I personally don't think he has a chance, but....
Newt Gingrich is telling Republican insiders that his decision in September whether to run for president in 2008 depends on the progress of Fred Thompson's imminent candidacy.If Thompson runs a vigorous and effective campaign, Gingrich says privately, he probably will not get in the race himself. If Thompson proves a dud, however, the former House speaker will seriously consider making a run. That implies that the others in the field look to Gingrich like losers in the general election.A footnote: Gingrich has weighed in more heavily on the immigration issue than any of the major Republican presidential hopefuls. He has bombarded Republican Senate offices with material attacking the immigration bill backed by President Bush, even sending proposed talking points to senators about to meet with the president.
Read the article by Robert Novak at Human Events.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Romney second to Hillary in the can't-stand-'em poll
WASHINGTON - More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News. The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him. Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who'd be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders. Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal. "Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her." Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her. Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him, while 49.1 said they would.
Read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Romney blasted for strapping dog to car roof (1983)
BOSTON (AP) — An example of Mitt Romney's crisis management skills has turned into something of a political problem for the Republican presidential contender.
Romney placed his family dog, an Irish setter named Seamus, into a kennel lashed to the top of his station wagon for a 12-hour family trip from Boston to Ontario in 1983. Despite being shielded by a wind screen that Romney erected, Seamus expressed his discomfort with a diarrhea attack.
Now the story, recounted this week in a Boston Globe profile of the former Massachusetts governor, has touched off howls of outrage from bloggers and animal rights activists even though it was presented in the story as an example of Romney's coolness under trying circumstances.
When Romney's eldest son, Tagg, and his four brothers complained about the brown runoff down the back windshield, their father quietly pulled the car over, borrowed a gas station hose and sprayed down both the dog and the kennel before returning to the road.
"Massachusetts animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal 'in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon,"' wrote Steve Benen in a post on the blog "Crooks and Liars."
Read the rest of the article in USA Today.
Romney placed his family dog, an Irish setter named Seamus, into a kennel lashed to the top of his station wagon for a 12-hour family trip from Boston to Ontario in 1983. Despite being shielded by a wind screen that Romney erected, Seamus expressed his discomfort with a diarrhea attack.
Now the story, recounted this week in a Boston Globe profile of the former Massachusetts governor, has touched off howls of outrage from bloggers and animal rights activists even though it was presented in the story as an example of Romney's coolness under trying circumstances.
When Romney's eldest son, Tagg, and his four brothers complained about the brown runoff down the back windshield, their father quietly pulled the car over, borrowed a gas station hose and sprayed down both the dog and the kennel before returning to the road.
"Massachusetts animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal 'in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon,"' wrote Steve Benen in a post on the blog "Crooks and Liars."
Read the rest of the article in USA Today.
U.S. Border Fence Protrudes Into Mexico
Oops...
COLUMBUS, N.M. (AP) - The 1.5-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border was designed to keep cars from illegally crossing into the United States. There's just one problem: It was accidentally built on Mexican soil. Now embarrassed border officials say the mistake could cost the federal government more than $3 million to fix.
The barrier was part of more than 15 miles of border fence built in 2000, stretching from the town of Columbus to an onion farm and cattle ranch.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman said the vertical metal tubes were sunk into the ground and filled with cement along what officials firmly believed was the border. But a routine aerial survey in March revealed that the barrier protrudes into Mexico by 1 to 6 feet.
James Johnson, whose onion farm is in the disputed area, said he thinks his forefathers may have started the confusion in the 19th century by placing a barbed-wire fence south of the border. No one discovered their error, and crews erecting the barrier may have used that fence as a guideline.
"It was a mistake made in the 1800s," Johnson said. "It is very difficult to make a straight line between two points in rugged and mountainous areas that are about two miles apart."
The Mexican government was notified and did what any landowner would do: They sent a note politely insisting that Mexico get its land back.
"Our country will continue insisting for the removal (of the fence) to be done as quickly as possible," the Foreign Relations Department said in a diplomatic missive to Washington.
Read more of the story at AP News.
COLUMBUS, N.M. (AP) - The 1.5-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border was designed to keep cars from illegally crossing into the United States. There's just one problem: It was accidentally built on Mexican soil. Now embarrassed border officials say the mistake could cost the federal government more than $3 million to fix.
The barrier was part of more than 15 miles of border fence built in 2000, stretching from the town of Columbus to an onion farm and cattle ranch.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman said the vertical metal tubes were sunk into the ground and filled with cement along what officials firmly believed was the border. But a routine aerial survey in March revealed that the barrier protrudes into Mexico by 1 to 6 feet.
James Johnson, whose onion farm is in the disputed area, said he thinks his forefathers may have started the confusion in the 19th century by placing a barbed-wire fence south of the border. No one discovered their error, and crews erecting the barrier may have used that fence as a guideline.
"It was a mistake made in the 1800s," Johnson said. "It is very difficult to make a straight line between two points in rugged and mountainous areas that are about two miles apart."
The Mexican government was notified and did what any landowner would do: They sent a note politely insisting that Mexico get its land back.
"Our country will continue insisting for the removal (of the fence) to be done as quickly as possible," the Foreign Relations Department said in a diplomatic missive to Washington.
Read more of the story at AP News.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wider Sale Is Seen for Toothpaste Tainted in China
After federal health officials discovered last month that tainted Chinese toothpaste had entered the United States, they warned that it would most likely be found in discount stores.
In fact, the toothpaste has been distributed much more widely. Roughly 900,000 tubes containing a poison used in some antifreeze products have turned up in hospitals for the mentally ill, prisons, juvenile detention centers and even some hospitals serving the general population.
The toothpaste was handed out in dozens of state institutions, mostly in Georgia but also in North Carolina, according to state officials. Hospitals in South Carolina and Florida also reported receiving Chinese-made toothpaste, and a major national pharmaceutical distributor said it was recalling tainted Chinese toothpaste.
The Food and Drug Administration has advised consumers to discard all Chinese-made toothpaste, regardless of the brand.
State officials in Georgia and North Carolina said all the tainted tubes were being replaced with brands made outside China. The officials said there had been no reports of illnesses caused by the toothpaste.
Officials of the Food and Drug Administration said toothpaste with even small amounts of the bad ingredient, diethylene glycol, a syrupy poison, had a “low but meaningful risk of toxicity and injury” for children and people with kidney or liver disease.
“This stuff does not belong in toothpaste, period,” a spokesman for the drug agency, Doug Arbesfeld, said. “No Chinese toothpaste has come into the country since the end of May.”
Read the whole article in The New York Times.
In fact, the toothpaste has been distributed much more widely. Roughly 900,000 tubes containing a poison used in some antifreeze products have turned up in hospitals for the mentally ill, prisons, juvenile detention centers and even some hospitals serving the general population.
The toothpaste was handed out in dozens of state institutions, mostly in Georgia but also in North Carolina, according to state officials. Hospitals in South Carolina and Florida also reported receiving Chinese-made toothpaste, and a major national pharmaceutical distributor said it was recalling tainted Chinese toothpaste.
The Food and Drug Administration has advised consumers to discard all Chinese-made toothpaste, regardless of the brand.
State officials in Georgia and North Carolina said all the tainted tubes were being replaced with brands made outside China. The officials said there had been no reports of illnesses caused by the toothpaste.
Officials of the Food and Drug Administration said toothpaste with even small amounts of the bad ingredient, diethylene glycol, a syrupy poison, had a “low but meaningful risk of toxicity and injury” for children and people with kidney or liver disease.
“This stuff does not belong in toothpaste, period,” a spokesman for the drug agency, Doug Arbesfeld, said. “No Chinese toothpaste has come into the country since the end of May.”
Read the whole article in The New York Times.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Dems force Cheney to flip-flop on secret docs
Dick Cheney's office is abandoning a justification for keeping the vice president's secret papers out of the hands of the National Archives, while asserting a new argument for withholding them.
Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico.
The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office's $4.8 million in executive-branch funding, and a letter from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) asking for the reasoning behind the argument.
The dispute arose after House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) posted an eight-page letter he had written to Cheney taking issue with what he said was an assertion by the vice president's office last year that he is "not an 'entity within the executive branch' and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders." The vice president also serves as president of the Senate, a function that is part of the legislative branch.
At issue was an executive order giving the National Archives oversight over the government's handling of classified information.
Read all about it at The Politico.
Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico.
The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office's $4.8 million in executive-branch funding, and a letter from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) asking for the reasoning behind the argument.
