Thursday, May 17, 2007
Selling U.S. Out with Amnesty
Boston, MA - Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on today's U.S. Senate agreement on immigration reform:
"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.
"Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The rule of law has been trampled to death by congress over the previous decade and this bill will only weaken democracy.
Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
If that isn't amnesty, then the term is meaningless!
This is a radically unconstitutional and lawless travesty. None of the ILLeagal aliens should be permitted in this country according to immigration laws already set in place, and they should not be given special treatment above any other immigrants trying to get into the country using legal means. Presidential contender Mitt Romney said much the same thing in the second GOP debate Tuesday night.
"If you are hear illegally you should not have a special pathway to become a permanent resident."
Then he laid out three steps to becoming a legal citizen, "1. Secure the borders, 2. Have an employment verification system, 3. Make illegals get in line with everybody else."
Typically, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.
Bush is really making me mad now. If Bush signs this amnesty bill, then he is surely a traitor and liar who will then lose every bit of my support, and the Republican party would be making the biggest mistake in its history outside of putting him in place to begin with. I will retract my votes for him, and if there was enough time left in his term, which there isn't, back impeachment proceedings.
I agree with what South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said:
"I hope we don't take a thousand page bill written in secret and try to ram it through the Senate in a few days. This is a very important issue for America and we need time to debate it."
"But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."
This may be the great falling away to come, meaning the evil, godless left will win.
If this amnesty becomes law, most conservatives will immediately bail on the GOP, at least until we get real conservatives in place that won't cave to the stupid demicrackheads, who want to end America's freedom along with the globalist elites in the European Union.
Or are they all the same, being of one mind, namely Javier Solana? He uses Bush and Rice like puppets!
Seems the American public has been taken for fools, believing that the U.S. Constitution still matters. It clearly doesn't any longer. Both parties are using each other to further gains for globalization where national sovereignty is dissolved, much like countries in the EU that have been forced to join together forming one government to rule over all. The EU constitution was rejected, but Solana is making it happen anyway by piece meal.
Bush has signed into law new trade policies with the EU beast, that never went through congress. Bush is taking America over a cliff into the abyss of a new world order where individual freedoms, including free speech and religion will be considered hate crimes, punishable under the world criminal court system.
The American public needs to wake up to this reality before it's too late, which it may already be. Lord help us!
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
2nd debate exposes Paul's liberalism
From what I did hear in the last half of the second republican debate was some good old fashioned bantering with the candidates trying to separate themselves, to talk about what they want to do as president and what they believe to be good for the nation. They even took some shots at each other too, which was somewhat refreshing.
There are some candidates waiting to announce their entrance into the field, so to make room, we should now begin to narrow the field of candidates running to replace President Bush, who btw has now sold America down the UN/EU canal of globalization.
The job calls for doing what is in the best interest of America and providing for the national defense, but you'd never know that from listening to Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who gave me chills when he basically said that 9/11 was due to historic U.S. involvement in the middle east. Paul said we need to listen to the enemy and hear their message. This is an attitude of liberal appeasement that would facilitate Islam's ruling of the world as they brainwash us all with the Koran, or murder anyone who didn't want to hear it, especially atheist and gay liberals.
Paul said: "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
Islamic radicals don't care about politics, as evidenced by their continued homicide bombings in Iraq against their own people. Clearly Ron Paul would put America back on a defensive posture where we were prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. He has proven that he has literally no clue about Islamic fundamentalism, and is not ready to do what's needed to protect Americans and our allies from them.
Rudy Giuliani blasted Paul with this...
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo also blasted Paul, saying;
"My dear friend Ron here, I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not — whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it. And we have to defend ourselves,"
Tancredo is correct. The best defense is a solid offense.
Ron Paul seems to not understand that Islamic radicals like bin Laden hate us because of our freedom, power and way of life, not to mention our religious values, and because they simply like the power of telling their brainwashed followers to kill themselves and as many innocent people as they can, for Allah, not because we did anything to them.
Being a leader of the blame America first club on the radical liberal side, Ron Paul has marginalized himself badly in the second debate. Memo to Ron Paul: It's time for you to bail, and stop wasting our time, just as Kuchinich does for the democrats.
On the question of national security if America were attacked again, Mitt Romney showed his stength in this response:
"You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo."
Rudy Giuliani said:
"In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know that there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. Shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of," Giuliani said, adding that that could include waterboarding. "I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or anyplace else."
