She is right.
You are very concise. I bet you could summarize it in two paragraphs. Thanks.
---
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:
Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.
Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.
Thanks,
Jim
No one with a lick of sense.
Thank you for your story.
This is why I think there's hope for Rice...perhaps she has given some thought to the issue, but she's not a parent yet.
Not instilling confidence in Wall St or investors.How can you say that?
- bloggerjohn
Yet President Bush let Clinton walk free, despite unmistakable proof that Clinton committed perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, abuse of office, murder, and treason. .
What is the more serious problem;
Corporate fraud, or treason?
Corporate fraud, or murder?
Corporate fraud, or abuse of office?
Corporate fraud, or perjury?
Clinton did nothing to stop corporate mismanagement?
That's good, it's none of the President's business.
Mismanagement within corporations wasn't Clinton's business, and it's not Bush's business. The President has his own responsibilities, he doesn't need to be hunting feel-good publicity opportunities.
Clinton's crimes are President Bush's business. Through either corruption or cowardice, President Bush refuses to do his duty.
Actually, I hadn't considered that. Point well-taken. FWIW, I hope she has changed her mind. She's an extremely capable woman; the GOP would do well to advance her - and it would be on her merits as opposed to the Dems advancing minorities/women based on symbolism.
She is right.
You are very concise. I bet you could summarize it in two paragraphs. Thanks.
---
I am wondering why it is not possible.
How can the INS,FBI, ect. find terroists, when they can't find an illegal that is here just to make money to send home to his family in Mexico?
What do they do and why are they being paid? Maybe we need a new thing called Homeland Security. The other thing didn't work. Guess they need more money.
They sure seem to be trying though.
I hope she has too. The "mildly pro-choice" statement sounds as if it's still at the "live and let live" stage, but it was also made a couple of years ago? I think there's hope for her.
She's an extremely capable woman; the GOP would do well to advance her - and it would be on her merits as opposed to the Dems advancing minorities/women based on symbolism.
I agree - not only is she intelligent and talented, but the fact that she's a minority who has earned such a high position just drives the Democrats crazy.
To: Jim RobinsonTo: FreeLibertarian
4, 7, 9, and 10. (Bush) should be defeated.
# 19 by FreeLibertarian
We have survived bad Presidents before.
What we can't survive is convincing ourselves that we must vote for one man because he doesn't support quite as much governmental intrusion as his main opponent.
Compromise for us means that we lose to socialism.
I will not vote for someone who has given me reason to distrust him, whether Gore or Bush. I will give my vote for someone who holds the same values I hold dear. If both major parties supply only liberals, I will find a third party candidate who I can believe in.
If I lose my freedom, it won't be because I surrendered.
How about someone that believes in and follows the Constitution?
Is that out of the loop for a nation "of the people, by the people"?
May well be .... I don't know. But I'll ask again..... Replaced With.........? got any names that the "of the people, by the people" would vote for and entrust in that position. Remember that "Replaced With" has to be electable or it makes little difference what you want.
STATESMANSHIP def: A political leader regarded as a disinterested promoter of the public good. Putting country before party.
Let's go back in time, back to the Nixon days, when the President of these United States did the indefensible. The country had a problem, and it's leader was caught stealing, and lied about it.
As the story unfolded, and the facts came out. the party of that President, the Republican National Committee, had a decision to make. Would it defend the indefensible?
The head of the RNC, George Bush Senior, went to Nixon and told him that the RNC would not defend the indefensible. Seeing he had no support even in his own party Nixon resigned his power before ever being impeached, thus serving the needs of the country, before his own or the party.
But who's the real hero here? Who's the brave soul ? G. Bush Sr. is the real hero because he put the needs of the nation above and beyond his own needs as a prominent leader of the party. Was it damaging to the RNC? you bet! Did it take them a long time to recover? you bet! but did the RNC do the right thing for the country? Definitly !
As the story unfolded, and the facts came out. the party of that President, the Democratic National Committee, had a decision to make. Would it defend the indefensible?
