Politics News

Rusty Ford asked:


You would think that two Democrats and one Republican Senator who are running for president would be on different sides of the issue of providing amnesty to illegal aliens. Especially since all votes in the Senate this year on this issue have had most of the Republicans on one side of the issue and most of the Democrats on the other. All three of these candidates voted consistently in support of amnesty to illegal aliens.

It is not the amnesty issue that makes me wonder why these three are not concerned for the security of our country but rather how far they are willing to take the issue. All three voted for YES on the comprehensive immigration reform bill in June 2007. This bill would have provided amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country. They also voted against an amendment to this bill that would have allowed amnesty to most illegal aliens but would have barred those who had committed major crimes while living in our country illegally. I just do not understand how anyone can think that a politician cares about the safety and security of the people they represent when they are willing to bless these criminals, who are here illegally, amnesty and a path to citizenship.

All three voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S. 1385. S 1385 was an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have given amnesty to illegal aliens. The Cornyn Amendment would have barred illegal aliens who committed the following crimes from receiving amnesty.

1. absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported)
2. aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists)
3. aliens who fail to register as sex offenders
4. aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses
5. aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders
6. alien gang members
7. aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.

I guess these three believe it is in the best interest of the security of our country and the safety of its citizens to give amnesty to people who come into this county illegally and commit major crimes. None of these candidates are mentioning this issue or their votes on this amendment on the campaign trail so I will proclaim it loud and clear for them so that there is not a mistake of where they stand.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been deemed for whatever reason to be security risks to our country.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the saftey of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been convicted of sexual crimes and refuse to register as sex offenders.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty people who are in this country illegally and who illegally carry weapons with them.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who commit crimes against children and who abuse their families.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who are members of alien gangs. We do not think there is enough of a gang problem here in our country and are committed to seeing that gangs from other countries start up operations here.

And last but not least, we, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been arrested three times for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

I have searched for any indication given by any of these candidates as to why they voted this way and I have not been able to find any place where they explained why they voted against the security of our country and the safety of its citizens. I assume that this information is not out there because there simply is not justification for such a vote. They have played their hand and we now see how little they care for America’s safety. I know each of these candidates have good points and stand behind positions that many Americans agree with. But how cans any right-minded citizen who has been informed about their position on this issue, in good conscience vote for them.

HT asked:


She heckled President Hu Jintao during a White House appearance this week. The below article says she was charged with willfully intimidating, coercing threatening and harassing a foreign official.

Is it just me or does that sound like something China would do? I think W was doing it to show China we’re on their side, and I think that’s nuts. No, scary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/hu_protester_22;_ylt=AnVyFiD9PKmt5dBXMQC6zJhPzWQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
For the responses supporting the prosecution in the name of law & order, I’d be interested in hearing why simply removing her wasn’t enough, that it is right for the administration to go the extra step and actually prosecute her.

It’s that extra step — actually prosecuting her for offending or interrupting a politician — that I find indefensible. Sure, the President has got to be able to take her away, you’ve got to have some order. But once she has been taken away, you’ve already solved the problem. So what is to be gained by taking that extra step? The only purposes I can think of are (i) to make a point (show China we won’t stand for this kind of demonstration when they come to the White House) or (ii) make an example of her so noone else tries the same thing. Either purpose is, in my opinion, indefensible when all you have to do is remove the heckler.

Michael Payne asked:


Words are the tools for an architect who will hatch a pyramid for the middle class. A pyramid of words.

Words will renounce a surging military and bring our boys home. Words have stung the beehive.

Words will consummate this rockstar politician with his Cuban megalomaniac.

Bullshit.

Barack Obama has created a fallacious utopia in which actions do not have consequences and consumption does not have a price. How do the voters respond? They love it. They eat out of his palm. He’s become a rockstar with his leather jacket and ripped jeans draped over his political garments. Am I the only one that just doesn’t get it? I’m tempted to bring up the familiar headline, It’s the Voters,Stupid. Well, it IS the voters. And hell, they are stupid.

The voters only see what Obama CAN do. Obama CAN give a $4000 tax credit to any student willing to do community service. But CAN my grandfather, who gave every last penny he managed to scrape back to his family, afford the increase in taxes? No.

Now slap universal healthcare on top of that. Barack Obama will break America with taxes. It’s the classic Democratic copout: if he can’t pay for it, you shouldn’t be able to either. Look, the problem isn’t that not everyone is covered, as Clinton vehemently insists, but the reason WHY they’re not covered; it’s too damn expensive. Drive down the costs of healthcare and naturally more people will be able to afford it.

John McCain knows how to do that. Republicans know how to do that: by encouraging competition among health insurers. It’s the simple philosophy that drives our economy: when one gas station sees another doing well, it wants in on the profits. So, what does it do? It sets up shop near the other in hopes of doing so. Gas prices will in effect go down as they compete for business.

But Barack Obama’s translucent policies aren’t cause of his rockstar status. He’s running as the new kid on the block. Let’s be honest with ourselves, Obama could not run on a message of change if he were another white male. He’s garnered so much media attention because of his race. It is the troubling truth that Americans are more concerned with appearance than approach to government.

Let’s be clear; race does not determine who should run our government. Unfortunately for Obama, comments such as Reverend Wright’s bring the whole issue of race back into the spotlight. In hindsight, Obama’s Texas ad in response to Clinton is laughable. Let’s recap. Clinton ran the classic “3 AM phone call” ad in which the phone is ringing in the White House and Clinton is, because of her experience, the person the voter should want to answer. Obama fired back with an ad that basically portrayed how it’s not the experience that matters, it’s the judgement.

Sorry Barack, but you just sunk your own ship. YOU don’t have the judgement in choosing friends. YOU don’t have the judgement in choosing advisors. So why should you be president? You have neither the experience or the judgement to be president.

Ultimately, while race was Obama’s strenght within the Democratic party, it will prove to be his downfall in the general election. The more the people get to know the newcomer, the less effective his “change” campaign becomes. Without a doubt the media has largely been supportive of Obama. But the more Obama is in the spotlight the more he will be undressed by the American people. The leather will gradually fall to reveal a politician. Imagine that. A politician running for president.