He would have to be deranged to try to pass it if he knew it could not pass, unless he made a promise to someone that he would keep pushing it, no matter what.
Who could that "someone" be? My guess would involve Mexico and oil.
Posted on 06/11/2007 8:24:08 AM PDT by nonsporting
My thoughts too! Fred is the man!
Well, seeing as Ted Kennedy is a primary cause of the current immigration mess, I would support that.
“When you try to please everyone, you please no one.”
It seems as if you could somehow combine Reagan’s and Bush’s good qualities, you’d get a pretty good president.
Exactly true - you can’t have open borders during a war on terror. Those Fort Dix terrorist illegals would have qualified for residency under the last Bush amnesty proposal - which is insane.
“The most schizophrenic administration in history.
Taking Jihad to the Jihadists in Iraq was brilliant.
Opening up the border to the Jihadists (does anybody really believe they won’t be part of the stampede?) and throwing good BP agents in prison for long sentences for doing their jobs is incredibly evil or stupid (I don’t know which).
A real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this president of ours.”
We have a winner!!
So far Bush hasn’t backed down on the tax cuts or the Islamofascists like Reagan did.
>>No President has let something they believe in actually die before the end of their term because if it passes later they get partial credit for it.<<
Bill Clinton let Hillary’s heath care push die. In this, perhaps he was more pragmatic that Bush Jr.
OTOH, I am not sure that the amnesty bill will not pass, given the ethics of our congresscritters.
Ggpa,
Your defense of Farah is right on the money. I’ve been posting that Bush’s refusal to enforce laws pertaining to the border and immigration warrant removal from office.
Unfortunately, your subsequent post, endorsing Fred Thompson, was completely off the mark. The group pushing this mess is the Council of Foreign Relations. Fred Thompson is a member. Should he become president, I guarantee there will be further erosion of our borders and plans to integrate the governments of the US, Mexico, and Canada.
Schlafly wrote a good article about this:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html
Most folks didn’t really want Brutus as President. They just wanted Gore and Kerry less. Brutus is what we got from having only choices approved by the Royal syndicates. With Brutus’ Royal push to load the country with 3rd world peons, one can now ask who has hurt the USA more - Brutus or Lurch?
Not pragmatic. Clinton was completely unable to manage the bureaucracy or to legislate with Congress. Just a horndog with a pretty face.
Yup! He should be impeached, and worse, for aiding the efforts to replace the USA with the North American Union. But then, another Royal would take his place. Unfortunately, treason has become fashionable with the Royals. More unfortunately, the “bad guys” control most of the campaign financing and own most of the politicians, who have appointed the judges. These modern day Royalists have already grabbed control of the entire government. We have a Constitutional form of government in name only. In reality, we are living under a Corporate Monarchy. The North American Union is a sure thing. How many Ameros do you want to bet.
“The group pushing this mess is the Council of Foreign Relations. Fred Thompson is a member.”
Thanks for the heads-up. I make an assumption that Ron Paul may not be a member of CFR - is Ron Paul the only candidate not a member of CFR?
The keey words are "almost dead!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.