Alan Keyes comes out in support of President Bush, denounces Democrats, "our survival is at stake!"

Transcript of Hannity & Colmes ^ | Feb 4, 2004 | Alan Keyes

[hellinahandcart]

Nice meeting you too, Badray!

People are angry out there. It has to be addressed.

[Fledermaus]

I can only hold three Congress members to task...my House representative and my two Senators.

All three of them are on board, mostly, as conservatives although I'm not happy with Sen. Frist's leadership of the Senate.

So the fight has to be taken to the party and the President. I can't rely on others around the country which can only influence their three members.

So far, Bush's non-discretionary spending is an 8.2% increase. I don't like it. And only his dad and Nixon were close. Nixon was even worse creating entire cabinet level departments.

But it's a calculation I can only use to decide my vote. And all the alternatives are worse. Yes, I'd love to have back that GOP Congress that kept Clinton in line on spending.

Yes, I'd love to wipe out the NEA and worry what will happen once the Dems get control again. But at the same time I see the strategy of maybe just wiping them out to the point we then can curb and cut back and reform and change the mentality. Right now, it's not the time. Buying votes? Sure...that's politics.

Any measures less than just stringing up the politicans and starting over don't seem to work with our non-voting, braindead society.

So unless we are ready to start killing each other again, we'll have to work more slowly over time to educate enough to our point of view to gain more political offices.

Call it a tactical retreat for now.

[EternalVigilance]

He did. It was a home run for everybody...except the RATs, of course. ;-)

[William McKinley]

What am I wrong about?

I agree with you that there are things to be angry about, I agree with you that rabid Bushies turn people off. Are you disagreeing with me that rabid third party types turn people off?

As for Pennsylvania, we'll see how it goes. If the polls are showing it's going to be close, I am confident you will do the right thing.

[hobbes1]

By all means....

[George W. Bush]

I can only hold three Congress members to task...my House representative and my two Senators.

I think you can do more. Put the pressure on Tom DeLay, the single most important conservative in the House. He's willing to chart his own course. When he's called 'The Hammer', it's not a cozy nickname.

And join with the Liberty Committee in supporting the The Liberty Caucus, a coalition of 21 of Congress' most conservative and constitutional legislators. We've got Paul, Tancredo, Hostettler and many more strong conservatives. We start every fight with enough congressmen to get a bill on the agenda. And we can win. Sign up for our email updates so you will know when it's time to put the pressure on your congresscritter. No money begging and they don't sell your name or email address. We've won many times before and we can win again.

So far, Bush's non-discretionary spending is an 8.2% increase. I don't like it. And only his dad and Nixon were close. Nixon was even worse creating entire cabinet level departments.

Actually, it's a 24% increase for the 2002-2004 budget years over which he has presided. But Bush's proposed budgets are irrelevant anyway. Only Congress has the federal checkbook. You can blame Bush for not vetoing but not much else.

Congress spends that money, not Bush.

So unless we are ready to start killing each other again, we'll have to work more slowly over time to educate enough to our point of view to gain more political offices.

This seems escapist and defeatist to me. They will never change to our views. The old excuse was we didn't have power to control spending and expansion of government because we lacked the House/Senate/WH. We gave them all those things. Now you tell me that we must be more patient yet.

This notion that we will finally get the constructionist judges we were promised and a substantial shrinking of the federal government is a ruse for the gullible. In theory, it all depends on the control of the Seante with a sixty vote majority. This would actually require about 70 Republicans because some of the GOP senators would defect to the Dims (like Jeffords) or vote with them. The idea that we will ever hold the WH and the House and the Senate with 70 GOP senators is just a trip into LaLaLand.

The real truth is they have no intent to do anything other than try to buy liberal votes with federal dollars and pandering to minorities. Because they wish to dump the fiscal conservatives and the religious Right, something that many of them express openly.

Now, having obviously failed to enact the Rockefellerian program to eliminate the conservative wing of the party and having failed to recruit those voters to whom they have pandered as shamelessly as any Dim ever did, they turn back to us. Because they can't hold those offices without us in '04 and they know it.