The dispute arose after House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) posted an eight-page letter he had written to Cheney taking issue with what he said was an assertion by the vice president's office last year that he is "not an 'entity within the executive branch' and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders." The vice president also serves as president of the Senate, a function that is part of the legislative branch.
At issue was an executive order giving the National Archives oversight over the government's handling of classified information.
Read all about it at The Politico.
Iran fuel rations spark violence
At least 12 petrol stations have been torched in the Iranian capital, Tehran, after the government announced fuel rationing for private vehicles.
Windows were smashed and stones thrown at the stations, and there was traffic chaos as motorists queued to buy fuel.
Iranians were given only two hours' notice of the move that limits private drivers to 100 litres of fuel a month.
Despite its huge energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and it imports about 40% of its petrol.
The country has a large budget deficit largely caused by fuel subsidies and the inflation rate is estimated at 20-30%.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent, Frances Harrison, says Iran is trying to rein in fuel consumption over fears of possible UN sanctions over its nuclear programme.
Iran fears the West could impose sanctions on its petrol imports and cripple its economy.
Read the article on BBC News.
Windows were smashed and stones thrown at the stations, and there was traffic chaos as motorists queued to buy fuel.
Iranians were given only two hours' notice of the move that limits private drivers to 100 litres of fuel a month.
Despite its huge energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and it imports about 40% of its petrol.
The country has a large budget deficit largely caused by fuel subsidies and the inflation rate is estimated at 20-30%.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent, Frances Harrison, says Iran is trying to rein in fuel consumption over fears of possible UN sanctions over its nuclear programme.
Iran fears the West could impose sanctions on its petrol imports and cripple its economy.
Read the article on BBC News.
Immigration Measure in Doubt Over Senate Defections
June 27 (Bloomberg) -- 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.
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.
Earlier today, Senate sponsors had succeeded in killing a series of proposed changes that would undermine the measure's support. Nonetheless, senators who voted yesterday to resume consideration of the bill were withdrawing support.
Leaning Against
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.
View the article at Bloomberg.
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.
Earlier today, Senate sponsors had succeeded in killing a series of proposed changes that would undermine the measure's support. Nonetheless, senators who voted yesterday to resume consideration of the bill were withdrawing support.
Leaning Against
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.
View the article at Bloomberg.
Sen. Voinovich self-destructs on Hannity
Senator hangs up on host over 'amnesty' grilling
WASHINGTON – Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, misunderstood the results of a vote on an amendment to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill being debated in the upper house today.
He also is apparently unfamiliar with efforts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters operating on the public airwaves.
But it was nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity's persistent grilling about the senator's intentions on key cloture votes leading to a showdown on what is characterized as an "amnesty" bill that caused Voinovich to melt down before millions of listeners today.
The normally low-profile Republican hung up on the No. 2 talk host in the country.
INVASION USAVoinovich self-destructs on HannitySenator hangs up on host over 'amnesty' grilling
Posted: June 27, 20076:38 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. George Voinovich, R-OhioWASHINGTON – Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, misunderstood the results of a vote on an amendment to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill being debated in the upper house today.
He also is apparently unfamiliar with efforts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters operating on the public airwaves.
But it was nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity's persistent grilling about the senator's intentions on key cloture votes leading to a showdown on what is characterized as an "amnesty" bill that caused Voinovich to melt down before millions of listeners today.
The normally low-profile Republican hung up on the No. 2 talk host in the country.
Listen to Part 1 of Voinovich interview
The key sticking point in the conversation was Hannity's question as to whether the senator had done a cost analysis on the bill. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, estimates the bill would cost the American taxpayers $2.5 trillion.
Voinovich said he didn't believe the cost would be that high because a third of those eligible for a path to citizenship would never take it.
"How do you know that?" Hannity asked. "Where does that figure come from?"
Voinovich did not provide any supporting evidence for his contention and admitted he had read neither the bill itself or the Heritage Foundation analysis.
When Hannity returned to the issue of cost analysis, Voinovich cut the conversation short.
"I don't really think there is any point talking to you further," said Voinovich. "You are just looking for someone to agree with you. I'm disappointed in you."
The conversation began with a question from Hannity about whether the senator supported the Fairness Doctrine, currently a hot topic among Voinovich's colleagues.
"Fairness Doctrine – I'm all for it, whatever it is," he said. "I think everyone should be open to show the other side. That's what you do every night on Fox. That's great!"
When Hannity reminded Voinovich that the Fairness Doctrine would establish government regulatory bureaucracies to enforce this balance, Voinovich quickly retreated.
Voinovich also asserted efforts in the Senate earlier in the day were successful at amending the immigration bill to require illegal aliens to return to their nation of origin before getting on a path for a green card. When Hannity pointed out the measure failed in a 53-45 vote, Voinovich seemed stunned.
"He doesn't even know what the Fairness Doctrine is," exclaimed Hannity. "He doesn't even know the outcome of a vote in the Senate today. And he gets mad at me when I try to explain it to him!"
Read the article and listen to sound clips from the show at WorldNetDaily.
WASHINGTON – Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, misunderstood the results of a vote on an amendment to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill being debated in the upper house today.
He also is apparently unfamiliar with efforts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters operating on the public airwaves.
But it was nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity's persistent grilling about the senator's intentions on key cloture votes leading to a showdown on what is characterized as an "amnesty" bill that caused Voinovich to melt down before millions of listeners today.
The normally low-profile Republican hung up on the No. 2 talk host in the country.
INVASION USAVoinovich self-destructs on HannitySenator hangs up on host over 'amnesty' grilling
Posted: June 27, 20076:38 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. George Voinovich, R-OhioWASHINGTON – Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, misunderstood the results of a vote on an amendment to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill being debated in the upper house today.
He also is apparently unfamiliar with efforts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters operating on the public airwaves.
But it was nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity's persistent grilling about the senator's intentions on key cloture votes leading to a showdown on what is characterized as an "amnesty" bill that caused Voinovich to melt down before millions of listeners today.
The normally low-profile Republican hung up on the No. 2 talk host in the country.
Listen to Part 1 of Voinovich interview
The key sticking point in the conversation was Hannity's question as to whether the senator had done a cost analysis on the bill. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, estimates the bill would cost the American taxpayers $2.5 trillion.
Voinovich said he didn't believe the cost would be that high because a third of those eligible for a path to citizenship would never take it.
"How do you know that?" Hannity asked. "Where does that figure come from?"
Voinovich did not provide any supporting evidence for his contention and admitted he had read neither the bill itself or the Heritage Foundation analysis.
When Hannity returned to the issue of cost analysis, Voinovich cut the conversation short.
"I don't really think there is any point talking to you further," said Voinovich. "You are just looking for someone to agree with you. I'm disappointed in you."
The conversation began with a question from Hannity about whether the senator supported the Fairness Doctrine, currently a hot topic among Voinovich's colleagues.
"Fairness Doctrine – I'm all for it, whatever it is," he said. "I think everyone should be open to show the other side. That's what you do every night on Fox. That's great!"
When Hannity reminded Voinovich that the Fairness Doctrine would establish government regulatory bureaucracies to enforce this balance, Voinovich quickly retreated.
Voinovich also asserted efforts in the Senate earlier in the day were successful at amending the immigration bill to require illegal aliens to return to their nation of origin before getting on a path for a green card. When Hannity pointed out the measure failed in a 53-45 vote, Voinovich seemed stunned.
"He doesn't even know what the Fairness Doctrine is," exclaimed Hannity. "He doesn't even know the outcome of a vote in the Senate today. And he gets mad at me when I try to explain it to him!"
Read the article and listen to sound clips from the show at WorldNetDaily.
Plan to Send Immigrants Home Is Defeated
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday killed a Republican proposal to require all adult illegal immigrants to return home temporarily in order to qualify for permanent lawful status in this country.
Also defeated was a Democratic bid to restrict legal status to those who have been in the United States for four years.
The vote was 53-45 to table an amendment by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to require that illegal immigrants go home within two years in order to qualify for a renewable Z visa to live and work lawfully in the United States.
The bill, which could grant lawful status to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants, requires only heads of household seeking permanent legal residency to return home to apply for green cards.
Senators also voted 79-18 to kill a proposal by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have allowed only those who had been in the country for at least four years to gain lawful status. The bill would make anyone here by Jan. 1, 2007 eligible for legalization.
Both amendments were designed to respond to conservatives who decry President Bush's immigration bill as a form of amnesty.