The head of the DNC, Terry Mcauliffe, went to Clintion and told him that the DNC would defend the indefensible. Seeing he had support even in his own party ,Clinton held the reigns of power, even after being impeached, thus ignoring the needs of the country, in a mistaken delusion of helping the party.
But who's the real scoundral here? Who's the sad soul ? Mcauliffe is the real sad soul because he put the needs of his party above and beyond the needs of the nation as a prominent leader of the party. Was it damaging to the DNC? you bet! Did it take them a long time to recover? They still haven't recovered! but did the DNC do the right thing for the country? Absolutely not !
Thus the Statesmanship vacuum is still present inside the DNC to this day, and alive and well in GWBs administration and the RNC.
That said, I think President Bush needs to be clearer in his communications. When he makes decisions (i.e. farm subsidies, with respect to illegal immigration and public education funding) that fly in the face of the GOP platform status quo, I think he would greatly benefit himself and his constituents by clearly communicating his reasons why. He is a public figure, and he needs to walk his faith more publicly. He needs to speak boldly--it would give many a great deal of hope to catch his vision, which I believe is to return the country to one governed by Godly precepts.
I worry, moreover, that he may be unequally yoked with advisors who do not walk the talk.
I think President Bush is the man for the times. I think we all need to pray continuously for him, that the Lord would grant him wisdom and protect him and encourage him to do right, that he would be surrounded by great men of uncompromised faith and wisdom (i.e. Bill Gothard, David Wilkerson).
America is judged. People can not scoff at God's Law, created for our protection, break all the Lord's commandments without repentance, and behave like barbarians, call good evil and evil good, worship the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hollywood heathen, corruption, depravity, etc. without there being consequences. Judgment will play out, but it is so merciful of God to grant us the blessing of a Godly man in leadership.
Al Gore would have been a disaster. I will vote again for President Bush, and I will be proud to do so.
You can not understand what Keyes says?
Maybe I didn't understand your post.
I don't care if they snuck across the border or not. I want to know who is here, where they are and what they are doing. I'll swallow my indignation for the bigger win.
Immigrants who break their backs and honorably make a days wage so their children might have an education and prosperous life here - that makes me tingly!
#732
"Bigger win?" Any political party that is foolhardy enough to push blanket Amnesty for Illegals won't have to worry much about "bigger wins," or many wins of any kind. I defy you to produce any kind of a poll that suggests that Amnesty has any political appeal.
As for your tingly sensations, let me suggest that living in Minnesota, the northernmost of the 48 contiguous States, leaves you rather bereft of the genuine experience of living amongst Illegals and their affect on your economy and the surrounding community. They are their own crime wave, a drain on public resources, and depress wages below levels at which Americans and legal residents once made comfortable livings.
ArneFufkin:
Blanket one year amnesty for every foreign national who has an expired mandate or illegally entered the U.S. No arrests for immigration status… It's a plan, and I think it will work.
#754
Why would you think that? It's a plan that was tried in 1986, and it didn't work at all. The result of that brainstorm is the absolute stampede of Illegals we've had ever since, and the mess we have now.
Another Amnesty would mean more of the same, redoubled.
ArneFufkin:
I honestly see no other choice. Clinton and his vote stealers opened the spigot. What's done is done. The KEY is removing the parasite element from our taxpayer teat.
If your line in the sand is the unacceptable concept of an amnesty ... we're hopelessly adrift for discourse. Amnesty makes everything legal. It's a tool to break up the logjam. It's worth it.
If you can show me a sane scheme to arrest, process and deport 3-5 million illegal foreigners .... I'll lend an ear. I see no such reality.
#786
You are the one who needs to show a sane scheme that we can do other than uphold our laws and borders.
And you'll need better numbers than that.
As for my ideas, here's one…
They Will
Deport ThemslevesWhatever the plan, we'll need manpower. I oppose militarizing the border, but I believe that if the President called for a Border Patrol/INS Volunteer Reserve of able-bodied men and women to work 1 or 2 week shifts once or twice a year, he would have more than enough manpower for the task.
