 |
\|  |
     |
Posted on 05/13/2006 4:58:47 PM PDT by LSUfan
America's borders -- land, sea and air -- are our primary ports of entry for billions of dollars in goods and services, along with millions of tourists, business visitors, workers, and other foreign nationals who contribute to our national economy. The events of September 11 also indicate that some have used our borders as an entryway for these evil and malicious attacks. As a result, many have called for increased checks and "tightening" of our borders. While such proposals are understandable, and improvements are clearly needed, difficult questions remain about the potential severe impact to our economy of any improperly conceived system that does not deal realistically with the vast amount of legitimate traffic, including goods and people that cross our borders daily.
(Excerpt) Read more at uschamber.com ...
A fact FReepers should know, re: my tagline:
A man named Ed Gillespie, whose lobbying firm consists of him and Jack Quinn, Bill Clinton's lawyer, has taken very large amounts of money from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to promote Open Borders.
Ed has shuttled between his cashcow K Street firm and the RNC and this White House for the last six years.
And here's the kicker: Ed Gillespie is now the head of George Allen's PAC.
I think folks should know.
Very interesting and disheartening.
You're right about the Chamber of Commerce. The fact is there's a coalition of groups that loves the illegal foreign invasion - some Republican business interests love the cheap labor; most Dems are thinking of the cheap votes and are pandering to the illegal lobby.
These groups don't care about the social and economic disaster this invasion is bringing. Their only concern is how their immediate interests can benefit or profit.
Worse yet, they are all oblivious to the fact that in an age of international terrorism we're extending an open invitation to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups to walk across the border and kill thousands (or more) of Americans.
Sadly, George "open borders" Bush should be recognized as President Pander for his idiotic amnesty that he attempts to disguise as a "guest worker" program. No wonder he dislikes Tancredo and made him persona non grata at the White House. That's because Tancredo was one of the first to see thru him and called his policy what it is -- amnesty! Nothing hurts like the truth!
Most of these pols think we're idiots and are too dumb to see through their scam plans. They all vehemently deny their plans are amnesty - so they insert unenforceable or unfunded provisions to deceive people.
But, as Tancredo told them, it's still the same old pig with lipstick.
It's true; the Chamber of Commerce and the State Department have been actively working against our citizens' interests for many years. Of course, the President has many means to bring them back into line. I'm sure if it was brought to his attention he'd get right on it.
(choking back bile)
The worshippers here need to get a clue (and some concern for the country their progeny will inherit).
Just one more thing, sir. How's everybody doing down at local DNC headquarters?
George Allen is an empty suit. His national security credentials are nonexistent. The only true conservative who looks like he might be running is Newt and, if you saw meet the depressed this morning, he makes a lot of sense.
But given his total lack of national security credentials and charisma deficit, I'd have to seriously consider McCain over Allen.
Allen as the nominee pretty much assures a Dem in the White House.
Of course, illegal immigration has also created a lot of problems that have been well described around here. I think the biggest problem from illegal immigration is simply that 90% of these immigrants who vote register and vote democRAT. In the long run conservatives are going to be outnumbered in more and more states as has happened in California. That prospect has very disturbing implications for the long run in our country and that is the issue that GOP leaders really need to start thinking about hard. But to say that the CoC is actively working against citizens' interests is an unbalanced, simplistic statement. In some ways they're working against us and in some ways they're working for us.
The national security risks from the Mexican border are real but are overstated constantly by seal-the-border advocates. This is because a well-financed ME terrorist group with WMD has the ability to go right around the Mexican land border and bring WMD into the US by ship, boat, airplane, or through the Canadian border. Professional terrorist groups have to be stopped in the ME at the source choke point, otherwise it's very tough to completely stop them from entering the US. That's simply because we're a big country geographically and it's not feasible to search every ship, private yacht, car, truck, van, and person who enters this country or ties up his boat at a coastal dock every day. That said, I still support closing down the Mexican border to illegal immigration because it helps some with security and because of the dire implications of rapidly increasing democrat voter registrations.
