Convenient Politics?
June 30, 2007
It appears to me that Al Gore has lost more than the 2000 election to George Bush, he’s lost his integrity with his movie and mission “An Inconvenient Truth“. And of course all of Hollywood who knows little other that what the pleasures of the flesh can privide. I mean, as Paris Hilton said, “I’ve been through a lot“. Sure, and the Pope is Protestant as well. Poor, poor baby. She’s ahd a traumatic past few weeks. Even before Al pushed his ideas onto the Silver Screen and garnered the accolades that Hollywood likes to heap upon their icons, scientists were saying that the Earth melt down theory was pure bunk and scientifically dead wrong. Ah, but don’t let the inconvenient truths get in the way. Here’s a couple of examples. Continue Reading »
Dead Duck Or Cooked Goose!
June 28, 2007
Take your pick! It is said that the last two years of a two term president is that of a LAME DUCK! They lose their power and everyone knows it. In the case of George W. Bush, he’s way passed being a lame duck. Can you say dead duck, or maybe his goose is cooked? The immigration disgrace that he suffered Thursday morning all but let everyone know, stay away from anything Georgie is in favor or because it’s sure to go down the toliet fast! But, here’s the worst of it all. Continue Reading »
Another Bush “Machoism” Down The Toilet
June 28, 2007
Last week Bush made one of his “Cowboy statements” when he said that he would come back and get the immigration bill through Congress. His statement was, “See you at the signing“. Itr ain’t happening WWW! You can’t continue to defy the WILL of the people just because YOU want something done. Today the Senate killed the bill two days after the House had sent a message saying, “No way Jose”, even if the Senate passes it.
The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections. The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.
Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics. No amnesty any time soon!
A Late Update
June 28, 2007
The fate of U.S. immigration legislation was cast into doubt when at least six senators who helped revive the proposed overhaul said they either oppose or are leaning against a move to permit a vote on final passage.
Republicans Richard Burr of North Carolina and Christopher Bond of Missouri and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska said they oppose permitting a vote on final passage. Virginia Democrat Jim Webb and Republicans John Ensign of Nevada and Pete Domenici of New Mexico said they were leaning that way.
The measure is in more jeopardy “than I thought a few hours ago,” said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.
The supporters’ strategy of disposing of amendments that threatened the legislation’s bipartisan support hit a procedural snag late in the day, adding to the uncertainty. The Senate refused to set aside an amendment by Montana Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester that would dilute requirements employers verify the identity of new workers.
Under Senate rules, Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, now can’t move to consider other provisions without getting the consent of all 100 senators.
`I think this hurts” the measure, said Texas Republican John Cornyn, an opponent.
Senatorial Immigration Showdown
June 27, 2007
They are still writing the immigration bill and yet they’re asking Senators to vote for it. So much of what is going on is a positioning for future campaigns. A Senator votes YES to “hear the bill” knowing that he’s going to vote NO when the decision time comes. So, before voting against it, he votes for it. Sound a bit like John Kerry? Continue Reading »
A Florida Crackdown!
June 27, 2007
The sheriff’s department of Panama City Beach, Florida has developed a remarkably effective - and controversial - way of catching illegal immigrants: Deputies in patrol cars pull up to a construction site in force, and watch and see who runs.
Those who take off are chased down and arrested on charges such as trespassing, for cutting through someone else’s property, or loitering, for hiding out in someone’s yard, or reckless driving, for speeding off in a car.
U.S. immigration authorities are then given the names of those believed to be in this country illegally.
“It’s not wrong for them to run, but it’s not wrong for us to chase them either,” said Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created his Illegal Alien Task Force in April to target construction sites in this Florida Panhandle county.
Meanwhile, the immigration bill in the Senate will face it’s next critical vote on Thursday. Attempts from the right and left to alter key elements of the delicate bipartisan compromise failed Wednesday, including a Republican proposal to deny illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and Democratic bids to reunite legal immigrants with family members.
The Senate killed, by a 56-41 vote, an amendment by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., to provide more green cards for parents of U.S. citizens. By a 55-40 margin, it tabled a proposal by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to give family members of citizens and legal permanent residents more credit toward green cards in a new merit-based points system.
A make-or-break procedural vote was set for Thursday, however, as the Senate plowed through amendments that supporters hoped would address waverers’ concerns.
One More Try!
June 26, 2007
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to revive a stalled immigration overhaul backed by President George W. Bush that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
The Senate voted 64-35 to resume debate
The legislation would be a significant victory for President George W. Bush in his second term in office. It faces strong opposition from many of his fellow Republicans, who call it an amnesty for people who broke U.S. laws and argue it would do little to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.
But the fa lady hasn’t sung yet.
House Republicans rejected President Bush’s sweeping immigration reform bill on Tuesday, passing a symbolic measure opposing the legislation. The vote was 114 to 23, and it came after the Senate voted to revive a stalled immigration overhaul that would offer a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
“Today’s vote illustrates overwhelming opposition among Republicans in the House to the Senate immigration bill and the process in which it was developed,” said House Republican Pete Hoekstra, according to Agence France Presse.
“It’s dead on arrival in the House,” Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. said of the Senate bill. “A comprehensive bill will not pass the House. There is significant Democratic opposition and overwhelming Republican opposition.”
Knowing the House will defeat the bill, Senators can do whatever they like.
It’s a game called politics! 
Hugo Rants Yet Another Time
June 26, 2007
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. Does anyone remember that movie? Well, Hugo Chavez must have at least picked up on the theme. His reasons for buying 100,000 weapons, tanks, planes, helicopters, and even the thought of buying a submarine fleet is because the Americans are coming, the Americans are coming. NOT! Continue Reading »
Immigration Bill Still Not Being Debated
June 25, 2007
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has put off a vote on immigration reform until early next week, citing confusion within his own party on concluding work on the energy bill. That may be true, but what may also be true is that he likely does not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster by the bill’s steadfast opponents. But waiting may not be in his interest as time is on the opposition’s side.