If the common citizen takes a personal stake in the apprehension and deportation of Illegals, the political power of the program would be undeniable.
And don't forget, it's wartime with a domestic enemy hiding in our population, disproportionately amongst the Illegals. It's a winner.
ArneFufkin:
…this isn't a moral dilemma ... it's a political reality. They're here. They're staying as long as they can eat, breathe, pray and guard their family.
#833
There is no political reality that indicates a country can survive massive waves of Illegal Aliens, or that a political party can survive pretending otherwise.
ArneFufkin:
Amnesty? It's a tool. No other offer would motivate the undocumented to "check in" and be counted.They're here already, this is not a rhetorical debate. We need to get the millions of illegals here systmatically identified and documented. Whether it's 3, 5, 8 or 12 million. That's an irrelevance…
If jobs are scarce, and Taxpayer largesse is unattainable, Immigrants who cannot fill jobs here will go home. It's so damn clear to me.
#940
It only seems clear because you don't understand how it works… If jobs are scarce, Illegals work for less than Americans will. If you only get rid of welfare for immigrants (an idea Bush doesn't like, btw), then the immigrants will simply work for less than an American can get from welfare and ancillary subsides… because it will still beat what they can make back home.
There is a reason people who live in border states with Mexico feel as they do… because we know what's been happening with Illegals. You might listen.
Wanna see some facts…?
Illegals in AMERICA
About 5.0 million undocumented immigrants were residing in the United States in October 1996, with a range of about 4.6 to 5.4 million (See Table 1). The population was estimated to be growing by about 275,000 each year, which is about 25,000 lower than the annual level of growth estimated by the INS in 1994.
LINK
Looks like a problem here, Arne… your estimate of 3 to 5 million Illegals would be on the low side for the Census Bureau's 1996 estimateof the number of Illegals in America. Let's look at some more current numbers…
The INS estimates there are now six million illegal residents, but acknowledges that the number may be significantly higher. Researchers working with the 2000 Census results believe the illegal alien population may be as large as eleven million, and Census Bureau officials agree that official estimate is too low. Since the 1986 amnesty wiped the slate clean for the bulk of the illegal alien population, the far larger illegal alien problem today is testimony to the fact that the 1986 amnesty weakened our ability to discourage illegal immigration.
LINK
So there were 6 million Illegals in 2000, up from 5 million in 1996, right? But…
A new report by the U.S. Census Bureau that puts the number of "unauthorized and quasi-legal" immigrants in the United States at about 8.7 million - double the previous decade's number - has spurred calls by immigration reform groups for tighter immigration controls.
"While we have long cautioned the U.S. government about its immigration policies, we were not aware of the magnitude of foreign nationals living here illegally," Mauro Mujica, chairman of U.S. English, a citizens' action group that advocates a crackdown on illegal immigration, said in a statement.
"Quasi-legal" immigrants, which number 1.7 million, are people who have applied for asylum or refugee status or who were granted "temporary protected status" by the U.S. government because their home countries have been hit by earthquakes or other natural disasters.
Lawrence Morahan, CNSNews.com
Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2002
LINK
8.7 million - 1.7 million = 7 million Illegals, based on the Census Bureau's revised numbers. Make that "the illegal alien population in 2000." There are certainly more Illegals now.
How many? Hard to say, but take a look at this…
The Immigration and Naturalization Service had figured the number of illegal aliens as 6 million. Scholars at Boston's Northeastern University are now suggesting that the actual number might run as high as 13 million.
LINK
Illegals in CALIFORNIA
California has a total population of about 35 million.
Census 2000 LINK
California is the leading state of residence, with 2.0 million, or 40 percent of the undocumented population. The 7 states with the largest estimated numbers of undocumented immigrants--California (2.0 million), Texas (700,000), New York (540,000), Florida (350,000), Illinois (290,000), New Jersey (135,000), and Arizona (115,000)--accounted for 83 percent of the total population in October 1996.