Without her amendment, Hutchison said shortly before the vote, "the amnesty tag that has been put on this bill will remain. It is the key issue in the bill for the American people."
Read the rest of the article at Breitbart.
Also defeated was a Democratic bid to restrict legal status to those who have been in the United States for four years.
The vote was 53-45 to table an amendment by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to require that illegal immigrants go home within two years in order to qualify for a renewable Z visa to live and work lawfully in the United States.
The bill, which could grant lawful status to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants, requires only heads of household seeking permanent legal residency to return home to apply for green cards.
Senators also voted 79-18 to kill a proposal by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have allowed only those who had been in the country for at least four years to gain lawful status. The bill would make anyone here by Jan. 1, 2007 eligible for legalization.
Both amendments were designed to respond to conservatives who decry President Bush's immigration bill as a form of amnesty.
Without her amendment, Hutchison said shortly before the vote, "the amnesty tag that has been put on this bill will remain. It is the key issue in the bill for the American people."
Read the rest of the article at Breitbart.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
GOP Support for Iraq War Slips
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican support for the Iraq war is slipping by the day. After four years of combat and more than 3,560 U.S. deaths, two Republican senators previously reluctant to challenge President Bush on the war announced they could no longer support the deployment of 157,000 troops and asked the president to begin bringing them home.
"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Bush.
Voinovich, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released his letter Tuesday - one day after Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the panel's top Republican, said in a floor speech that Bush's strategy was not working.
"The longer we delay the planning for a redeployment, the less likely it is to be successful," said Lugar, who plans to meet later this week with Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser. members to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon made similar remarks earlier this year. But their public break is significant because it raises the possibility that Senate Democrats could muster the 60 votes needed to pass legislation that would call for Bush to bring troops home.
Check out the rest of the article on ApNews.
"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Bush.
Voinovich, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released his letter Tuesday - one day after Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the panel's top Republican, said in a floor speech that Bush's strategy was not working.
"The longer we delay the planning for a redeployment, the less likely it is to be successful," said Lugar, who plans to meet later this week with Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser. members to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon made similar remarks earlier this year. But their public break is significant because it raises the possibility that Senate Democrats could muster the 60 votes needed to pass legislation that would call for Bush to bring troops home.
Check out the rest of the article on ApNews.
How Nebraska Leaves No Child Behind
Most state education officials grumble that the pressure-packed annual tests and rigid adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets engendered by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law are flawed means of measuring student proficiency, raising academic standards, holding schools accountable and fostering learning. But since the penalty for defying the law is loss of federal funds, most treat NCLB's prescriptives like bitter medicine they can't afford to spit out. All, that is, except the iconoclasts who run the public schools in Nebraska.
Time.com (Time Magazine) has a great article describing how the state of Nebraska is making "No Child Left Behind" work. Great article by the folks at Time.
You can read it here.
Time.com (Time Magazine) has a great article describing how the state of Nebraska is making "No Child Left Behind" work. Great article by the folks at Time.
You can read it here.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Michigan- Parents fight Special Ed rule change
LANSING -- Hundreds of irate parents of special education students are expected to swarm the state Capitol on Tuesday to oppose a series of proposed changes in state rules they say will rob their children of quality programs and essential time in the classroom.
The "March for 249,000 Special Kids" rally, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on the Capitol steps, is intended to alert state policymakers to their plight.
"The state has done nothing in recent years but chip away, chip away, chip away at the foundation of learning," said Marcie Lipsitt of Franklin, a leader of the Michigan Alliance for Special Education and mother of an 18-year-old son with special needs.
"These proposed rule changes are being made to cut services, to bring them down to the federal minimum, all in the interest of saving money."
Parents are particularly opposed to scrapping a provision that gives students with severe cognitive or multiple impairments an extended school year -- 230 days instead of the standard 180 days. New federal rules say the additional 50 days must be open to any student who could benefit and not be limited to certain groups.
But parents fear that eliminating the automatic entry rule eventually will mean shorter school years for severely impaired kids.
"Children with severe autism, traumatic brain injuries and severe emotional impairments need more days to learn, their progress is so slow," Lipsitt said.
But state education officials say Michigan must comply with the federal mandates or risk losing $400 million in federal aid.
"This change wasn't intended to take anything away. Hopefully, it will open up the extended year to more students rather than fewer," said Kathleen Straus, president of the State Board of Education.
Read the rest of the article in The Detroit News.
Lets hope that the parents lobbying lawmakers and committe members are successful. If we as parents remain silent on issues that affect our children, their futures are limited.
The "March for 249,000 Special Kids" rally, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on the Capitol steps, is intended to alert state policymakers to their plight.
"The state has done nothing in recent years but chip away, chip away, chip away at the foundation of learning," said Marcie Lipsitt of Franklin, a leader of the Michigan Alliance for Special Education and mother of an 18-year-old son with special needs.
"These proposed rule changes are being made to cut services, to bring them down to the federal minimum, all in the interest of saving money."
Parents are particularly opposed to scrapping a provision that gives students with severe cognitive or multiple impairments an extended school year -- 230 days instead of the standard 180 days. New federal rules say the additional 50 days must be open to any student who could benefit and not be limited to certain groups.
But parents fear that eliminating the automatic entry rule eventually will mean shorter school years for severely impaired kids.
"Children with severe autism, traumatic brain injuries and severe emotional impairments need more days to learn, their progress is so slow," Lipsitt said.
But state education officials say Michigan must comply with the federal mandates or risk losing $400 million in federal aid.
"This change wasn't intended to take anything away. Hopefully, it will open up the extended year to more students rather than fewer," said Kathleen Straus, president of the State Board of Education.
Read the rest of the article in The Detroit News.
Lets hope that the parents lobbying lawmakers and committe members are successful. If we as parents remain silent on issues that affect our children, their futures are limited.
Iranian forces reportedly cross into Iraq
Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".
An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."
"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."
The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.
In response to the report, a British defence ministry spokesman said: "There is evidence that explosive devices used against our troops in southern Iraq originated in Iran."
"Any Iranian link to armed militias in Iraq either through weapons supply, training or funding are unacceptable."
Britain has about 7,100 soldiers in Iraq, most of whom are based in the southern city of Basra and surrounding areas, though the government has pledged to reduce that to between 5,000 and 5,500 this year.
Report via Breitbart.com
Why haven't I seen this reported on NBC, ABC, or CBS?
Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".
An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."
"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."
The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.
In response to the report, a British defence ministry spokesman said: "There is evidence that explosive devices used against our troops in southern Iraq originated in Iran."
"Any Iranian link to armed militias in Iraq either through weapons supply, training or funding are unacceptable."
Britain has about 7,100 soldiers in Iraq, most of whom are based in the southern city of Basra and surrounding areas, though the government has pledged to reduce that to between 5,000 and 5,500 this year.
Report via Breitbart.com
Why haven't I seen this reported on NBC, ABC, or CBS?
Democrats already tearing into Fred Thompson
The Democratic National Committee has already started launching attacks agains potential GOP front-runner Fred Thompson...even before his declared candidacy! Democratic strategists say Thompson's populist style and show-biz allure could prove extremely appealing in a general election at a time when voters are so down on Washington. So the party has launched a preemptive campaign against him that includes a DNC fundraising e-mail branding Thompson, "The inside-outsider."
Check out the article at The Politico. Good reads!
Must tell you something, if they have already started attacking him.
Check out the article at The Politico. Good reads!
Must tell you something, if they have already started attacking him.
US Apple Growers Brace for China Rivals
As if imports from overseas can't get anyworse, check out this article:
Farmers have been growing apples here since before the Civil War, and as times have changed, they have changed with them, planting smaller trees to speed up harvests and growing popular new varieties to satisfy changing tastes.
But the growers who have made this mountainous region the core of apple-growing in Pennsylvania worry that they face a new challenge that may be too big to overcome and could change their way of life.
Like farmers in the bigger apple-producing states, they are becoming increasingly anxious about the prospect of China flooding the U.S. market with their fresh apples—an event many believe is inevitable, even if it could be years away.
They saw what happened in the 1990s when Chinese apple juice concentrate made it into the United States. Prices got so low, some U.S. juice companies were forced out of the U.S. market. Growers could no longer afford to grow apples just for making juice.
With the Farm Bill up for renewal this year for the first time since apple growers are pressing for an unprecedented amount of federal funding to develop technologies to make harvesting less costly, and aid to develop overseas markets.
