John and Ken Announce GOP Political Human Sacrifice Finalists (Democrat Joe Baca also Targeted)

John and Ken Show Website ^ | July 19th, 2004

[Sabertooth]

Monday, July 19th, 2004

Political Human Sacrifice

Posted by The John and Ken Show @ 3:37 pm  

Here are the poll results from the Political Human Sacrifice Phase 1:

1) David Dreier - District 26 - 52.37%
2) Chris Cox - District 48 - 13.35%
3) Mary Bono - District 45 - 10.69%
4) Darrell Issa - District 49 - 6.05%
5) Dana Rohrabacher - District 46 - 4.65%

In the next few weeks, we will invite each elected official to prove to us why they should not be “Sacrificed". We will be asking them to do various tasks, with your input as well, to prove that they are protecting California taxpayers from the illegal alien takeover. Keep listening to John and Ken on KFI AM 640 from 3-7p, because the blue-blazered, Washington elite are being exposed on the issue.

Who is running against Joe Bacca?

Ed Laning!

Born June 27, 1957 in San Bernardino, Ca. Grew up in Fontana where I met my wife Cindy. We were married on September 15, 1979 and resided in Fontana until 1986. In 1986 we moved to Hesperia, Ca. while we built our home where we now reside in Oak Hills, Ca. We have raised three sons and now are enjoying a grandson and looking forward to another grandchild in August. In 1988 I founded a commercial construction company, Arrowhead Timber Structures. We supply and install roof structures on commercial buildings. We attend Holy Family Catholic Church in Hesperia, Ca. where I also play the guitar and mandolin with the church choir. Read more about Joe at laningforcongress.com.

Check out the voting results from San Bernardino County for 2002.

[txdoda]

Issa says employers really want to employ legal immigrants and that they would prefer a guest worker program instead of illegals.

LOL.....now that sure qualifies for "Joke of the day".

[txdoda]

John: "When I read in the newspapers abut Joe Baca's illegal alien sob stories, I don't see ONE WORD from you guys (Republicans) in response.

No wonder I don't know much about 'Baca', I'm not much into IA sob stories, or our politicians who whine for them.

Illegals should be booted out, & any 'electeds' pandering for them should be voted out.

(responding about 'Baca' before I get hollered at again)

[txdoda]

John and Ken really need to open up the phone lines and let the callers at Issa.

Issa probably agreed to the interview, *only*, if the phone lines would *not* be open from the public.

Most of our 'pandering' politicians will not discuss illegal immigration with us, the TAXPAYERS.

[pooh fan]

I cannot receive KRLA signals where live.

[txdoda]

John and Ken said they're most appalled that Issa said he would not fight for reimbursement of our $5 billion from the federal government because "I don't want to be rewarded for having the most illegal aliens."

Funny, *Gov.* Bush of TX, used to fight for more SCAAP funding, etc. from the feds. Always said the border was the feds job, & they should pay more upkeep to the states, since they weren't securing the borders.

[txdoda]

They briefly touched on the following bill that was passed last year. I wish John and Ken would've asked Issa why Congress made the darn thing voluntary instead of mandatory.

A question many taxpayers would answered.

[txdoda]

but why didn't they make it mandatory to begin with?

Because gov't is still not serious about stopping illegal employment. Sheesh, gov't only collects about one third of the fines they impose on illegal employers.

Also, I've never been able to find out if the program was adequately funded.

Last I heard, this *voluntary* fiasco was supposed to be up & running by Dec. 2004

[StoneColdGOP]

Issa was NOT impressive.

Still, I'll give him credit for showing up and standing his ground, for what that's worth. I expect about the same from Rohrabacher today.

But I can't wait to listen when Dreier's turn is up, if he even bothers to show up.

[mbraynard]

What station did you hear Hewitt on?

[A CA Guy]

The J & K loser show is still trying to get ratings with their attack on Republicans even though they say Democrats are far worse.

How stupid would people be to follow the marketing ploy of these two?

[mbraynard]

It is a pretty reasonable tactic because the goal is to achieve a policy, not to elect people with certain letters beside their names.

Did you listen to the Issa interview and are you still intersted in voting for him?

[A CA Guy]

If you didn't like Issa, what good will it do to elect a flaming radical leftist in his place with a D by his name.

What is your theory that justifies electing more Democrats when the population of them in California have already just about bankrupted us?

I'm all ears for your response.

[mbraynard]

Part of the reason the Rs in CA are so afraid to speak out on illegal immigration is because they fear what happened after 1994 and Wilson got elected - and then the Rs went on to loose every election there since- a group of people (hispanics/illegals) started voting against them. So they shut up about tackling illegal immigration.

See? One side on the issue voted, well, on the issues and got results.

The Rs need to realize it cuts both ways and there's a limit to how far their base will let them stray.

So better 1 congressman gets taught a lesson rather than the President. Someone like Rush Limbaugh pulling this on the national level would sink a R candidate (oh wait - he did - in 1992 - although he recanted towards the end the damage was done).

[A CA Guy]

Rush called Perot trouble and those that voted for him actually voted for Clinton.