The 5.0 million undocumented immigrants made up about 1.9 percent of the total U.S. population, with the highest percentages in California, the District of Columbia, and Texas. In the majority of states, undocumented residents comprise less than 1 percent of the population.
LINK
Illegals in L.A. County
Los Angeles County has a total population of about 10 million.
Census 2000 LINK
In Los Angeles County alone, providing for some 700,000 illegal immigrants costs county taxpayers $308.4 million, assuming that the aliens paid some $36.2 million in local taxes and fees for services they used.
Rep. Elton Gallegly, before the House - 3/10/1993
…California, home to an estimated 2.25 million of the nation's 5.75 million undocumented immigrants, including 1 million in Los Angeles County.That's 700,000 Illegals in L.A. county back in 1993… gotta be more, no?
Keep in mind, those are unrevised Census 2000 numbers, which are 50% to 100% low nationally. That would give California as many as 3.5 million to 4.5 million Illegals, and L.A. County 1.5 million to 2 million. We may have nearly as many Illegals in California as you have people in Minnesota, and we've definitely got more Illegals in L.A. County than you have people in the Twin Cities…
Illegals in MINNESOTA
Minnesorta has a total population of about 5 million.
Census 2000 LINK
| Summary Demographic State Data (and Source) | |
|---|---|
| Population (2001 Census Bureau est.): | 4,972,294 |
| Population (2000 Census): | 4,919,479 |
| Foreign-born Population (2000 Census): | 260,463 |
| Share Foreign-born (2000): | 5.3% |
| Immigrant Stock (2000 CB est.): | 500,000 |
| Share Immigrant Stock (2000 est.): | 10.2% |
| Naturalized U.S. Citizens (2000 Census): | 95,308 |
| Share Naturalized (2000): | 37.4% |
| Legal Immigrant Admission (INS 1991-2000): | 75,779 |
| Refugee Admission (2001 HHS): | 3,232 |
| Illegal Alien Population (1996 INS est.): | 7,200 |
| Projected Population - 2025 (2001 FAIR): | 6,594,000 |
The Census Bureau estimated that in July 2001 Minnesota's population was 4,972,294 residents. That was an increase of about 52,800 persons (1.1%) since the 2000 Census…
The INS estimates that in October 1996 there were 7,200 illegal aliens resident in Minnesota. This estimate is about 25% higher than the INS estimate of illegal workers in the state in October 1992. The Center for Immigration Studies, estimates the number of illegal alien residents in the state to be as high as 25,000, based on the number of illegal aliens resident there when the amnesty for illegal aliens was enacted in 1986.
The 2000 Census found over six million more residents in the country than expected. Researchers at Northeastern Univ. say that the likely explanation of the discrepancy is a much higher number of illegal aliens residing in the country than the six million estimated by the INS. Minnesota's population in the 2000 Census was about 95,000 higher than expected, and if most of the difference is due to illegal immigrants, that could mean as many as 62,000 more than estimated by the INS.
LINK
The INS St. Paul District estimates conservatively that 25,000 Illegal aliens reside in Minnesota. More recently, a report from H.A.C.E.R. (Hispanic Advocacy and Community Empowerment through Research) estimates that there are between 18,000 and 48,000 undocumented Hispanic workers. (pg. 6)So we go from 7,200 llegals in 1996 to 25,000 or possibly 87,000 Illegals in Minnesota by 2000. Not even 2% of your State's population.
So what we're looking at is a population of Illegals in Minnesota somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000… 0.5% to 1% of your population, maybe a bit more. Contrast that with 10% or more Illegals in California's population, and approaching 15% in L.A. County.
And your solution is a blanket Amnesty?
Easy for you to say, you don't have to live with the problem, and wouldn't have to live with the consequences of your solution. Illegals have stampeded into California since the "one time only" Amnesty of 1986, which legalized about 2.7 million Illegals. That Amnesty was gasoline on the fire. The Amnesty you propose would be rocket fuel.