The article can be found here.
China grew fewer apples than the U.S. 15 years ago. Now it produces five times as many.
What ever happened to "Made in the USA"?
Farmers have been growing apples here since before the Civil War, and as times have changed, they have changed with them, planting smaller trees to speed up harvests and growing popular new varieties to satisfy changing tastes.
But the growers who have made this mountainous region the core of apple-growing in Pennsylvania worry that they face a new challenge that may be too big to overcome and could change their way of life.
Like farmers in the bigger apple-producing states, they are becoming increasingly anxious about the prospect of China flooding the U.S. market with their fresh apples—an event many believe is inevitable, even if it could be years away.
They saw what happened in the 1990s when Chinese apple juice concentrate made it into the United States. Prices got so low, some U.S. juice companies were forced out of the U.S. market. Growers could no longer afford to grow apples just for making juice.
With the Farm Bill up for renewal this year for the first time since apple growers are pressing for an unprecedented amount of federal funding to develop technologies to make harvesting less costly, and aid to develop overseas markets.
The article can be found here.
China grew fewer apples than the U.S. 15 years ago. Now it produces five times as many.
What ever happened to "Made in the USA"?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Bush: Plan has permanent ban for illegals
President Bush today offered the promise of a future permanent ban on illegal aliens in the United States – if the U.S. Senate moves forward with a compromise "comprehensive" immigration reform package that was killed earlier.
"Right now, our laws are ineffective and insufficient. For example, crossing the border illegally carries weak penalties. In addition, participation in illegal gangs is not enough to bar admission into our country," he said on his weekly radio address.
"And when we cannot get other countries to accept the return of their citizens who are dangerous criminals, in most cases our government can only detain these aliens for six months before releasing them into society," he said.
"This is unacceptable. The bill before the Senate addresses these problems. Under this bill, those caught crossing illegally will be permanently barred from returning to the United States on a work or tourist visa.
"Under this bill, anyone known to have taken part in illegal gang activity can be denied admission to our country. And under the bill, we will be able to detain aliens who are dangerous criminals until another country accepts their return," he said.
However, it also grants legal status to the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens already within the United States, and that has generated considerable opposition among Republicans and even some Democrats.
Read the story at WorldNetDaily.
"Right now, our laws are ineffective and insufficient. For example, crossing the border illegally carries weak penalties. In addition, participation in illegal gangs is not enough to bar admission into our country," he said on his weekly radio address.
"And when we cannot get other countries to accept the return of their citizens who are dangerous criminals, in most cases our government can only detain these aliens for six months before releasing them into society," he said.
"This is unacceptable. The bill before the Senate addresses these problems. Under this bill, those caught crossing illegally will be permanently barred from returning to the United States on a work or tourist visa.
"Under this bill, anyone known to have taken part in illegal gang activity can be denied admission to our country. And under the bill, we will be able to detain aliens who are dangerous criminals until another country accepts their return," he said.
However, it also grants legal status to the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens already within the United States, and that has generated considerable opposition among Republicans and even some Democrats.
Read the story at WorldNetDaily.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Presidential Poll Results
Presidential Poll results:
ron paul - 57%
Fred Thompson - 14%
Rudy Giuliani - 11%
Mitt Romney - 7%
Barack Obama - 7%
John McCain - 4%
ron paul - 57%
Fred Thompson - 14%
Rudy Giuliani - 11%
Mitt Romney - 7%
Barack Obama - 7%
John McCain - 4%
Thursday, June 21, 2007
What about Ron Paul?
WorldNetDaily’s editor Joseph Farah recently published an opinion piece critical of Congressman Ron Paul's run for the presidency. While we respect his right to disagree we are very concerned by misstatements of fact and the harsh tone of his commentary. We were surprised by his tone as Mr. Farah states that Dr. Paul is one of the most principled members of Congress, with whom he frequently agrees.
Mr. Farah writes that Dr. Paul is "clueless" about terrorism, and rejects Dr. Paul's position that intervention in the Middle East has caused unintended consequences which have empowered the Jihadists. The list of experts who agree with Congressman Paul includes former National Securtiy Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Iraqi war architect Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA bin Laden Task Force chief Michael Scheuer, and the premier expert on suicide terrorism, Dr. Robert Pape. Are these experts also clueless?
The truth is our intervention in Iraq is another misadventure in liberal-style nation building, a no-win police action based upon U.N. resolutions which has galvanized our true enemies, the Jihadists. Dr. Paul opposes this incredibly expensive gift to Osama bin Laden.
On immigration, Mr. Farah states Dr. Paul "implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea." Totally false. Dr. Paul is on the record in the last debate and in a hundred other places as being completely opposed to amnesty. He is also opposed to the welfare magnet that attracts illegal aliens, to birthright citizenship, to student visas from terrorist nations, and to the GOP proposed "reform" of legal immigration that could allow 60 million more immigrants into the country. Government intervention in violation of the Constitution, at home and overseas, is bankrupting this nation. We must stop the elites opposed to American independence who seek to erase our borders and want our troops in 130 foreign countries. The people are waking up, on the Internet and in living rooms across our land. There is hope for America, in the candidacy of Ron Paul for president.
Article above appears at WorldNetDaily.
Mr. Farah writes that Dr. Paul is "clueless" about terrorism, and rejects Dr. Paul's position that intervention in the Middle East has caused unintended consequences which have empowered the Jihadists. The list of experts who agree with Congressman Paul includes former National Securtiy Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Iraqi war architect Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA bin Laden Task Force chief Michael Scheuer, and the premier expert on suicide terrorism, Dr. Robert Pape. Are these experts also clueless?
The truth is our intervention in Iraq is another misadventure in liberal-style nation building, a no-win police action based upon U.N. resolutions which has galvanized our true enemies, the Jihadists. Dr. Paul opposes this incredibly expensive gift to Osama bin Laden.
On immigration, Mr. Farah states Dr. Paul "implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea." Totally false. Dr. Paul is on the record in the last debate and in a hundred other places as being completely opposed to amnesty. He is also opposed to the welfare magnet that attracts illegal aliens, to birthright citizenship, to student visas from terrorist nations, and to the GOP proposed "reform" of legal immigration that could allow 60 million more immigrants into the country. Government intervention in violation of the Constitution, at home and overseas, is bankrupting this nation. We must stop the elites opposed to American independence who seek to erase our borders and want our troops in 130 foreign countries. The people are waking up, on the Internet and in living rooms across our land. There is hope for America, in the candidacy of Ron Paul for president.
Article above appears at WorldNetDaily.
Senate Judiciary authorizes subpoenas for docs on warrantless wiretapping program
The Senate Judiciary Committee authorized its chairman on Thursday to issue subpoenas to the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President for documents authorizing the administration's warrantless surveillance program.
Three Republicans, including former Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.), joined committee Democrats to approve the subpoenas, 13-3.
Thursday's vote is the latest development in an ongoing struggle by committee members to secure internal administration documents justifying the domestic surveillance program, which remained secret for five years. The subpoenas would also put additional pressure on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who defended the program during committee testimony last year.
"This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end," Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement. "If the administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one.”
Gonzales first defended the creation of this program before the committee in February 2006, arguing that a use-of-force authorization in the wake of Sept. 11 gave the administration the legal justification it required to conduct the program.
But former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified last month that former Attorney General John Ashcroft had serious reservations about the program.
The article is located at The Politico.
Three Republicans, including former Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.), joined committee Democrats to approve the subpoenas, 13-3.
Thursday's vote is the latest development in an ongoing struggle by committee members to secure internal administration documents justifying the domestic surveillance program, which remained secret for five years. The subpoenas would also put additional pressure on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who defended the program during committee testimony last year.
"This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end," Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement. "If the administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one.”
Gonzales first defended the creation of this program before the committee in February 2006, arguing that a use-of-force authorization in the wake of Sept. 11 gave the administration the legal justification it required to conduct the program.
But former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified last month that former Attorney General John Ashcroft had serious reservations about the program.
The article is located at The Politico.
White House near decision to close Gitmo
The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move its terror suspects to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned. Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.
President Bush's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.
Previous plans to close Guantanamo ran into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon and the Intelligence directorate.
Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.
They could block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found illegal a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.
Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.
Read the article here.
President Bush's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.
Previous plans to close Guantanamo ran into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon and the Intelligence directorate.
Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.
They could block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found illegal a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.
Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.
Read the article here.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Presidential Poll
Don't forget to vote in the Presidential poll, located to your right on this site. Polls close this Saturday at noon.