Regarding Califoria and our Republicans, you said the 1994 actions of Wilson against illegals got all the Republicans fired, so you want to get a Republican fired so they will again participate in the original behavior that got them all fired! Have I got that straight?

[Pelham]

I didn't hear any mention of the problems his unpopularity on the Illegal Alien issue might cause for his chances at re-election. Then again, we're talking about Hugh Hewitt's weakest issue.

I wouldn't say he's weak on it, exactly- he's simply on the other side, like his pal Dreier. The flood coming over the border doesn't affect their yuppie neighborhoods, and as long as it doesn't inconvenience them they see it as an opportunity for advancing their personal interests.

[Pelham]

It's not an act. You'll find his picture under 'smarmy'.

[Pelham]

The voters in Dreier's district ought to write in Sonny Sardo rather than vote for the Dem. The message will still get sent, and in the best case Sardo wins.

[Pelham]

Part of the reason the Rs in CA are so afraid to speak out on illegal immigration is because they fear what happened after 1994 and Wilson got elected - and then the Rs went on to loose every election there since- a group of people (hispanics/illegals) started voting against them. So they shut up about tackling illegal immigration.

Wilson only won in '94 because he hopped on the 187 bandwagon in the final weeks. The Open Borders crowd likes to use the argument that you made, that 187 has cost Republicans votes. Sometimes they even claim that Wilson lost an election because he supported 187. Wilson, of course, never lost one statewide election and was prevented from running for Governor again due to term limits. He was the last Republican to side with immigration control, and he was the last Republican to win a major state office until Arnold.

Arnold won in part because of voter anger at Gray Davis for trying to give licenses to illegals. The lesson in California is that Republican voters sit out elections when their nominees are perceived as doing nothing about border issues, or worse, rewarding illegal immigration. John and Ken's game will put this lesson to a test.

[mbraynard]

First, Limbaugh caused Bush serious problems by endorsing Pat Buchanan and spending 3 hours a day on the radio tearing into Bush. Yes, he came around at the end but the damage was done.

Second, what I did was give an elegant example of a group of people getting what they want, not what they don't want, but deciding to make it a my-way-or-the-highway-issue that politicians understood. See, they understood that Hispanics would vote against them if they supported immigation control. What they also understood was that people with your point of mind would vote for them no matter what, so long as you perceived their opponent to be even slightly worse.

The point is you need to learn a lesson from the hispanics and put your foot down on issues that matter to you else you will wind up with an open border policy.

[bot_feeder]

I strongly support the PHS plan.

And I sincerely hope the "winner" to be targeted winds up being Dreier.

Dreier has an "F" ABI rating for his recent votes on immigration issues.

His career grade is somewhat higher, which illustrates that he has gone from someone who was moderate on immigration to one who now votes in lockstep with the leftist loonies.

His Democrat opponent sounds like a reasonable person. She will probably actually have a better voting record on immigration than Dreier. (of course, it wouldn't take much).

Can John and Ken topple Dreier? I I don't know whether they will succeed, but I believe it can be done. It depends on how hard they work at it, and how much the immigration issue has heated up by November. That issue has been gathering considerable steam, as witnessed by the primary victories the other day by immigration reform advocates Vernon Robinson and Tom Price.

Whether or not they succeed in toppling Dreier, one thing I do believe they will be able to do is make immigration the dominant issue in the Dreier race. And, they will be able to do so despite the fact that neither candidate will want it to be.

For conservatives that don't consider immigration to be as weighty an issue as I do I can understand that they would not want to see Dreier toppled.

Since I am a one issue voter on the issue of immigration reform, I would consider a Dreier defeat to be a tremendous victory.

Clearly, public pressure is bearing fruit on the immigraiton issue. Bush has shut his trap about his amnesty proposal for the time being, and he got Frist to not bring AgJobs to a vote on the floor of the Senate.

But a lame duck Bush no longer concerned about winning another election is almost certain to try to push for his "guest worker" bill. And in my view, no legislation would do more damage to this country than Bush's immigration proposal. (since Bush would not only legalize illegals but allow unlimited numbers of foreigners into this country provided they were offered a "job", his plan is arguably even far more disastrous than Kerry's, as horrible as Kerry's is)

If Dreier goes down, or has one heck of a close call, that might just be what it takes to get Bush to back off the amnesty in his next term, assuming he wins in November.

Sacrificing David Dreier's political is well worth it to save the United States of America as a soverign nation.

And not only that, but a sacrifice of Dreier is good for Bush. Many of us previously were thinking about voting against Bush to send that same message. That would be a very blunt instrument to try to send the message, since the stakes are much higher and a Bush defeat would be explained by dozens of reasons, with anger of immigration reform Republicans being way down the list.

So a defeat of Dreier is a nice surgical way to send the message loud and clear, with minimal collateral damage. And now immigration reform Republicans can be comfortable voting for Bush in November, knowing we have a better mechanism (defeating Dreier), to make our voice heard. And as close as this election is liable to be, Bush may just need our votes.