Posted on 01/17/2004 2:58:56 PM PST by Ricardo4CP
National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Geez, how many times does one have to say this?
Oh about 200+ years of recorded history, not to mention the struggle that the East germans had for 45 years trying to control a few miles of the Berlin wall.
People still went through it in spite of the security measures they took.
Shows some of us where his brains are. IF this were Billy Clinton's Freakin Proposal you would have popped your cork by now... Some Proposal. Seal the borders first, then talk to me about your plans to give my country away.
Yes, that is true. Faith and trust are different from blind loyalty. IMHO, many voters who continue to support President Bush, trust the man. That does not mean we totally agree with him.
Proposing solutions to "Third Rail" broken programs like Social Security, Medicare, Education, and Immigration is not a popular thing to do. They aren't going to heal themselves. The status quo will no longer suffice.
I will vote for George Bush again in 2004, not because I think he is the lesser of two evils, but because I have faith that he will continue to tackle problems long neglected by his predecessors. He will not solve them all, but, IMHO, he will not run from them or pretend they do not exist.
Increasing the number of conservatives in the House and Senate is essential to placing conservative judges on our Appeals Courts and Supreme Court, where several retirements are expected during the next four years. The Executive Branch nominates. I'm not willing to see liberal judges nominated by a President Dean, or Kerry, or Edwards, or Clintonark.
America's form of government is a Representative Republic. If our members of Congress are unresponsive, let's work to replace them with those more in tune with our wishes.
Newland? You got it :)
BTW where is the mandate for the DOE in the Constitution.
Thanks moondoggie for the clarification.
Well, sauropod...retraction in order?
It's not, I am in favor of abolishing the DOE. All pouring more money into the system will do is increase the dumbing down of America.
A new great wall is not the way, or at least not the most important aspect. The way to go is employer sanctions. The employers of illegal aliens are willing to pay the odd fine here and there (yes, I know these are hardly assessed anymore, but if they were the employers would be willing to pay). What the employers are NOT willing to do is to go to federal prison. Not even for a month or two. So we need a two step process. First, make it easy for employers to know who is legal. This will ruffle a few feathers of civil liberties extremists but will not require turning the country into a police state. Then, haul into criminal court a few hundred employers who continue to employ illegals. Do this, and most employers will fire their illegals in fear. Them most illegals will soon stream home, leaving INS to work on those who are left.
The President didn't clearly call for this because it would create some short-term human suffering. But let's not say it can't be done. In fact, the President gave Americans the impression that it would be done by saying that there would be increased penalties for employers who hire illegals rather than those under the new three year visas. Also, listeners were given the impression that employers would be punished if they gave a three-year visa holder a job without offering it to American citizens first. Since employers for various reasons won't be willing to live up to the three year visa rules*, the Bush plan can really be interpreted as send-them-home in disguise. Whether it will be depends on Congress and on whether the President was serious about giving citizens first dibbs.
______________________________________
* Reason 1: Employers' labor needs are often last minute, any last minute by definition violates the give citizens a chance to apply first rule. Reason 2: Advertising is the only realistic way to show you offered the job to Americans, and employers won't want to have their customers see that they are advertsing three-year-visa type jobs. Reason 3, the biggy: According to the President, the employers have to take a qualified citizen over an alien who appears on interview to be a harder worker, or whom the employer knows from experience is a good worker. Employers will find this new intrusive government regulation, requiring the hiring of any old American citizens over harder-working aliens, to be an intolerable intrusion into how they run their business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.