John McCain has the weakest response, siding with the prisoners when he said:
"We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people," McCain said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know."
McCain has admitted that he's more worried about world opinion than protecting American lives from terrorists. He said "it's about us," but that doesn't cut it when the enemy is already cutting the heads off innocent American civilians trying to help in Iraq, and will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear bombs to use in New York and Washington killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans.
Just because McCain was a POW, does not mean we should give rights to an uncivilized enemy having no qualms about dying, that does not abide by rules of engagement or the Geneva Convention, and in fact considers it a weakness on our part to be used against us.
I think California Rep. Duncan Hunter attempted to hit the middle ground, but got lost in his delivery when he said: "Let me just say, this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of defense," Hunter said. "I would call him up or call him in, I would say to SecDef, in terms of getting information that would save American lives even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: 'Get the information.'"
Jim Gilmore added: "First of all, let me say that I would go to the U.N. But it would be to state an opinion and to take advantage of our rights under international law, not to go ask for permission."
The United States needs to get rid of the U.N., that would never survive without our tax dollars, but constantly chides and demeans us to the world. Democrats want the UN and EU to have more say in running the world, and president Bush is caving to it.
The U.N. paper tiger even allowed Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to recite his anti-Israel, anti-America, propaganda to the world, while allowing Iran to buy time to make their nuclear weapons in order to wipe us off the map, using the same silly UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein laughed-off 17 times.
I believe Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore can be taken out of consideration to make room for others waiting to join the race.
So who won the second debate? I think it was tie between Romney and Guiliani, but I would have to give the nod to Romney, not being able to bring myself to vote for Rudy with his pro-choice stance that he tried to wiggle out of previously, even though he had one of the better comments of the night when dissing Paul. Romney sounds better and can think on his feet, and he looks more presidential in the Reagan mold.
With so many primaries coming up, it will be difficult to keep track of the field, but it will also make for a stronger final nominee in the end, hopefully.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Socializm Rejected Again!
Socializm has taken a major body blow and looks down for the count. For France, yes France, has rejected its socialist-live-off-government disaster, in favor of following capitalism after watching the booming U.S. economic growth over the past six years, largely due to president Bush's tax cuts, and low interest rates.
According to The Times Online, the election was a solid rejection of socializm with an 85 percent turnout.
"Thousands celebrated late into the night in the Place de la Concorde after the 52-year-old leader of President Chirac’s Union for a Popular Movement defeated Ségolène Royal, the Socialist, wh 53 percent of the vote.
“Together we are going to write a new page of history,” the pugnacious former Interior Minister told cheering supporters. “The page, I am sure, will be great and it will be beautiful.” Ms Royal accepted defeat with a smile, telling supporters that she had nevertheless relaunched the left.
Mr. Sarkozy, fiercely ambitious and hyper-energetic, had promised by the most radical -- and un-French -- recipe for restoring the country’s pride and wealth. “Work more to earn more” was the simple slogan that he used to convince the country that its renaissance lies with individual effort rather than reliance on the
“social solidarity” which has created the world’s shortest official working week and one of Europe’s highest unemployment rates."
The Hillary Clinton camp is desperately trying to distance itself from the socialist Royal's loss in France, but everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a socialist at heart, trained by a communist sympathizer in college, and still holds the goal of government running everyone's lives. Had Royal won, you can bet that Hillary would be jumping up and down, throwing massive parties for socializm and bigger government.
Democrats and their tax 'n spend grandiosity are generally out of favor with most people around the globe. In fact, the rejection of Democrats in Canada and now France leaves little room for the party to make gains in 2008 and beyond.
Germany's Angela Merkel will also be no help to Hillary as she tends to side with President Bush and Republicans on how to govern.
This latest devastation in France could be the final blow to socializm world wide, just as communism died, it too shall pass into the history books as a total failure.
“The flag of the Left lies on the ground,” said Laurent Fabius, one of the most senior Socialists.
The socialists' protested for three days and nights about the election because they will be forced back to work instead of living off others who's hard-earned money was being redistributed to support their laziness.
Democracy and Capitalism are the main thrusts moving the global economy, with the EU and America now joining together to push economic development in third world countries to create a global infrastructure for trade. There is even talk of a global currency, backed by non-other than the EU's High Representative Javier Solana, and his UN side kick Mr. Ban ki Moon.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|