Here is how it looks so far:
Ron Paul - 45%
Fred Thompson - 18%
Rudy Giuliani - 14%
Mitt Romney - 9%
Barack Obama - 9%
John McCain - 5%
Here is how it looks so far:
Ron Paul - 45%
Fred Thompson - 18%
Rudy Giuliani - 14%
Mitt Romney - 9%
Barack Obama - 9%
John McCain - 5%
The race to the bottom- The failing of No Child Left Behind
As Congress prepares to decide the future of No Child Left Behind, it seems everyone has become an expert on the law, including Comedy Central's Steven Colbert.
On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Mr. Colbert shared his thoughts on the landmark federal education law, highlighting one of its central problems - how No Child Left Behind is causing states to dumb down state standards.
Colbert picked on Mississippi to demonstrate the problem. "Only 18 percent of fourth graders in Mississippi passed the standardized national (NAEP) reading test," Colbert explained. "Fortunately, it's the state reading test that counts. And 89 percent of Mississippi fourth graders passed the state test. You see, folks, with one deft move Mississippi is a shining example of how easy it is to succeed…if you simply redefine ‘success' as ‘below whatever you're currently achieving.'"
Colbert's report on No Child Left Behind came on the heels of two important studies that shed light on whether the landmark federal education law is working. The first report, from the Center on Education Policy, trumpeted good news for NCLB supporters.
The study looked at state proficiency scores and measured whether states were reporting improvement after the enactment of No Child Left Behind. It found that state math and reading scores had improved since the law had passed.
"American educators and students were asked to raise academic achievement, and they have done so," said Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings also heralded the study's findings as evidence that "confirms that No Child Left Behind has struck a chord of success with our nation's schools and students."
But NCLB supporters shouldn't be too quick to celebrate. Days later, the Department of Education released a report that explains why state test scores alone don't show whether NCLB is working.
Read the article here.
Interesting reading about he failure of this program from a conservative website.
On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Mr. Colbert shared his thoughts on the landmark federal education law, highlighting one of its central problems - how No Child Left Behind is causing states to dumb down state standards.
Colbert picked on Mississippi to demonstrate the problem. "Only 18 percent of fourth graders in Mississippi passed the standardized national (NAEP) reading test," Colbert explained. "Fortunately, it's the state reading test that counts. And 89 percent of Mississippi fourth graders passed the state test. You see, folks, with one deft move Mississippi is a shining example of how easy it is to succeed…if you simply redefine ‘success' as ‘below whatever you're currently achieving.'"
Colbert's report on No Child Left Behind came on the heels of two important studies that shed light on whether the landmark federal education law is working. The first report, from the Center on Education Policy, trumpeted good news for NCLB supporters.
The study looked at state proficiency scores and measured whether states were reporting improvement after the enactment of No Child Left Behind. It found that state math and reading scores had improved since the law had passed.
"American educators and students were asked to raise academic achievement, and they have done so," said Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings also heralded the study's findings as evidence that "confirms that No Child Left Behind has struck a chord of success with our nation's schools and students."
But NCLB supporters shouldn't be too quick to celebrate. Days later, the Department of Education released a report that explains why state test scores alone don't show whether NCLB is working.
Read the article here.
Interesting reading about he failure of this program from a conservative website.
Scientists now concerned about "global cooling"
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly.
Read the rest of the story here.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly.
Read the rest of the story here.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Ron Paul interview on The Colbert Report
Check out this great Ron Paul interview that appeared on the 6/13 edition of The Colbert Report.
Ron Paul not invited to Iowa Forum
Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.
Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.
We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.
The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.
Lew then called Mr. Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Scheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.
Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?
We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Scheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below.
It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.
Kent Snyder,
ChairmanRon Paul 2008
You can contact the above groups using either the phone, fax or e-mail address listed below.
Contact Information
Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park AvenueMuscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.orgWeb Site
Steve Scheffler,
PresidentIowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.comWeb Site
Post from above come from: blog.ronpaul2008.com. I felt it necessary to include the entire article this time, instead of a teaser.
Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.
We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.
The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.
Lew then called Mr. Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Scheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.
Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?
We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Scheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below.
It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.
Kent Snyder,
ChairmanRon Paul 2008
You can contact the above groups using either the phone, fax or e-mail address listed below.
Contact Information
Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park AvenueMuscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.orgWeb Site
Steve Scheffler,
PresidentIowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.comWeb Site
Post from above come from: blog.ronpaul2008.com. I felt it necessary to include the entire article this time, instead of a teaser.
Bloomberg quits GOP
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this evening that he was quiting the Republican Party and changing his political affiliation to independent. This fuels further talk of him running as an Independent in the Presidential 08 race.
“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches.
“Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city,” the mayor said.
Read about it in The New York Times.
“I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches.
“Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city,” the mayor said.
Read about it in The New York Times.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Ron Paul introduces legislation to abolish Federal Reserve
Ron Paul has introduced legislation to abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve. So far, the bill has been introduced. Let's see if it gets as far as being scheduled for debate. FYI- the majority of bills never make it out of committee.
You can keep track of Ron's bill, H.R. 2755 at GovTrack.us, or simply click here.
Because the government takes a day or two to post legislative information online, GovTrack is usually current as of the start of the previous day.
You can keep track of Ron's bill, H.R. 2755 at GovTrack.us, or simply click here.
Because the government takes a day or two to post legislative information online, GovTrack is usually current as of the start of the previous day.
Riding the President's coat tales?
Well, not quite!
Republican candidates begin snubbing Bush
A president with dismal approval ratings and a bitter intraparty rupture over immigration are obvious problems for Republican politicians.
In recent days, however, the combination is emerging as something less obvious: an opportunity.
Recent polls have shown Bush's popularity -- which has long been in the tank with independents -- suffering significant erosion even among GOP base voters, largely due to a backlash over the president's stance on immigration.
The decline, according to some Republican strategists, has flashed a green light for lawmakers on Capitol Hill and presidential candidates to put distance between themselves and an unpopular president -- a politically essential maneuver for the 2008 general election that remained risky as long as Bush retained the sympathies of Republican stalwarts.
The change, say GOP operatives, is the absence of fear about being perceived as something less than an ardent Bush backer. "What's the penalty now, Karl being mad at you?" Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio asked with a laugh, referring to Bush political adviser Karl Rove. "Who cares? Even his former chief strategist (Matthew Dowd) walked away from him and pissed all over him."
Read the article at The Politico.
Republican candidates begin snubbing Bush
A president with dismal approval ratings and a bitter intraparty rupture over immigration are obvious problems for Republican politicians.
In recent days, however, the combination is emerging as something less obvious: an opportunity.
Recent polls have shown Bush's popularity -- which has long been in the tank with independents -- suffering significant erosion even among GOP base voters, largely due to a backlash over the president's stance on immigration.
The decline, according to some Republican strategists, has flashed a green light for lawmakers on Capitol Hill and presidential candidates to put distance between themselves and an unpopular president -- a politically essential maneuver for the 2008 general election that remained risky as long as Bush retained the sympathies of Republican stalwarts.
The change, say GOP operatives, is the absence of fear about being perceived as something less than an ardent Bush backer. "What's the penalty now, Karl being mad at you?" Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio asked with a laugh, referring to Bush political adviser Karl Rove. "Who cares? Even his former chief strategist (Matthew Dowd) walked away from him and pissed all over him."
Read the article at The Politico.
Rare tactic may allow immigration votes
Only in the arcane world of the U.S. Senate could a quirky gambit known as a "clay pigeon" make the difference between passage of an important immigration measure and its death at the hands of opponents.
Democratic leaders hope the complex maneuver - which makes use of the Senate's labyrinthine rules to insist on votes on amendments - will frustrate conservatives' attempts to derail the embattled immigration bill, instead putting it on a fast track to passage next week.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would revive the bill to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants late this week. To do so, though, he needs backing from 60 senators, and a way to guarantee votes on a tentative list of 22 Republican and Democratic amendments whose consideration is seen as vital to satisfying key waverers.
The so-called clay pigeon is how he's expected to do it, under a strategy that was still taking shape Monday.
The tactic gets its name from the target used in skeet shooting, which explodes into bits as it is hit. In the Senate, an amendment is the target, and any one senator can demand that it be divided into separate fragments to be voted on piecemeal.