Well, Ronald Reagan had no national security background when he was elected and he turned out to be an incredibly strong president on national security. I wouldn't overstated the importance of "charisma" either. I like Allen's style. He has a straightforward, friendly, down-to-earth style that should appeal to a lot of voters in the red states. He speaks well too, when I've heard him, and he doesn't have to pause and search for words when answering question, as Bush 41 used to do. He strikes me as having good intelligence and a good memory and the Dems are likely to underestimate him. I think his speaking style would contrast very well with HRC's style, and if he's well prepared on the issues Allen would calmly demolish her in a one-on-one debate.
You are very wrong about Ronald Reagan. You need to buy the DVD "In the Face of Evil" if you honestly think Reagan had poor national security credentials before being elected president.
Recently Allen had the audacity to suggest that the US should relax visa requirements for countries that had failed to meet minimum requirements for such relaxed standards.
Allen doesn't get it. He has no national security credentials, has expressed no significant national security thoughts, has introduced no significant national security legislation, and has held no senate leadership positions on national security-related committees.
He is not what we need in this age.
His views on social issues are solid and his fiscal views are good as well. But he falls woefully short on the only issue that really matters while we are in a World War.
Yes.. RINOs are stealth democrats.. The Trojan Horse and indeed, Moles.. Here on Free Republic too.. Socialist republicans or Big Giverment republicans.. Should be an oxymoron but is as real as the odor from a barrel of bad apples..
Exactly right. Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Al Gore and their ilk are transparent in their agendas.
But when supposedly pro-American, conservative, pro-business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce assault our security using euphemisms and front organizations, it takes the work of excellent journalists and authors like Michelle Malkin to uncover them and expose their agendas.
So, if I simply tell the truth about George Allen's words, actions and associations, I work for the DNC? Okey-dokey.
Truth is, George Allen presidency would be Bush redux. Or worse.
Allen has fooled alot of people for a very long time. But his abortion position is a deadly one to the pro-life cause. He supported the Assault weapons ban until it became politically unpopular. And he mimics the current Administration almost exactly on immigration.
If you're going to call me vile names, at least do try to provide some kind of back up for what you're saying. Please show that what I'm saying about George Allen and Ed Gillespie is untrue.
Google is your friend. It's all there.
I must disagree.
My point is that Bush redux would be much better than Clinton redux.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to sabotage the GOP's chances of retaining the White House in 2008. Now, who do you support as the GOP nominee for President in 2008 and what positive stuff can you say about him?
BTW, I did not call you any "vile names." In case you missed it, I borrowed a half-serious line from Peter Falk's Columbo TV series, in which he often ended a visit with a suspect or witness by starting to leave and then returning to say : "Just one more thing sir, I have a question about....." You gotta have a sense of humor around here. I've seen this happen often when people post something that is half-serious and people take it too seriously. But admittedly it's hard to tell what other people are thinking because you can't see or hear them.
My understanding of this issue is that the law was watered down so that it didn't actually ban anything other than a dozen or so specific weapons which were then slightly redesigned and renamed to go around the ban. The whole thing was just poltical theatre by the Clintons to make soccer moms and their hubbys feel safer.
My point here is that you can't always take the voting positions of Pubs at face value because sometimes they need to vote against their real views on a subject and then work behind the scenes to water down the law they voted for as political theatre. Washington is a crazy place, ain't it? I think now Allen sees enough opposition to the "assault" weapons ban that he knows he won't get destroyed politically by the MSM for opposing the ban. Please keep in mind how difficult it is for Republican political leaders when 95% of the big corporate media is attacking them relentlessly day and night. It's very tough for Republicans to win reelection consistently for the Senate except in thoroughly conservative states like Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, and some of the southern states.
Well Reagan was a solid anti-communist while he was an actor and governor of California. But he had no specific experience in national security issues at the federal level. That's all I'm saying; I didn't say he was weak on national security I said he didn't have much of a background in that area, in terms of specific experience.
I'll check on your statemnt that Allen "has expressed no significant national security thoughts, has introduced no significant national security legislation..." That sounds exagerrated to me, so I'll take a look into this. Every senator cannot be chairman of the Armed Services committe or the Foreign Relations committe. I believe Warner is chairman of armed services at this time. Allen's voting record is the most important issue on national security.
One thing that does concern me about Allen is that he might be just too relaxed and laid-back in general, and that is not good these days in the national security arena. He needs to get more fired up about national security policy and defending America in this age of potential nuclear terrorism.
Not much of a campaign slogan...or a motivator of Republicans.
How kind of you.
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.