it clear that they prefer somebody a little more excited about protecting them from out-of-control immigration.

Just another message to our Congress members. Wise up. Stop the illegals. No amnesty.

Or find a new line of work.

I'll be back

CC

Tree Huggers Waffling On Illegals Issue

This piece in The Christian Science Monitor on May 12 notes that Environmental Groups are having a hard time rationalizing their support for the illegals in the border issue.

"We've got to talk about these issues - population, birth rates, immigration," says Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which confronts whalers, seal hunters, and those who poach wildlife in the Galapagos Islands. "Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth. All we're saying is, those numbers should be reduced to achieve population stabilization."

What an unholy alliance! Us real conservatives, and others who really care about our kids' (and the nation's) future may actually have some allies in the Green movement.
While some in the environmental groups are against border enforcement for "humanitarian" reasons, the numbers are there, staring them in the face.

...the US population is far from stabilized, and immigrants (legal and illegal) are one of the main reasons. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US today, 57 percent from Mexico, and another 24 percent from other Latin American countries, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Of the US foreign-born population, nearly 30 percent is illegal, according to Pew.

There are more numbers of note:

The US Census Bureau this week reported that Hispanics - the largest minority at 42.7 million - are the nation's fastest-growing group. They are 14.3 percent of the overall population, but between July 2004 and July 2005, they accounted for 49 percent of US population growth. Of the increase of 1.3 million Hispanics, the Census Bureau reported, 800,000 was because of natural increase (births minus deaths), and 500,000 was due to immigration.

And this on the Hispanic birth rate in the US:

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, finds that once women emigrate to the US, most tend to have more children than they would have in their home countries. "Among Mexican immigrants in the United States fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per woman in Mexico," he wrote in a study last October. And the same is true among Chinese immigrants. Fertility is 2.3 in the US compared with 1.7 in China. However, typically these high fertility rates decline in the successive generations as immigrants assimilate into America.

And the impact of all of this:

Harvard University ecologist Edward Wilson figures that the "ecological footprint" - which he defined in a Scientific American article in 2002 as "the average amount of productive land and shallow sea appropriated by each person in bits and pieces from around the world for food, water, housing, energy, transportation, commerce, and waste absorption" - is about 5 acres per person worldwide. In the US, each individual's ecological footprint is about 24 acres, according to Dr. Wilson.

Maybe some of the Leftie Loons are seeing the light....

I'll be back

CC

Boston College Instructor Quits Over Rice Speech

So this Leftie "adjunct professor" at Boston College is leaving because of the usual "Bush Lied" crap. (Click the link). Now he says Condoleezza Rice lied about the WMD's and the reason we went into Iraq. Since that ridiculous reasoning has long ago been put to rest by those who have a brain, I wish to point out the scary part of this man's open letter to the University Administration.

I would like to apologize to my students and prospective students. I would also urge them to investigate the words and actions of Rice, and to exercise their own First Amendment rights at her speech

It's quite clear that the man wants the radicals on campus to rise up during the speech at the BC graduation commencement and disturb the proceedings with rants and demagoguery. Maybe they should throw blood too.
My guess is he's had trouble getting tenure, and figures he might as well go out with a blast. Hopefully he won't strap on a bomb.

I'll be back

CC

Newmax Says Republican Majority At Risk

Here is another piece I received Sunday via email from Newsmax. It says basically the same thing as my last post, quoting another poll.

Charlie Cook Sees GOP Problems in '06 Elections

Signs are pointing to a bumpy ride for Republicans in this year's midterm elections - and voter turnout could turn out to be a major problem.

That's the word from pundit Charlie Cook, writer of the "Off to the Races" column for the Washington, D.C.-based National Journal Group.

Cook points to a new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national survey of more than 1,000 adults, which found that 60 percent of Democrats said they were "most likely" to vote in November, compared to only 51 percent of Republicans.

That amounts to a sharp departure from the last two elections, when Republicans turned out in higher numbers.

"History tells us that when one party is either complacent or disillusioned, and the other party is highly motivated, agitated or angry, the results can be devastating to the former while providing boundless opportunities for the latter," Cook writes.

RT Strategies also found that 49 percent of registered voters said they would like to see the Democrats in control of Congress after the elections, compared to 37 percent who favored Republicans.

And when asked if they planned to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress or the Republican, 50 percent of "most likely" voters said Democrat and 32 percent said Republican.

The GOP faces not only serious misgivings among voters about the war in Iraq, but also "a combination of Social Security, mounting budget deficits, Hurricane Katrina, Harriet Miers, port security, immigration, gasoline prices and various scandals," according to Cook.

President Bush is perceived as strong in the war on terrorism, but only 7 percent of respondents selected terrorism as the one issue that will matter most in deciding how to vote for the U.S. House in November.

The poll also showed that only 25 percent of registered voters would definitely vote to re-elect their member of Congress, while 36 percent said they would consider voting for another candidate and 21 percent they would definitely vote for someone else - an ominous finding for the incumbent party.