Under the tentative plan, Reid as early as Friday would launch his target - an amendment encompassing all 22 proposals - and shoot it into its component pieces. The Senate would then vote on ending debate on the immigration measure, which would take 60 votes and limit discussion of the bill to 30 more hours. After that interval, all 22 amendments would have to be voted on, with little opportunity for foes to interfere.
Read the rest of the article here.
Democratic leaders hope the complex maneuver - which makes use of the Senate's labyrinthine rules to insist on votes on amendments - will frustrate conservatives' attempts to derail the embattled immigration bill, instead putting it on a fast track to passage next week.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would revive the bill to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants late this week. To do so, though, he needs backing from 60 senators, and a way to guarantee votes on a tentative list of 22 Republican and Democratic amendments whose consideration is seen as vital to satisfying key waverers.
The so-called clay pigeon is how he's expected to do it, under a strategy that was still taking shape Monday.
The tactic gets its name from the target used in skeet shooting, which explodes into bits as it is hit. In the Senate, an amendment is the target, and any one senator can demand that it be divided into separate fragments to be voted on piecemeal.
Under the tentative plan, Reid as early as Friday would launch his target - an amendment encompassing all 22 proposals - and shoot it into its component pieces. The Senate would then vote on ending debate on the immigration measure, which would take 60 votes and limit discussion of the bill to 30 more hours. After that interval, all 22 amendments would have to be voted on, with little opportunity for foes to interfere.
Read the rest of the article here.
Fred Thompson: How conservative is he?
Although I don't believe the article coming out in the June 25th issue of Newsweek makes a compelling argument that Thompson isn't as conservative as some may think, it does give us some insight into the candidate. He has been described by some as a "southern-fried Reagan". Based upon the current lineup of candidates, he may be the closest thing. Most of the candidates (minus Ron Paul) have some liberal ideology in them. It will be interesting to see how the lineup of contenders unfold once we have had some primaries.
The Newsweek article can be found here.
The Newsweek article can be found here.
Gingrich: Practical Steps to Solving Immigration, American Identity, and Border Security
Those who are trying to force through the Bush-Kennedy-McCain immigration proposal argue that only their version of comprehensive reform will work. They are simply wrong.
Forget that their bill is impossible to implement and that there is no evidence the federal government could possibly administer a Z visa for 12 million-plus (your government cannot tell you to within a million what the number is) people who are here illegally.
A core failure of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill is that it makes the problem bigger than it needs to be. By trying to force a single solution in one bill, it makes the system even more unworkable and more likely to fail. By accepting the government's failure to keep its word for the last 21 years (since the passage of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986), the Bush-Kennedy-McCain plan both increases the number of people who will be legalized despite their illegal behavior and sends a signal to others to come to America illegally in the expectation that there will inevitably be a third wave of amnesty as we "bow to reality" (in Secretary Chertoff's phrase) once again about 2017.
Newt's 10 steps to fixing the system:
1. Keep the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli commitment and control the border.
2. Announce an immediate shift of Internal Revenue Service resources to audit companies that are deliberately hiring people illegally.
3. Outsource to American Express, Visa or MasterCard the job of building a real-time verification system so that honest companies can confirm the legal status of all workers and identify people with forged papers before they hire them as fast as your automatic teller machine identifies you and gives you money in a matter of seconds.
4. Focus deportation efforts on criminals.
5. Cut off all federal aid to any city, county or state that refuses to investigate if a criminal is here illegally.
6. Offer intensive education in English to anyone who wants to learn English, and make English the official language of government.
7. Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.
8. Within the context of these proven changes, establish an economically driven temporary worker program like the Krieble Foundation proposals.
9. Create a special open-ended worker visa for high value workers.
10. Workers who came here illegally but have a good work relationship and community ties (including family), should have first opportunity to get the new temporary worker visas, but instead of paying penalties, they should be required to go home and get the visa at home.
Read the article by Newt Gingrich here.
_____________________________________
One thing I completly agree with is the fact that we need to control our borders and protect our country. I think the bill would have been a quick bandaid. When the bill came out I was a tad upset about the whole thing. How about you?
Forget that their bill is impossible to implement and that there is no evidence the federal government could possibly administer a Z visa for 12 million-plus (your government cannot tell you to within a million what the number is) people who are here illegally.
A core failure of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill is that it makes the problem bigger than it needs to be. By trying to force a single solution in one bill, it makes the system even more unworkable and more likely to fail. By accepting the government's failure to keep its word for the last 21 years (since the passage of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986), the Bush-Kennedy-McCain plan both increases the number of people who will be legalized despite their illegal behavior and sends a signal to others to come to America illegally in the expectation that there will inevitably be a third wave of amnesty as we "bow to reality" (in Secretary Chertoff's phrase) once again about 2017.
Newt's 10 steps to fixing the system:
1. Keep the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli commitment and control the border.
2. Announce an immediate shift of Internal Revenue Service resources to audit companies that are deliberately hiring people illegally.
3. Outsource to American Express, Visa or MasterCard the job of building a real-time verification system so that honest companies can confirm the legal status of all workers and identify people with forged papers before they hire them as fast as your automatic teller machine identifies you and gives you money in a matter of seconds.
4. Focus deportation efforts on criminals.
5. Cut off all federal aid to any city, county or state that refuses to investigate if a criminal is here illegally.
6. Offer intensive education in English to anyone who wants to learn English, and make English the official language of government.
7. Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.
8. Within the context of these proven changes, establish an economically driven temporary worker program like the Krieble Foundation proposals.
9. Create a special open-ended worker visa for high value workers.
10. Workers who came here illegally but have a good work relationship and community ties (including family), should have first opportunity to get the new temporary worker visas, but instead of paying penalties, they should be required to go home and get the visa at home.
Read the article by Newt Gingrich here.
_____________________________________
One thing I completly agree with is the fact that we need to control our borders and protect our country. I think the bill would have been a quick bandaid. When the bill came out I was a tad upset about the whole thing. How about you?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Tensions rise between Mitt and Rudy
Romney vs. Rudy
The McCain vs. Romney fireworks have gotten much of the attention, but since the debate in New Hampshire a few weeks ago there have been signs of a coming Mitt vs Rudy battle.It's part of the reason why we keep hearing chatter about "the three legs of the stool" from Romney, a reference to the belief that Republicans get elected based upon a conservative social, economic and defense triumvirate. The intimation, of course, is that Rudy is missing the first leg on the stool. For evidence, look no further than today's Hartford Courant, where the sage David Lightman has this telling passage. Note the comments of Vin Weber, a close adviser to the Romney effort:
Ronald Reagan's presidency firmly established the modern GOP as a party of conservative values - firmly anti-abortion, tough on crime, willing to build up the military and cut taxes and eager to see religion play an important role in American life.The party has been enormously successful running on those principles, which is why former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber, a top conservative activist from Minnesota, believes Giuliani cannot win the GOP nomination.
Read the article at The Politico.
The McCain vs. Romney fireworks have gotten much of the attention, but since the debate in New Hampshire a few weeks ago there have been signs of a coming Mitt vs Rudy battle.It's part of the reason why we keep hearing chatter about "the three legs of the stool" from Romney, a reference to the belief that Republicans get elected based upon a conservative social, economic and defense triumvirate. The intimation, of course, is that Rudy is missing the first leg on the stool. For evidence, look no further than today's Hartford Courant, where the sage David Lightman has this telling passage. Note the comments of Vin Weber, a close adviser to the Romney effort:
Ronald Reagan's presidency firmly established the modern GOP as a party of conservative values - firmly anti-abortion, tough on crime, willing to build up the military and cut taxes and eager to see religion play an important role in American life.The party has been enormously successful running on those principles, which is why former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber, a top conservative activist from Minnesota, believes Giuliani cannot win the GOP nomination.
Read the article at The Politico.
'Ron Paul, who?' no longer applies
GOP hopeful big hit in YouTube videos
On Technorati, which offers a real-time glimpse of the blogosphere, the most frequently searched term last week was "YouTube."
Then came "Ron Paul."
The presence of the obscure Republican congressman from Texas on a list that includes terms such as "Sopranos," "Paris Hilton" and "iPhone" is a sign of the online buzz building up around the longshot Republican presidential hopeful -- even as mainstream political pundits have written him off.
Rep. Ron Paul is more popular on Facebook than Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He's got more friends on MySpace than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. His MeetUp groups, with 11,924 members in 279 cities, are the biggest in the Republican field. And his official YouTube videos, including clips of his three debate appearances, have been viewed nearly 1.1 million times -- more than those of any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, except Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
No one's more surprised at this robust Web presence than Paul himself, a self-described old-school, pen-and-paper guy who's serving his 10th congressional term and was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988.
