Posted on 05/06/2007 4:36:37 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, May 6th, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; the Rev. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former CIA Director George Tenet.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; former Gov. Jim Gilmore, R-Va.; Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha; Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie; Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmy.
LOL
I have been stressed, as Foxfanvox knows. But that doesn’t stop me from teaching the kids to do the conga line. LOL While walking around the neighborhood no less.
It’s sad. Normally, people from Buffalo are very nice (Ralph Wilson not included). But then you have Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, and if I am not mistaken,Wolf Blitzer (who still reminds me of a profiterole).
The Republican congress certainly did not try to thwart qualified Clinton appointees just because they were ultra-leftists. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a case in point. When Bush became president, that nicy-nice stuff ended with a bang.
As for bureaucrats, they are mostly in the Dem corner from the start.
Even after a State of the Union address where he gets a 10-15% bounce by the time PravdABDNC gets through with him it is down 5-10%. They know that if they carry the same negative news it will eventually go their way.
95% of the press is 60’s baby boomers who hate war no matter how noble the cause. That goes double if a Repub is in office.
Pray for W and Our Troops
President-elect Bush easily had a month of time taken away from being able to "get [his] own people in there."
HF
Press conferences are just one of the vehicles he has. The idea that the President of the United States cannot get out his message because the MSM filters and censors him is just nonsense. If that were the case, how the hell did he get elected in the first place? The MSM controls everything. Reagan got out his message, Bush can get out his. You ascribe too much power and control to the MSM.
LOLOL.
The MSM controls what the MSM puts out. Any other notion is fantasy. Check out Time magazine's top 100 most influential people if you think they don't. That's not a judgment about whether they are right or not, just about their ability to control what they carry.
If they choose not to show what the President says or only cherry pick the 10 seconds of stuff they can spin as negative then there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to influence that. You can only bypass it.
75% of Americans get their total input on reality from the MSM. 50% get it from The Daily Show.
If you choose to ignore that simple incontrovertible fact then you are not willing to deal with reality.
They need the circulation to justify the advertising rates. This is why Time, Newsweek, etc. give away so many subscriptions to so many places like doctors' and dentists' offices. I got a solicitation to one of them for $20 for a one year subscription, including 10 issued of Money. They would have to pay me just to pick it up with the mail every week.
NYT and WaPo sell and/give lots of subscriptions to schools. Propaganda all the way.
It is my understanding that Tenet hardly ever met with Clinton. The daily briefings were with Pres. Bush, who cares about protecting this country. Ex42 just skated on everything and lucked out with problems swept under the rug.
LOL
It’s true
Came here without the right paperwork? Are you one of those people who call them "undocumented workers" like Chertoff does? They are illegal aliens who violated our law entering our country and then violated other laws like ID theft and non-payment of taxes. You don't reward such people, who total 12 to 20 million. Amnesty is rewarding people who broke our laws. And who makes the subjective judgment that they are hard-working? And what happens if the border is not secured?
What is going on today is unprecedented in our nation's history. Here are some facts gleaned from Bureau of the Census data that provide an indication of what is really happening:
---The 35.2 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country in March 2005 is the highest number ever recorded -- two and a half times the 13.5 million during the peak of the last great immigration wave in 1910.
---Between January 2000 and March 2005, 7.9 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country, making it the highest five-year period of immigration in American history.
---Immigrants account for 12.1 percent of the total population, the highest percentage in eight decades. If current trends continue, within a decade it will surpass the high of 14.7 percent reached in 1910.
---Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, three-and-a-half times the rate for natives. Since 1990, immigration has increased the number of such workers by 25 percent, while increasing the supply of all other workers by 6 percent.
---The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 29 percent, compared to 18 percent for native households.
---The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 18.4 percent, 57 percent higher than the 11.7 percent for natives and their children. Immigrants and their minor children account for almost one in four persons living in poverty.
---One-third of immigrants lack health insurance -- two-and-one‑half times the rate for natives. Immigrants and their U.S.‑born children account for almost three-fourths (nine million) of the increase in the uninsured population since 1989.
A central question for immigration policy is: Should we allow in so many people with little education, which increases job competition for the poorest American workers and the size of the population needing government assistance? How did we get into this predicament in the first place?
Prior to 1965, the US was taking around 178,000 legal immigrants annually. In 1965, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to unite immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. With these changes and some subsequent ones, the result was that most of our legal immigrants now come from Asia and Latin America, and not Europe. Chain migration designed to unite families has also brought in aged parents, children, uncles, etc., many of whom are not contributing to our society and in fact, require more social services. Even with quotas in certain immigration categories, we are now legalizing the status of over one million people annually and millions more are waiting in lines overseas for their turn to come in. Chain migration has also changed the "mix" of immigrants, making it less diverse.
