Posted on 01/18/2008 3:56:25 AM PST by jmaroneps37
As conservatives our choice for president has to be Fred Thompson. But this is only half of the equation. Both McCain and Huckabee are both very suspect on the issue of illegal aliens. Here are some very sobering facts about the damage we have already suffered from our de facto open borders policy.
Nearly One Million Sex Crimes have been committed by illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.drdsk.com/
Illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
3 million dollars a day are spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
90 billion dollars a year are spent on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. 200 billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
12 billion dollars a year [on] school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! 17 billion a year.. for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
During .. 2005 … 4 to 10 million illegals [snuck in as many as] 19,500… from Terrorist Countries [bringing] millions of pounds of drugs ….The National Policy Institute estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between 206 and 230 billion dollars or an average cost of between 41 and 46 billion dollars annually over a five year period.
http://.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?=deportation
2.2 billion dollars a year are spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. 2.5 billion dollars a year are spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
(Excerpt) Read more at collinsreport.net ...
Apparently, the fact that Huck signed the AMNESTEY PLEDGE, is being ignored here.
True...yes truth... He might have not been as fanatically opposes to the Illegals as we would have liked years ago but then who were except for DUNCAN HUNTER and forgot his but that was then, not all candidates understand this is a huge issues will ALL Americans... Not only Republicans.
Should I dare to mention the current position on Illegals from our own conservative champion, our president GWB?... Or how about the miraculus conversion of Macaca?... Even lady JullieAnnie has converted as well to closing the borders first /s
So, why can't Huckabee get the same treatment?
HE DID SIGN THE "AMNESTY PLEDGE," WITHOUT ANY HESITATION... And than counts imo
I would feel safe voting for Huck to beat McCain. Huck’s not going anywhere. He will never be the nominee...ever.
The worst we would have to endure would be the media coverage after SC and before FLA. They would depict Huck as the leader for having won two states. The GOP would look like a bunch of knuckle dragging, intolerant, religious bigots. But I would put up with that to get rid of McCain...NOW.
not all candidates understand = NOW all candidates...
and forgot his but that was then, not all candidates understand this is a huge issues will ALL Americans... Not only Republicans = and forgot the name of the Colorado congressman as well
Sorry :)
Because you failed to do the requisite research before you posted your Chicken Little reply, yours is the ridiculous statement.
My vote in 2004 would have made zero difference in the outcome. It will be the same in 2008. It’s MY vote and I take EVERYTING I can possible know into account before deciding how to make it.
Take your tired old scare tactics back to the playground. They are unconvincing here, son.
BTW, it’s far too early to draw any firm conclusions about Roberts and Alito on the Court. I really don’t think either one is a 100% strict constructionist, but over time we’ll see. Better than Meiers? Yes.
Research? No research is necessary to conclude that Roberts and Alito are far preferable to any SCOTUS appointment Kerry would have made.
As for: “Chicken Little, scare tactics, playground...”
LOL! I thought my post was rather tame...you should see me when I’m really fired up!
Lastly, I’m not “son”. I’m a good ole rock solid conservative daughter of the south.
And 'son' covers both male and female.
As for 'scare tactics' and 'Chicken Little', I stand behind those characterizations. We heard similar carp before the 2004 elections. If all that were true, then please list all the major accomplishments of the Dim Congress that succeeded without Republican support in the last session.
Use all the paper you need. We'll wait.
<JEOPARDY THEME>
Ping for a later read.
They are more than suspect, they are supects themselves...
Don’t need time.
I did think about taking the time to find that bunny with a pancake on top of his head.
Because I have no idea what you are talking about!
SIGH. I really don’t believe you, but I’ll humor your attempt to avoid answering the questions anyway.
OK votes overwhelmingly for the Republican. Always. My vote never changes the outcome.
Every time I’ve challenged a poster here to list the major accomplishments of the Dim Congress last session, they always change the subject, or dodge the question in some other way. So, at least you’re not alone.