"To tell you the truth, I hadn't heard about this YouTube and all the other Internet sites until supporters started gathering in them," said Paul, 71, who said that he raised about $100,000 after each of the three debates; his campaign had less than $10,000 when his exploratory committee was formed in mid-February. "I tell you I've never raised money as efficiently as that, in all my years in Congress, and all I'm doing is speaking my mind."
That means saying again and again that the Republican Party, especially when it comes to government spending and foreign policy, is in shambles.
Check out the article here.
BTW, an interesting tidbit- i get a lot of hits when I post Ron Paul articles.
Fred Thompson popular poll choice- but not here
If you were running for president, whose shoes would you rather be in today: Mitt Romney's or Fred Thompson's?
The answer is significant because Sen. John McCain's poll numbers are dropping, to the point his candidacy is endangered. That means either former Tennessee Sen. Thompson or former Massachusetts Gov. Romney may well emerge as the major challenger to front-runner Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, for the Republican presidential nomination.
Traditionalists, if there is such a thing in presidential politics, would probably opt for Romney. According to many accepted yardsticks, he is doing very well.
Romney leads all the Republican candidates in fundraising, not to mention his estimated $300 million personal fortune that could finance his entire campaign, though he has an aggressive fundraising operation to raise gobs of private money.
And he sits atop the polls in the two key early states – Iowa and New Hampshire – where he has been using that financial edge to organize for many months.
Romney reportedly has spent $4 million on television ads at this early date, mostly in the early states but also on national cable networks.
Yet he is running fourth in the national polls, and there are some other less obvious numbers that could be more troublesome for his candidacy.
Thompson, who hasn't even formally declared his candidacy, is just putting together an organization and has yet to even set foot in Iowa or New Hampshire. But his acting and political careers have made him the hot candidate of the moment, as shown in recent national surveys where he is either tied with McCain for second or alone in that spot.
Thompson is more likely than Romney to be able to control his own fate, so to speak, since he will begin his official campaign early next month with political assets that most would die for as they throw their hats into the ring. Of course, he must be able to handle the scrutiny that is just now coming his way and be as good a candidate on the stump as his backers hope. But the former U.S. senator and actor has the benefit of fitting the profile of the type of candidate who usually wins the Republican nomination – a Sun Belt conservative.
Check out the rest of the article at The Politico. By the way, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg national poll released this week showed Giuliani with 27 percent of the GOP vote, Thompson with 21, McCain 12 and Romney 10. A Quinnipiac poll at the same time found Giuliani at 27, Thompson and McCain at 15, and Romney at 10. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Giuliani at 29 and Thompson at 20, with Romney and McCain at 14.
The answer is significant because Sen. John McCain's poll numbers are dropping, to the point his candidacy is endangered. That means either former Tennessee Sen. Thompson or former Massachusetts Gov. Romney may well emerge as the major challenger to front-runner Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, for the Republican presidential nomination.
Traditionalists, if there is such a thing in presidential politics, would probably opt for Romney. According to many accepted yardsticks, he is doing very well.
Romney leads all the Republican candidates in fundraising, not to mention his estimated $300 million personal fortune that could finance his entire campaign, though he has an aggressive fundraising operation to raise gobs of private money.
And he sits atop the polls in the two key early states – Iowa and New Hampshire – where he has been using that financial edge to organize for many months.
Romney reportedly has spent $4 million on television ads at this early date, mostly in the early states but also on national cable networks.
Yet he is running fourth in the national polls, and there are some other less obvious numbers that could be more troublesome for his candidacy.
Thompson, who hasn't even formally declared his candidacy, is just putting together an organization and has yet to even set foot in Iowa or New Hampshire. But his acting and political careers have made him the hot candidate of the moment, as shown in recent national surveys where he is either tied with McCain for second or alone in that spot.
Thompson is more likely than Romney to be able to control his own fate, so to speak, since he will begin his official campaign early next month with political assets that most would die for as they throw their hats into the ring. Of course, he must be able to handle the scrutiny that is just now coming his way and be as good a candidate on the stump as his backers hope. But the former U.S. senator and actor has the benefit of fitting the profile of the type of candidate who usually wins the Republican nomination – a Sun Belt conservative.
Check out the rest of the article at The Politico. By the way, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg national poll released this week showed Giuliani with 27 percent of the GOP vote, Thompson with 21, McCain 12 and Romney 10. A Quinnipiac poll at the same time found Giuliani at 27, Thompson and McCain at 15, and Romney at 10. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Giuliani at 29 and Thompson at 20, with Romney and McCain at 14.
New site!
Welcome! I have purchased ThePoliticalLife.com. Once the DNS propagates, you will be able to just go to www.thepoliticallife.com instead of connecting to the long address of www.populistconservative.blogspot.com. That's a lot to type! For now I will be using Blogspot to post my entries until I unveil the new website. In envision a website where you will be able to submit stories that are affecting your community or state; or issues that affect the world you live in (within reason, of course).
Suggestions? Submit them to the comments field.
Suggestions? Submit them to the comments field.
Friday, June 15, 2007
mywireless.org
Keep Access to the Internet Tax-Free!
The good news is that national lawmakers have successfully protected Internet access from getting burdened by federal taxes, helping to ensure that all Americans have easier access to this incredible resource. The bad news is that the laws that keep Internet access tax-free are set to expire in November, 2007.Legislation has been introduced in Congress to keep taxes off Internet access. The 'Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007' – H.R.743 and S.156 – is overwhelmingly bi-partisan legislation that would keep taxes off Internet access for good, as well as prevent multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. Support the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 – legislation that will keep taxes OFF Internet access and prevent multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce -- today!Since 1998, Congress has ensured that Internet access and Internet commerce are not subject to multiple state or local taxes. Congress should protect American consumers, and achieve the bi-partisan goal of ensuring affordable Internet access and commerce benefits to all Americans. Passage of the 'Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007' would prevent taxes that limit consumer choice, delay innovation, and often require consumers to pay more for service.You Can Make A Difference Today: Urge your elected officials to support ‘The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007' today!
The good news is that national lawmakers have successfully protected Internet access from getting burdened by federal taxes, helping to ensure that all Americans have easier access to this incredible resource. The bad news is that the laws that keep Internet access tax-free are set to expire in November, 2007.Legislation has been introduced in Congress to keep taxes off Internet access. The 'Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007' – H.R.743 and S.156 – is overwhelmingly bi-partisan legislation that would keep taxes off Internet access for good, as well as prevent multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. Support the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 – legislation that will keep taxes OFF Internet access and prevent multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce -- today!Since 1998, Congress has ensured that Internet access and Internet commerce are not subject to multiple state or local taxes. Congress should protect American consumers, and achieve the bi-partisan goal of ensuring affordable Internet access and commerce benefits to all Americans. Passage of the 'Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007' would prevent taxes that limit consumer choice, delay innovation, and often require consumers to pay more for service.You Can Make A Difference Today: Urge your elected officials to support ‘The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007' today!
Visit www.mywireless.org today and get involved!
DoD braces for a fight with Pelosi
Looks like Pelosi is trying to get the "taxpayer funded travel" for free for the lawmakers' adult children!
Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers’ adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free.Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.
“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S. Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. “Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.”Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels.Pelosi’s office inquired about such travel on June 1, according to a Department of Defense memo obtained by The Hill.In a June 8 memo, the head of legislative affairs for the Pentagon, Robert L. Wilkie, told Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he sees Pelosi’s question as a first step toward challenging the policy. “We were told that the Speaker would expect that members’ children (of married and unmarried [members of Congress]) would not have to reimburse the Treasury,” Wilkie wrote. “We expect future challenges from the House leadership on this policy.”Pentagon aides did not respond to requests for comment.
Read the rest of the article here.
Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers’ adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free.Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.
“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S. Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. “Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip.”Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels.Pelosi’s office inquired about such travel on June 1, according to a Department of Defense memo obtained by The Hill.In a June 8 memo, the head of legislative affairs for the Pentagon, Robert L. Wilkie, told Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he sees Pelosi’s question as a first step toward challenging the policy. “We were told that the Speaker would expect that members’ children (of married and unmarried [members of Congress]) would not have to reimburse the Treasury,” Wilkie wrote. “We expect future challenges from the House leadership on this policy.”Pentagon aides did not respond to requests for comment.
Read the rest of the article here.