So your Amnesty suggestion strikes me as completely unrealistic both in it's political and logistical viabilities.
The first thing to go, historically, is reverence for the Creator, next goes regard for human life...quickly followed by the loss of fundamental God-given rights.
I think I have to disagree with you about this, EV. I understand your reasoning, but I think if you set "pro-life" as the main criterion, you lose the support of many valuable people. First, there are quite a few who are still in the "live and let live" category as discussed earlier.
While opposed to abortion, I'm not sure that it should be the main concern of a president, or even of the federal government. (I think perhaps Roe v. Wade should have been decided by the USSC using the 10th amendment.)
My main concern of the federal government is that it "provide for the common defense". Other than that, I really think it should leave me alone.
I think there are plenty of people who are concerned with a strong military, lower taxes, and on the whole less government intervention in our lives who are not as concerned with "social" issues such as abortion. You don't seem to think we need them in the party. Should they form their own, or vote Dem?
On the other hand, I think there are people who have strong religious and pro-life convictions, and vote Republican because of these...and because of their strong religious convictions, also may oppose the death penalty and the military and feel the government should help poor people and old people with things like food, housing, and health care....are they conservatives? I'm glad for their vote if it helps, but I don't think they are TRUE conservatives, because I don't think the Constitution makes charity one of the functions of the federal government.
Maybe part of the disagreement on the forum is disagreement about what a REAL conservative really is.
The value of having a conservative President (his own words) is that it then becomes a 'bully-pulpit' to advance the conservative issues and ideas.
Telling the world that Ted Kennedy is a fine man....and then buying into the liberal view of the Dept of Education does nothing except....
A) Tell the world that he is a lousy judge of character and...
B) Makes everyone who is conservative wonder why he is enlarging the Dept of Education..
Just a couple of ideas.
I believe he is an honest man (which seems to be rare in D.C.)...but that in order to get along...he keeps pushing liberal causes.
But...whenever the Republicans have stood firm on conservative issues..they win big....ala Reagan..and the "Contract with America".
redrock
As far as the extension of 245i and your assumption that it equals "Amnesty" is just another attempt to blame President Bush for the problems he has inherited. At this time I can not agree with your assumptions :-)Thanks, I didn't take your post personally, I wanted to assist you in correcting a persistent misunderstanding...
It's not an assumption, it's a simple fact.
Section 245(i) is an aspect of the Clinton Legacy that President Bush has attempted to embrace.
Back in the 245(i) debates, Bush defenders kept claiming that it wasn't an Amnesty, it only applied to paperwork snafus, etc., that those saying so hadn't read the legislation...
so I posted it.The Bush defenders were wrong.
That's not just my opinion, go read the link and the INS's own interpretation.
"...The head of the DNC, Terry Mcauliffe,
went to Clintion and told him that the DNC would defend the indefensible.
Seeing he had support even in his own party ,
Clinton held the reigns of power, even after being impeached,
thus ignoring the needs of the country..."
# 1112 by ChadGore
Yes, the Democrats defended Clinton's crimes.
The Republicans defended Clinton just as strongly.
Remember what Trent Lott said?
“I don’t care if you have proof that (Clinton) raped a woman, stood up and shot her dead, you’re still not going to get 67 votes.”
Without his Republican friends, Clinton would have been convicted and removed from office.
Without his Republican friends, including President Bush, Clinton would be in criminal court right now.
You seem to make the assumption that I think pro-abortion folks should be kicked out of the Party...that would be foolish. In politics you want every vote you can get.
I want them on the bus, where we can win their hearts and minds...I just don't want them driving the bus, because their road map leads to a cliff.
Millions of pro-life Republicans know that, and as I said originally, they and I will disembark if they ever gain control of the wheel.
I don't question your sincerity, intelligence, morality or your Christianity. But I do believe you to be naive about the centrality of the pro-life position, its importance to the future of the GOP, and the insidious harm done by those who are willing to compromise here.
Regards,
EV
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.