Posted on 10/04/2004 7:17:15 AM PDT by Goldwater4ever
The White House has told House Republicans that it wants them to remove provisions in their intelligence-overhaul bill that would crack down on illegal aliens' obtaining drivers' licenses, allow easier deportation and limit the use of foreign consular ID cards. The Senate's bill lacks those provisions, and as the two chambers race toward trying to pass a bill before the Nov. 2 election, the measures are a potential stumbling block. The White House wants those provisions out, according to a congressional source familiar with the bill. "They have expressed desire to kill some of the immigration provisions and gut some of others," the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Rosemary Jenks, a lobbyist for stricter immigration controls for the group NumbersUSA , who has been tracking the bill, said White House policy officials met with Republican staffers to urge them to remove the provisions, even though White House officials initially had signed off on those same provisions before the bill was introduced officially. "The White House was involved in the negotiations before the bill was introduced, and now, for some reason, it has come back and decided to insist that the main provisions, the most effective provisions of the bill, be gutted," she said. She said House Republican leaders appear to be standing firm in refusing the White House demands. A White House spokesman did not return a call for comment yesterday. ***
"This goes to the very heart of the entire conspiracy of 9/11," he said. "These people entered the country, got driver's licenses, used those driver's licenses to obtain the services they needed, and then used those driver's licenses to get on the plane."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Seeing that Bush has absolutely no chance of winning California, I'm considering writing in Tom Tancredo (CO - Rep) for POTUS.
-VM
I hope you'll like President Kerry. Then Mexico and France will be special.
Because the alternative is worse.
Politics is rarely a choice between the ideal and the non-ideal. It is more frequently, and this election is a good example, a choice between two flawed candidates - and you must pick which flaws you can live with and vote accordingly. Would you rather have illegal immigrants with drivers licenses or higher taxes and American participation in the International Court?
" Tell me why I ought to be voting to re-elect the president??"
John Kerry, Edwards and the entire Clinton regime all over again.
That's the only reason I'm voting for him. Hold your nose, there's going to be A LOT about the coming years we don't like.
I am not, but am familiar with the issue. Note that Bush had previously supported the provisions until they were made public. Now, he opposes them. (Can you say, "flip-flop"?)
I'm getting bored with giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I knew something was fishy when in 2000, candidate Bush tried to have a parody web site labeled as a PAC by the FEC. Needless to say, the FEC told Bush to take a hike, which prompted Bush to publicly utter the phrase, "There ought to be limits to freedom."
Remember that one?
Right then, I knew that the Constitution was in for a battering and that Bush deserved none of my support.
The Republicans are completely aware of this. With a GAO report and letters from the House Judiciary Committee and House Ways and Means committee, they'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know about it.
The difference is they know we don't like it, but are gambling that Bush will be re-elected before the majority of voters find out about it. That's why everyone is talking about the swift boat vets, national guard service records, etc.
The congressman have all taken care of their political posturing with the disapproval bills in committee, sternly worded letters written and delivered and reports published.
Note that in spite of this, no action has been taken to change or remove the offending provisions and nothing is being publicly mentioned.
It all adds up to a snookering and it's the conservatives who are going to take it on the chin. The liberals don't care because Bush is giving them what they want. The so-called conservatives aren't saying anything because they risk being taken out to the political woodshed if they spill the beans. (no pun intended)
So, IMO, we're stuck with it because few FReepers will stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes.
But I'll say this much, if the people in flyover country find out that Bush is giving Social Security benefits to Mexican illegal aliens, not only will Bush not be elected, but he'd probably be politically tarred and feathered and ridden out of Washington on the proverbial rail.
Of course, the plus side to Bush losing the election is that we'll all have another 8 years or more to grouse about a scum-sucking democrat President, right?
And that will never change, but we sure can't stop trying to keep them at a minimum.
To paraphrase John Paul Jones, "I have not yet begun to write."
And a few more liberal judges.......
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Do you believe illegal immigration should be one of the principle issues discussed by President Bush and Sen. Kerry?
Yes 81% 665 votes
No 19% 156 votes
Total: 821 votes
In response, I just sent the following comment to Dobbs:
"No, I believe that Bush's Totalization Agreement which will allow millions of former, current and future Mexican illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits should be discussed by Bush and Kerry."
"I hope you'll like President Kerry."
Damn, how many times have we heard that statement simply because we refuse to kiss the butt of the "party". You're no better than the morons over on DU.
When it comes to immigration, Bush is W(R)ong.
Your common sense is appreciated, ODT.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Do you believe illegal immigration should be one of the principle issues discussed by President Bush and Sen. Kerry?
88 percent yes-----12 percent no.
FYI
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Do you believe illegal immigration should be one of the principle issues discussed by President Bush and Sen. Kerry?
88 percent yes-----12 percent no.
Bump
Given the fact that if Bush does not get elected, Kerry will, are you willing to sit this election out or vote for someone other than Bush?
If your answer to either is 'yes', you're the one who belongs at DU. You'll be doing exactly what the DUmmies want you to.
bingo.
Gee, do you think that 88% might represent significant #'s of Americans disgusted with Bush's amnesty and Social Security plans vs. the maybe 12% or less pro-illegal immigration folks that will probably vote Dem. anyway? How stupid can these people be to alienate tens of millions of Americans in favor of perhaps a few million Mexicans. Stand back........another Bush is about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!!
No problemo...
At least we'll all know there's a big-gov't. NWO type occupying the White House instead of some closet socialist bent on destroying our national sovereignty under the guise of Homeland Security, totalization and open borders.
Now, now A.S. To be the perfect partyman you supposed to ask "how far do I bend over?"
Appears you're perhaps one of the "unappeased."
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.