I would say there is a considerable difference between being tolerant of a few excesses in the party and completely abandoning our principles over an 'R' or a 'D'. And we have all been tolerant to a fault.

Brand-names simply aren't all they're cracked up to be.

I would assert that the complacency of so many party faithful contributes directly to the liberalism of the party. It is a license to spend. The conservative wing is far less forgiving, knowing that the mainstream of the GOP actually has no discernable principles. In this election year, conservatives are a swing voting bloc. This has not been true in since the elections of the Eighties but it is true now.

[Badray]

"What am I wrong about?"

Sorry about that. I was actually just 'funning' you.

About the only thing that I can possible see as 'wrong' is that you are more supportive of Bush at this time than I am, but that is a matter of judgement and priorities and there is room for honest disagreement. I don't think that you are that much more pleased than I am, just more supportive because of the horrible alternative to Bush.

[g35x]

We have to agree or the Dubya cops will call us liberals for opposing liberal programs.

So you really think you would be better off with Kerry in the White House? I guess the loss of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 wasn't enough for you? What will it take, nuking NYC?

[George W. Bush]

It depends. Would we then finally close the borders?

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[lainde]

bttt

[LisaMalia]

Wake up Bush administration

In my opinion, the ones who need to wake up are the so called Republican/Conservatives who are spending all of their time nitpicking every move President Bush makes that they don't agree with.

I received an email today from a former co-worker (she was my boss actually) that is circulating from "moveon.org". They are going after President Bush with everything they have.

The fence sitters better get on board, or seriously look at the alternative, which is having Kerry as our Commander in Chief. *shudder*

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[lainde]

bttt

[Fledermaus]

Yes, I misquoted...the 8.2% increase in spending is discretionary, not non-discrentionary.

But as to the long term approach, you are mistaken, imo, to think we'll need to get 70 senators. Not if you educate the public enough to get things done with a 51-57 majority.

So we disagree on how that can be accomplished.

As to contacting Delay are anyone not elected by me...been there, done that. I once kept every single piece of direct mail I got for being a generous donor from about 1993-1997 (legal limit to my representatives, the presidential candidate, and as much as I could to the party...which is now illegal). It filled dozens of banker boxes!

They really didn't want to "hear from me", they just wanted my money. I used to write them to tell them it was a waste to send me 12 Republican Party cards in the mail...what was wrong with one that could be tracked based on my address or phone number?

But it's just a machine that couldn't care less about efficiency. So I'd get letters begging for money for which I couldn't legally give any longer.

But it's the same with the DNC. Just for fun, I contributed $20 to a candidate and $10 to the party just to get their direct mail!

Let's just say that I'm an old soldier and I'm looking to retire. Especially when, in 1995 and 1996, I saw all our generals waving white flags and running away from the battle. I mean give me a break, Bob Dole in '96?

[George W. Bush]

But as to the long term approach, you are mistaken, imo, to think we'll need to get 70 senators. Not if you educate the public enough to get things done with a 51-57 majority.

We've been educating the public for a long time. Some are pretty deaf.

As to your other remarks, yeah, Dole made it look like we wanted to lose. There are other signs that they are playing us for fools. But there are also a small number of conservatives still willing to fight our fight. We should support them or we might as well vote Dim and get it over with.

I'm a little too ornery for that.

[Sabertooth]

Sabertooth (125): Well, they wouldn't be so damaging if you would think more like they do, or, failing that, shut up and vote.

FairOpinion (127): I see -- you think that those who criticize Presient Bush should be allowed to shout from the rooftops, but those who support him should shut up?

I don't see where you get that from what I've posted here, or anywhere else. I think everyone should be able to make their case on this or that issue, to the better understanding of all. The efforts I do see to stifle debate come more frequently, by far, from the "never criticize the President crowd," than do any similar efforts from any other quarter.

That certainly doesn't mean that all supporters of President Bush (and I include in that anyone who intends to vote for him, and I am in that number) want to stifle debate.

Case in point:

rintense (182):I can only go by what Saber has posted, but he has both praised and criticized the President- most of the time shouting from rooftops (me too, and lots of other Bush supporters too).