We only need 41 votes in the Senate to stop the Dims or a Dim President from enacting anything major. For your argument to hold water, you’d have to be arguing that Republicans would vote in agreement with all the risky and dangerous items that would come up.
Seems like a strange way of arguing for voters to vote for Republicans. It’s like saying, they be good for us, UNLESS we get a Dimocrat President, then they’ll turn on us and vote with the Dim President.
That’s pretty silly.
Huckabee keeps pandering and telling people what they want to hear. His record shows a very different story.
Why does signing that pledge give Huckabee any more credibility than when he said he would oppose amnesty?
People that think that because it is written down in somewhat clear language it will be more binding. I think they being gullible. He hasn't let the clear meaning of things stand in his way of claiming he cut taxes in Arkansas even though he raised taxes twice as much as he cut them.
As for clearly putting down his policy in writing. All signing this "pledge" does is give a short blurb on the subject. Fred Thompson gives a much more detailed plan for dealing with illegal immigration. It would be far more difficult to weasel around the meaning of a more detailed plan later than this short pledge. However, Huckabee doesn't present detailed plans. He produces sound bytes.
Personally, I think The Huckster is a LIAR.
That's a fact that has been demonstrated many times. He however seems to be able to portray sincerity very well while lying. He's not only a very good liar, he's able to talk his way out of lies very well. He's slick.
I have a hard time believing that an honest, pious, minister lies that well. I think his religious piety is a fraud. If that's fraudulent, what do we know about Huckabee that is genuine? Just his very liberal record?
It counts for just as much as him saying that he will enforce immigration laws and oppose amnesty after a history in office of doing the opposite.
Huckabee has told one bold lie after another about his record on the campaign trail.
Other candidates have given much more detail on how they would address illegal immigration. Fred provides a white paper on the topic on his web page.
Now Huckabee, who communicates in sound bytes, not substitutive plans, signs a short pledge, and you think it should make him credible on the topic?
Huckabee's signature in only as good as his word. He's proven that his word is worthless.
So is it doesn’t matter who’s president as long as we have 40+ Republicans in the Senate? Okaaaay.
I still don’t get what you’re saying. Are you saying vote for other than a Dem or a Rep? I honestly just have no idea where you’re going with all this.
Maybe if you told us who you WOULD vote for it might enlighten us.
That leaves bible belt voters with a choice between Huckabee, Romney, and Rudy.
Huckabee is going to do well in that match up.
Romney has flip-flop issues of his own so will have trouble attacking Huckabee where he is weak. His Morman religion will also hurt him some, though it's difficult to guess how much.
Rudy has too many moral skeletons in his closet to do well.
Huckabee would likely win the religious right vote, while Romney and Rudy would split the rest. That creates a situation where Huckabee could win the nomination, and that would be a disaster.
Huckabee would take VP on a McCAin ticket. Watch and see!
What you say makes sense. But I don’t think the “bible belt” is going to decide the nomination. I live in the heart of it (Alabama). Huck will get the evangelicals, just like elsewhere, but he won’t break out.
I think it will come down to Rudy or Mitt (if McCain loses SC). I know that doesn’t make a lot of people happy. But that’s what I think.
If McCain wins SC, I’m afraid he’ll have it sewn up.
Never said it would make NO difference, only that it wouldn’t be the disaster that the Chicken Littles of this forum claim.
You’d do well to re-read my original reply to this thread, post #16. Both of the questions in your 2nd & 3rd paragraphs were answered in that post, which you originally replied to.
Its time to state the obvious, as the author does here quite well.
I’m sorry. I missed that.
Thompson or Hunter. I like both of them. A LOT.
Unfortunately, they’re just too far off the lead.
I admire your conviction. I simply prefer to express my preference among those with a real possibility of making it to the WH.
To each his own, huh?
Yes, that's right. Now you've got it. My vote, my decision. Your vote, your decision.
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.