Tell your congress person and senator what you want for him/her to get your vote.
It's time that we all be heard from directly.

I'll be back

CC

Numbers USA Writer Points Out Necessary Republican Strategy On Illegals Issue

From the Numbers USA website, here is the text of an opinion piece by Thomas Sowell. It is along the same lines as what I have been saying. He backs up his ideas with poll numbers.

REPUBLICANS AND IMMIGRATION
The Conservative Voice : May 9 , 2006 -- by Thomas Sowell

"Separate border control legislation would force the Democrats to stand up and be counted on this issue, without the political cover of a package deal. Some of the more weak-kneed Republicans also want this political cover but taking away the package deal would do far more damage to the Democrats. Legislation dealing solely -- and seriously -- with border control might be difficult for some Congressional Republicans to vote for but it would be a political nightmare for the Democrats in Congress. And a bill takes just 51 votes to pass in the Senate..." Maybe some recent polls will put some backbone into Senate Republicans. But don't bet the rent money on it.

The percentages vary a little from poll to poll, as is usually the case, but these polls agree on one thing -- the public's top priority on the immigration issues is controlling the borders. They prefer the tougher bill passed by the House of Representatives to the weaker approach of the Senate.

The House of Representatives bill has been depicted in much of the media as harsh or draconian, as if it is a terrible thing to make illegal entry into this country a crime. The House bill is what is supposed to have sparked massive protest demonstrations around the country by illegal aliens and their supporters.

Those demonstrations may have impressed the media and intimidated politicians but they didn't change many minds among the American people. A majority of Republicans, Democrats, and independents all favor the tougher House bill. The percentages differed among these groups but they were all majorities.

What is really striking is that 53 percent of Hispanics supported the House bill. The loudmouths at the demonstrations did not speak for all Hispanics.

On this issue, as on some others, the Democrats in Congress are more united than the Republicans, even though the Republicans have a majority in both Houses. But a united minority can often defeat a divided majority.

As things stand at the moment on the immigration issue, the Democrats clearly have the upper hand politically as this year's elections approach.

The Democrats can solidify their base behind amnesty. But the Republicans' base -- 81 percent of whom are behind the tougher House bill -- are undermined, if not demoralized, by the vacillation of the Senate Republicans and the Bush administration on strong border control, apparently out of fear of alienating Hispanic voters.

In view of the latest polls, it is not clear how many Hispanic voters are going to be alienated. The greater danger is that the Congressional Republicans will alienate their own supporters.

The irony in all this is that the Republicans could turn the tables on the Democrats and put them on the defensive, instead of being on the defensive themselves.

There is no reason other than politics why amnesty and border control have to be in the same bill. It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with the people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured.

Separate border control legislation would force the Democrats to stand up and be counted on this issue, without the political cover of a package deal. Some of the more weak-kneed Republicans also want this political cover but taking away the package deal would do far more damage to the Democrats.

Legislation dealing solely -- and seriously -- with border control might be difficult for some Congressional Republicans to vote for but it would be a political nightmare for the Democrats in Congress. And a bill takes just 51 votes to pass in the Senate.

Unfortunately, President Bush has pushed the package deal and used the straw man argument that we cannot find and deport millions of people, even though virtually no one has said that we could.

The real question is whether sweeping the illegal alien problem under the rug by calling them legal will bring in still more millions of illegals, as a previous amnesty has already done. Nor will calling amnesty by some other name do anything more than undermine the confidence of the American people in general and the Republican base in particular.

Sometimes caution is the most dangerous policy. General MacArthur once defined defensive warfare in one word: "Defeat."

Frankly, the Republicans deserve to lose this fall's election, after their wild spending and pandering to economic ignorance on gas prices. But a Republican defeat would only bring in the Democrats -- and the country does not deserve anything that disastrous. The Democrats' petty obstruction and irresponsible demagoguery in wartime disqualifies them for national leadership when a nuclear Iran and nuclear terrorists loom on the horizon.

I'll be back

CC

Zogby Poll: Stop The Illegals

The latest Zogby poll came out a few days ago. Click the link and read the results. Or go here for the results in a PDF file.

Here'e page one of the report:

WASHINGTON (May 3, 2006) – A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (see wording
on following pages), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill by
2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll
was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies.
• On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said
immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared
to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.
• While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million
to 2 million a year, 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for
virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.
• When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or
very good idea when told it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer
verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement while not increasing
legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
• Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of
independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good
idea.
• When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, thought not as much
as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told
it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it
would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50
percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
• There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself,
exceptions included Hispanics 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea and the most
liberal voters (progressives) 54 percent of whom approved of it.

I'll be back

CC

Arizona Sheriffs To Start Posse Patrols For Illegals: You Can Vote On It!!

Click the link and vote on the website of Channel 5 TV in Phoenix. So far it's 97% in favor of the patrols.

I'll be back

CC