Mexico accounts for 31 percent of all immigrants, with 10.8 million immigrants living in United States, more than the number of immigrants from any other region of the world. Immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean account for the majority of immigrants, with 54 percent of the foreign‑born coming from these areas. Of those who arrived 2000 to 2005, 58 percent are from Latin America. This lack of diversity has hindered assimilation and could well result in the Balkanization of the country by language and culture.
We need a rational, sensible immigration policy for many reasons, some of them economic and some of them cultural, i.e., the ability to assimilate these massive numbers into our society . Since 1970, the population of the US has increased by 100 million; since 1990; by 53 million; and since 2000 by 20 million or the equivalent of our six largest cities. The Bureau of the Census projects that we will have 364 million by 2030 [that will add 63 million people to our population in the next 23 years, the equivalent of the current population of the UK] and over 400 million by 2050 with one-quarter of the population being Hispanic. The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor of three-fourths of all U.S. population growth.
These additional people will require infrastructure [roads, water, electricity, gasoline, etc.], and impact our schools, hospitals, social welfare systems, penal system, etc. Couple these increases with an aging US population faced with entitlement programs about to go belly-up in 10 years and you have some serious public policy issues that could threaten the future of this country.
But not over folks carrying bombs. I care much less about someone's legal status than I do about their intent on being here. Lacking evidence about their intent then legal status must be the benchmark, but you and I both know that 99% of those people are here for economic reasons, not because they wish to do us harm. That's probably why most of your ancestors came here too.
They are coming here illegally. Some may be carrying bombs or biological or chemical weapons. We have no idea who is coming in and why. If you believe that 500,000 to 1 million people a year entering our country is benign, you fail to recognize the impact they are already having on our country. As I indicated above, what is going on now is unprecedented. Today, about one in every 8 people resident in America is foreign born.
Some of mine came here for those reasons, some were here before the Europeans and some were brought here in chains (from Scotland, not Africa). I'm concerned about the security issues. Let the immigration issues sort themselves out separately.
They are intertwined. It is the reason why I believe immigration, legal and illegal, reprsents one of the two greatest threats to the dream that is America. The Hispanic Challenge By Samuel P. Huntington
You're out of your tiny little mind On that point I'll have to respectfully disagree with you
LOL. You couldn't resist the personal attack. Islamic fundamentalists will not takeover the US and the reins of our government. They will not destroy our Constitution. And even a few nuclear weapons secreted into the US will not destroy us and our values. We will survive those. We won't survive the current invasion of immigrants, legal and illegal, who are swamping the world's lifeboat and the last best hope for Man. We will be destroyed from within, not from the outside.
I think Sada talked about missions flown from Baghdad to Damascus in the year 2002-2003 when he believe the WMD were moved from Iraq to Syria.
and, based on your comments, I’d therefore like to thank the100%ers for our current congress that wants to turn our nation over to La Raza and turn us into the nation of Azatlan. We won't be defeated by enemies from without. We will be defeated by enemies from within and their useful idiots. I'll leave you to figure out where I place your opinions.
Those idiots and no one else are responsible for Nazi Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid as the "leadership" in congress. Don't blame Michael Moore. Don't blame Soros. Blame those who chose to "punish the Republicans" for not being perfect. There is no other conclusion from the last election. Any other argument places you on the side of the enemy, as they argue it was "Iraq" or "the culture of corruption." BS.
You just have to get your priorities straight before you get more people killed and bring down more destruction on human civilization.
It’s really hard to fight both the loony left and the irrational idiots on the right. But I’ll keep at it and eventually we’ll win, despite all that you can do to make it harder to preserve human civilization.
You do realize that you are helping the mullahs and their allies with your obsessions, don’t you? The control of the border is an absolute. Everything else you cite is crap and easily spun as racist tripe. That doesn't advance the conservative cause. If you think it does then you belong more with Bryd than Reagan.
Timmy is so blind to the facts that he actually played the '16 words'. They start with the words: "British intelligence has determined......". Even a babbling fool can see that is not a lie. No one has ever said that British intelligence didn't say this. You have to really twist and spin to convince yourself that this is a lie. To actually play the words, and then think that rational people will see it as a lie, is delusional. White coats anyone?
Congress is trying for the bums rush against President Bush's surge policy, openly trying to imply they have the people's mandate to redeploy from Iraq.
So, the first porky bill got vetoed and wasn't able to be overriden. Never mind, they plan to keep pummeling the President until they can find the right formula to force W into a defensive negotiating position, where he'll accede to at least some of their demands.
From there, their goals will apparently transmogrify to "even more demands," and so on.
HF
In fact, when Blair was challenged on the credibility of this claim (by British intelligence) he refused to back down.
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.