Known in the Senate as McCain-Kennedy, the immigration bill which is being strongly supported by the White House is most strongly opposed by the conservative base of the Republican party, and up until now, President Bush’s strongest supporters.
Conservative talk radio, which for the better part of six years defended the White House on nearly every position, is in outright revolt. Their opposition is not so much disrespectful to the Republicans or the president as it is the kind of support a friend would give to another who is about to jump off a cliff.
Ted Says He Has The Votes!
June 25, 2007
Since the bill on immigration reform carries Ted’s name, maybe he should be optimistic; however, he’s beginning to sound like George Bush: “See you at the signing”. Sen. Edward Kennedy predicted Sunday that a bill overhauling U.S. immigration law would be supported by enough Republicans to ensure its passage this week. In order to win passage, there must be 60 Senators in favor of it. Continue Reading »
Is Fred Ready o Announce?
June 24, 2007
A source close to the campaign planning tells WSMV TV that that Fred Thompson planned to announce his candidacy on the steps of the historic Fall School Building Tuesday, but Thompson campaign officials deny that Tuesday’s announcement is an official run for the White House.
The source tells WSMV TV report says that the Thompson campaign has obtained the lease for that building to turn it into a national campaign office.
“Everything iss in place for Tuesday,” the source told WSMV. “There are three major events built around his announcement.” But Bob Davis, the Tennessee Republican Party Chairman, and Thompson’s former Chief of Staff says “There will not be an annoucement Tuesday.”
We’ll know soon enough won’t we! 
Kennedy Optimistic On Immigration
June 24, 2007
Since the bill on immigration reform carries Ted’s name, maybe he should be optimistic; however, he’s beginning to sound like George Bush: “See you at the signing”. Sen. Edward Kennedy predicted Sunday that a bill overhauling U.S. immigration law would be supported by enough Republicans to ensure its passage this week. In order to win passage, there must be 60 Senators in favor of it.
There’s “a recognition in this country that doing nothing is not an alternative,” Kennedy, D-Mass., said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The problem is going to grow worse. The reason we’re going to pass this bill is because it’s tough, fair and practical,” Kennedy said.
Fair and practical is obviously in the eye of the beholder!
But two other backers of the bill, Sens. Trent Lott, a Republican, and Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, are not as optimistic as Kennedy regarding the bill’s future. Feinstein said Sunday that she is “hopeful” the parties can come together.
Debate on the bill resumes this week, and opponents are decrying provisions that create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. They also are demanding stricter border enforcement.
A fragile compromise was pulled from the Senate in early June, then resurrected after bipartisan negotiations with the White House. The bill awaits a crucial test vote this week. With several senators distancing themselves from the proposal, the outcome was too close to call.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., last week said his support for the bill hinges on the outcome of a series of amendments agreed to as part of the compromise to revive the legislation.
It should be a fun week!
Bloomberg vs. Perot: Some Comparisons
June 24, 2007
Political junkies are excited and electrified over a potential independent presidential bid by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and for good reason.
If the billionaire jumps into the race, he would be the 19th candidate to declare for the presidency. He is worth $5 billion — some say as much as $20 billion — and the thought of a serious third-party bid hasn’t been a reality since diminutive billionaire Ross Perot garnered 19 percent in the 1992 election, helping Democratic challenger Bill Clinton beat President George H.W. Bush to win the presidency.
His run is being compared to Perot’s bid in 1992, and on the surface, that make sense. Dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic choices led to America pining for a new voice 15 years ago. We wanted someone who eschewed partisan politics and who saw himself as bidding to save America from ruin.
While declaring that he doesn’t want the job, Bloomberg has worked feverishly to burnish his national appeal by giving substantive policy speeches about non-New York City issues. He’s traveled the nation to speak with numerous political leaders and revamped his Web site. He’s also ditched the Republican Party label, which he took on before his inaugural mayoral run in 2001 after years of being a Democrat.
On paper, he has the bona fides to run for president, but other than being a billionaire and calling for change in America, there is a significant difference between a potential Bloomberg candidacy and that of Perot’s: The nation clearly isn’t the same today as it was then.
There is no national clamor for a Bloomberg candidacy. He is a sitting politician who is known more for being a great manager than someone who will speak truth to power and generate attention with soaring oratory. In fact, he is downright boring in his speeches. America is just as dissatisfied today as it was in 1992, but this time, it’s about the Iraq war. A lot of folks thought the nation spoke by giving Democrats the Congress in November, but that still hasn’t changed the war. So how will Bloomberg fix the most critical issue facing the country?
Who is Bloomberg’s constituency? Is it Republicans who are desperate for a standard-bearer in the mold of Ronald Reagan? Bloomberg doesn’t appeal to the GOP base — he’s liberal, from New York and is Jewish. (Be honest, if he was a hard-core conservative and a Baptist, they would be falling over him.)
At the end of the day, Michael Bloomberg is simply a rich guy looking to spend what it takes to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And that simply won’t cut it with the American people.
Acceptance And Tolerance
June 23, 2007
We all have a tendency to SEE the WRONG that exists in other people’s lives and that would be okay if there were two conditions attached to it. First, can we keep what we see to ourselves and do all we can to help the situation? Secondly, can we then look in the mirror and see what’s wrong with us and work on that? There is this mindset in man that seems to think that if we see something wrong in someone else that we are “deputized” by some secret power to correct and otherwise oversee that situation. Wrong!
“Why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye but not the log in yours?” Matt. 7:3 Continue Reading »
Upcoming Seminar...
Visit Our Sponsors...
Advertisements