What many fail to understand is that you CAN disagree with the President on various issues, sometimes quite passionately, but you can also still support him, especially when you realize the soul of our country is at stake.

Exactly right.

Given the amount of lurking done on FR by folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and a slew of others, including politicians, our forum is only made more relevant when we are willing to confront difficult truths about our party, our candidates, and our President.

Additionally, FR is a hothouse indicator of the mood of the most politically interested party rank and file. Negative feedback is good, because it gives an opportunity for correction.

If we can agree that it would be ill-advised for the President to be surrounded by yes-men, then isn't it also ill-advised for the most important conservative internet news discussion site to become a yes-forum?

[Sabertooth]

It's not amnesty. It's a worker program and a strengthening of our borders.

The Bush plan is an Amnesty in every significant way that the Reagan Amnesty was an Amnesty. We can't split hairs on the one without splitting hairs on the other, and if we try to do that, we'll be in the realm of "defition of is" and "definition of sex."

The major differences between the Bush Amnesty and the Reagan Amnesty are the job requirements, and that the Reagan Amnesties inital temporary period lasted 18 months, vs. 36 months for the Bush Amnesty. While a higher proportion of Illegals were eligible during the Reagan Amnesty, a higher gross number of Illegals would qualify under the Bush Amnesty.

It's true that the Bush Amnesty probably wouldn't be as bad as any of the Democrat Amnesties, but it is worse than the three Clinton Section 245(i) Amnesties combined, which legalized just over a million Illegals.

I say "probably wouldn't be as bad," because there are indications that the President might combine elements of the McCain and Cornyn Amnesties (S. 1461 and S. 1387). Cornyn's Amnesty would be not only be available to Illegals who haven't arrived yet, but also for Illegals who arrive within the first year of its enactment. Talk about an open invitation for more Illegals.

It's also difficult to see how any Amnesty would make our borders more secure without diligent enforcement of our immigration laws. Yet nothing's stopping the President from doing that now, yet he doesn't.

One glaring example is that when an Illegal loses his deportation hearing, he isn't taken into custody pending deportation. He's given a time and place to show up for his deportation, and released.

Not surprsingly, we have over 400,000 thousand Illegal Alien absconders running around the country, including 80,000 hardened criminals and 3,800 people from countries with significant Al Qaeda presences. Well over 100,000 of those absconders lost their deportation hearings since 9/11, and the number of absconders under President Bush will reach about 200,000 in his first term.

Under President Bush's Treasury Department, US banks have been given guidelines for the acceptance of Mexican matricula consular ID cards. The only purpose of this is so that Illegals may take the money they've gotten from Illegal employment and more easiily transfer it across borders.

Rather than make life more difficult for Illegals, President Bush generally attempts to make it easier for them. This is been true since at least 1994, when he spoke against California's Proposition #187.

It's hard to imagine that he would diligently enforce immigration laws after Amnesty, if he's not interested in doing it beforehand.

An interesting bit of legislation in Congress right now is Charlie Norwood's HR 2671, the CLEAR act. Here's a press release from Norwood:

This week in Washington

Congressman Charlie Norwood, 9^th District, Georgia

January 9, 2004

Addressing Criminal Aliens First Step to Fixing Illegal Immigration Problem

 By Congressman Charlie Norwood

 