Poll section added
I added a new poll section today! I plan on changing it on a weekly basis. I know it seems a little long right now, but I wanted to have pictures of the candidates present.
Let me know your thoughts!
Let me know your thoughts!
Why Ron Paul is disqualified
The following article is from www.worldnetdaily.com, and is an exlusive commentary from Joseph Farah.
For a long time, I have considered Ron Paul to be among a small handful of principled members of the U.S. Congress.
I respect the fact that he reveres the Constitution and takes it seriously.
He and I were virtually alone on the national stage in calling on Congress to debate a declaration of war before invading Iraq. Had we done so back then, it would be a little more difficult for people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to dismiss so cavalierly their previous votes to authorize combat.
If I were in Congress, my voting record would be closest to the voting record of Ron Paul – no question about it.
But I want to be clear about why I oppose Ron Paul's bid to become president.
The main reason is this: He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East, a subject I have studied intensely for 30 years.
Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
"They attack us because we've been over there," he said. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
Paul called this "blowback." He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.
While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America's destruction. It is a wholly untenable position he shares with people like Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher.
He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn't really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America's fiercest enemies.
Read the rest of the article by Joseph Farah here.
For a long time, I have considered Ron Paul to be among a small handful of principled members of the U.S. Congress.
I respect the fact that he reveres the Constitution and takes it seriously.
He and I were virtually alone on the national stage in calling on Congress to debate a declaration of war before invading Iraq. Had we done so back then, it would be a little more difficult for people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to dismiss so cavalierly their previous votes to authorize combat.
If I were in Congress, my voting record would be closest to the voting record of Ron Paul – no question about it.
But I want to be clear about why I oppose Ron Paul's bid to become president.
The main reason is this: He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East, a subject I have studied intensely for 30 years.
Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
"They attack us because we've been over there," he said. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
Paul called this "blowback." He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.
While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America's destruction. It is a wholly untenable position he shares with people like Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher.
He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn't really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America's fiercest enemies.
Read the rest of the article by Joseph Farah here.
America prepares for 'cyber war' with China
It's like another "arms race". Read below.
China is striving to overtake the United States as the dominant power in cyberspace, according to a senior American general, in what is emerging as a new theatre of conflict between nation states and a growing priority for the Pentagon. Lt Gen Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, said that all of America's foes, including Iran, were looking at ways of hacking into US networks to glean trade and defence secrets. But efforts by China set it apart. "They're the only nation that has been quite that blatant about saying 'we're looking to do that'," said Gen Elder in Washington.
Gen Elder is to head a new cyber command centre being set up at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, already home to about 25,000 military personnel involved in everything from electronic warfare to network defence.
The command's focus is to control the "cyber domain", which the Pentagon now sees as critical to everything from communications to surveillance to infrastructure security, and just as important as "kinetic war".
Read the rest of the article here.
China is striving to overtake the United States as the dominant power in cyberspace, according to a senior American general, in what is emerging as a new theatre of conflict between nation states and a growing priority for the Pentagon. Lt Gen Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, said that all of America's foes, including Iran, were looking at ways of hacking into US networks to glean trade and defence secrets. But efforts by China set it apart. "They're the only nation that has been quite that blatant about saying 'we're looking to do that'," said Gen Elder in Washington.
Gen Elder is to head a new cyber command centre being set up at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, already home to about 25,000 military personnel involved in everything from electronic warfare to network defence.
The command's focus is to control the "cyber domain", which the Pentagon now sees as critical to everything from communications to surveillance to infrastructure security, and just as important as "kinetic war".
Read the rest of the article here.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
What has our nation come to?
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls the government's current effort to fix the problem "madness." Pat Buchanan and David Limbaugh both call it "suicide."
And President Theodore Roosevelt, looking forward through the decades to today, warned us sternly: "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
Yet today's government, by allowing and indeed encouraging a Third World immigrant invasion of the United States – encouraging it by offering endless incentives like Social Security, food stamps and free education, as well as refusing to enforce existing immigration laws – is overseeing a radical conversion of America.
The story continues here.
President Theodore Roosevelt
Is that where we are headed as a nation? With the immigration bill that died (that President Bush and Senator Kennedy are trying to revive), it looked like we were headed in that direction.
Read some of the article below from WorldNetDaily.
It's finally undeniable. America's very existence as a free nation is threatened by a full-scale illegal invasion from the south. The nation's transformation from what once was a unified Judeo-Christian culture into an angry cauldron of squabbling groups and nationalities grows daily. And the U.S. government's response to this momentous threat to America's national survival? Excuse it, legalize it and encourage it!
Why is the federal government doing this? How can Americans stop it? And most importantly, what is the right way to deal with the nation's overwhelming and ever-worsening illegal immigration problem?
That's the focus of the June edition of WND's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine, in a blockbuster issue titled "NATIONAL SUICIDE: How the government's immigration policies are destroying America."
Why is the federal government doing this? How can Americans stop it? And most importantly, what is the right way to deal with the nation's overwhelming and ever-worsening illegal immigration problem?
That's the focus of the June edition of WND's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine, in a blockbuster issue titled "NATIONAL SUICIDE: How the government's immigration policies are destroying America."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls the government's current effort to fix the problem "madness." Pat Buchanan and David Limbaugh both call it "suicide."
And President Theodore Roosevelt, looking forward through the decades to today, warned us sternly: "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
Yet today's government, by allowing and indeed encouraging a Third World immigrant invasion of the United States – encouraging it by offering endless incentives like Social Security, food stamps and free education, as well as refusing to enforce existing immigration laws – is overseeing a radical conversion of America.
The story continues here.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Immigration bill fails in Senate
Thank God this immigration billed failed and died in the Senate. It was bad and horrible from the start. The first thing we need to do is to secure our borders! Am I "unpatriotic" as some may say because I don't agree with this ridiculous bill?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans and Democrats scrambled Thursday to salvage a fragile compromise that would legalize millions of unlawful immigrants after it suffered setbacks.
The measure, a top priority for President Bush that's under attack from the right and left, faced a crucial test vote designed to measure senators' appetite for the "grand bargain" between liberals and conservatives on immigration.
The legislation failed a similar hurdle earlier in the day, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., threatened that if it failed again, "the bill's over with."
Republican negotiators were working to break an impasse on a proposal that would let employers continue to handpick the high-skilled workers they want to get green cards, rather than requiring workers to qualify through a new, government-run point system.
Read the rest of the article here.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans and Democrats scrambled Thursday to salvage a fragile compromise that would legalize millions of unlawful immigrants after it suffered setbacks.
The measure, a top priority for President Bush that's under attack from the right and left, faced a crucial test vote designed to measure senators' appetite for the "grand bargain" between liberals and conservatives on immigration.
The legislation failed a similar hurdle earlier in the day, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., threatened that if it failed again, "the bill's over with."
Republican negotiators were working to break an impasse on a proposal that would let employers continue to handpick the high-skilled workers they want to get green cards, rather than requiring workers to qualify through a new, government-run point system.
Read the rest of the article here.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder
Peggy Noonan, former speech writer for President Reagan wrote a great article describing exactly how I feel about the administration right now.
For any conservatives out there reading this who presently support the President and his policies, how can you? Look at his spending. Looks pretty liberal to me. Look at his immigration policy. Liberal again. The Iraq war? A true conservative would NOT have supported the war. I know everybody is entitled to his own opinion. I can't wait until the next election!
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Read Peggy's article here.
I'm not sure how long that article will be at that link, you may have to search when she does her next op-ed.
For any conservatives out there reading this who presently support the President and his policies, how can you? Look at his spending. Looks pretty liberal to me. Look at his immigration policy. Liberal again. The Iraq war? A true conservative would NOT have supported the war. I know everybody is entitled to his own opinion. I can't wait until the next election!
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Read Peggy's article here.
I'm not sure how long that article will be at that link, you may have to search when she does her next op-ed.
Bush loosing conservative base
Gee, what a shock. President Bush is loosing his conservative base (including THIS populist conservatve) due to his immigration policy and the neverending war in Iraq:
WASHINGTON, June 2 — President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign law breakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush’s impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters — a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.
“I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. “We are not all that stupid.”
This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America” inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, “I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security.” He added, “But he might lose some of you.”
Read the story here.
WASHINGTON, June 2 — President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign law breakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush’s impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters — a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.
“I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. “We are not all that stupid.”
This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America” inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, “I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security.” He added, “But he might lose some of you.”
Read the story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