If it were a secret, it might have made it to a David Letterman list of the Top 10 Worst Kept Secrets in the State of Georgia…  if such a thing existed.  The fact is, I’m a fan of President Bush.  But that cat, as they say, has been out of the bag for quite a while.  As Commander in Chief, I believe President Bush has truly been the right man at the right time for our nation over these past three challenging years.  Does that mean I agree with him on everything?  Heck no.  I’ve said plenty of times before that my wife and I are in complete agreement only about 90% of the time!  So there were bound to be and continue to be areas where I take issue with the President.  When President Bush recently announced his proposal to grant legal status to millions of individuals living and working in America illegally, one of those areas came to light.  Folks, the President is right about one thing: our immigration system is an absolute mess.  Depending on who you believe, there are somewhere between 8 to 12 million illegal aliens living in America today.  It’s a staggering number that has steadily risen over the last two decades and costs each of us through its impact on our education system, hospitals, and prisons among other areas of our society.  Georgia has been far from immune to the problem.  According to figures released early last year by the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service, the number of illegal aliens living in our state grew by roughly 600%, up to 228,000, between the years of 1996 and 2000.  So, what do we do?  Well first, I believe the only way we can get a handle on our immigration problem is to correct the one piece of the puzzle that poses the greatest threat and risk to all of us - the criminal alien crisis.  As I’ve written to you before, there are 80,000 criminal aliens (murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among them) who have served jail time and should have been deported after paying their debt to society.  Instead, these 80,000 individuals have been released back onto our streets by law enforcement because the system our federal government has provided to do the job is inefficient, unaccountable, and just plain out-manned.  Last summer, along with fellow Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal and U.S. Representatives Allen Boyd of Florida and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, I introduced a bipartisan bill that would change all of this.  The bill, called simply the CLEAR Act (or Clear Law Enforcement for criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003), would clarify that local and state law enforcement officials have the authority to enforce immigration laws during the course of their everyday duties.  Furthermore, the bill gives them the training, access to data, and resources they need to get the job done.  And if the federal government doesn’t live up to its end of the bargain by picking up and deporting criminal aliens after they’ve served their time, the CLEAR Act allows the local municipalities to hold the federal government accountable.  Getting back to the President’s proposal, the tried and true medical adage, “First, do no harm,” comes to mind.  Sadly, harm is exactly what granting ‘guest worker’ legal status to people living and working here illegally would deliver.  And with all due respect to the President, while the Administration has gone to great lengths to point out this proposal isn’t technically amnesty…  the fact is, if it isn’t amnesty - it’s amnesty’s first cousin.  In one fell swoop, a proposal such as this would send the absolute wrong message to the millions of immigrants who have gone to extraordinary lengths to become naturalized citizens of America legally, encourage more aliens to enter our nation illegally by creating an ultimate reward, further threaten our nation’s homeland security, and potentially exacerbate the growing class of illegal and uneducated workers who will never fully realize the American dream.  History tells us this is the wrong remedy.  In 1986, the federal government granted amnesty to almost 3 million illegal aliens in hopes the problem would be resolved.  But the real problem, the inability to enforce our nation’s immigration laws already on the books, was never addressed.  Eighteen years and 8 to 12 million illegal aliens later, we now know the decision in 1986 was a wrong turn and only made a bad situation worse.  Doing the same in 2004 would be sort of like throwing a match on a powder keg - not a particularly good idea.  As Congress prepares to get back to work this month, there’s no roadmap for what direction this debate will take.  But this much I do know - before any discussion can take place on Capitol Hill regarding proposals like the President’s, this country absolutely has to address the criminal alien crisis.  Passing the CLEAR Act and finally giving local and state law enforcement the support it deserves and getting the 80,000 criminal aliens off our streets…  now that’s a good idea and one I’ll be working hard on over the coming months.

 -30-

 

CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD

2452 RAYBURN BUILDING

WASHINGTON,DC 20515

www.house.gov/norwood

Even Congressman Norwood, who has to be diplomaitic, says "with all due respect to the President, while the Administration has gone to great lengths to point out this proposal isn’t technically amnesty…  the fact is, if it isn’t amnesty - it’s amnesty’s first cousin."

So far, to my knowledge, President Bush hasn't taken a position on the CLEAR Act, yet we can't possibly be serious about enforcing our immigration laws without it.

Shouldn't we get about the common sense steps necessary to combat Illegals now, before rewarding them with legalization? Shouldn't we see if actually enforcing our immigration laws doesn't go a long way to solving the problem, before throwing in the towel and trying a poltically toxic policy disaster like another Amnesty?

[Sabertooth]

seamole (118): I've said it before and I'll say it again now. The worst electoral damage to Bush's cause here is done by overzealous Bush supporters, not the third party recruiters.

William McKinley (118): Bush's best friends on this site are the overzealous third-party types.

I agree with statement #1, and disagree with #2.

I think the President's best friends are anyone who shoots straight.