Free Republic

LOL. Brinkley was one of the good guys, Britt Hume reminds me of him.

Some while back I read that Mrs. Clinton had 40 percent of those super delegates and that they were committed to vote for her on the first round. I take that to mean that beyond the first vote they are free to chose otherwise. I believe that Hillary Clinton will prevail because the machine behind her has their future invested in their access to the treasury of the US. She has socialist, at least philosophical,billionaire Buffet and socialist Sorros plus many multi millionaires backing her. I cannot concieve of them backing out over a few little states going for OBama. I also doubt that this type of primary fore play will be in place beyond this national election cycle. Much will change for 2012.

When Truman took on the music critic who was underwhelmed by Margaret Truman's singing, America loved him the more for doing so. Even Republicans empathized with a daddy's wrath at anybody who would be mean to his little girl. Temper is not necessarily a bad thing. Just needs to be controlled temper.

You have pretty much summed up my impression of both debates. I have not been particularly interested in Mitt Romney, but I think he did very well last night. McCain just reminded me of his nasty disposition and he is at the bottom of my preferences, followed by Huckabee. I also thought Ron Paul brought reminders to Republicans of a real crisis in our monetary system. Food for thought that should not be dismissed because of his isolationist views which I find unacceptable. IMO Charles Gibson has done the best job of moderating so far. The RAT debate was pitiful and painful to watch. Nothing to be said except OBama was easier to take than Hillary, Richardson, Edwards.

Boorish behavior does not advance the pro life cause.

And this advanced the pro-life cause in what way?

Scratch number 6. Iraq is ongoing and it is impossible in any event to know what the consequences would have been with an alternate decision. Scratch no. 10. It is a biased question favoring OBama and makes any answer by the Republicans appear defensive. My one question would be what the candidates think of requiring photo ID for voters in federal elections and what they would do to insure the integrity of the election process.

You say that Huckabee will be a big winner tonite. If so, as concerns Republicans and Huckabee, more is the pity. Huckabee began his campaign by saying he was running for President, not to be head of the Republican party. Later he dissed Pres Bush about the Iraq war. He has shown me that he has only marginal loyalty to either the Republican party or the Republican President, George Bush. He left Arkansas in the hands of the democrats with only one US congressman still standing. He also left office with a gift to the RATS running the state of close to ONE BILLION dollars surplus in the treasury. No thought of returning the excess money to the over taxed citizens from whom it was extracted. Now Mr Huckabee is off doing his run for President gig. Such an amusing fellow. His continuing road show should be quite entertaining to the big city folks.

Pat Robertson won the Iowa caucus in 1988. Then it was over for him.

Hillary and her husband Bill tell us she is experienced and that is the prime reason for voting for her. Well, the American public is also experienced from the Clinton pure trashy treatment of the White House last time around. We should all be examining the experience we had from their refusal to defend this country and leaving Pres Bush a mess to clean up. In addition, Bill Clinton is making the Iowa rounds telling voters how much he admire his wife and he would vote for her even if he was not married to her. Well, he won’t even stay faithful to her in or out of the White House, yet the two of them, in name only husband and wife, want us to accept their lie of marital togetherness. NO MORE HILL AND BILL. Keep the White House clean.

I have read the whole article and it really reaches for niceness when elaborating the plusses of several of the candidates. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, conceding DEEP SOPHISTICATION is an abuse of both words. Perhaps Peggy Noonan was being New Yorkish in that celebraties who live in open marriages are viewed as sophisticated. The Clintons are polished and practiced in presenting themselves before audiences as a traditional married couple. In fact, since they left the White House with their UHaul of public treasures, Mr. Clinton has been the staple of the tabloids for gadding about with this and that female who all go by the name of Not Mrs. Clinton. So much for the STURDY MIND of Mrs. Clinton who chooses to play this charade with her oaf of a husband.

I want to know why my vote is not being protected from cancellation by a fraudulent vote. What is keeping the federal government from requiring that federal regulations be applied to federal elections? Every excuse used to foil personal ID by a voter has been shown to be bogus and still the obstruction goes on. Every presidential candidate, especially the democrat ones, should be asked if they object to a photo ID being used to prevent voter fraud. The Republican candidates need to make an issue of this. It would give them something substantive to talk about rather than the same ole same ole stump speeches.

In a nutshell-—

Ditto. Especially Huckabee. Every time Huck is on TV he is bellyaching about something. It really has become embarrassing.

What I think is that the press is a vital part of this obvious scheme to circumvent the constitutional limits on terms served by the president of the US. They want the Clintons in the presidency to front for George Sorros and others involved in the effort to change our Republic into a socialist form of government. I think it is telling that the only serious democrat opponents of Hillary are two lightweights, OBama and Edwards. Out of the entire democrat field of potential contenders, these are the only two other viable candidates for the job. The whole time that Pres Bush has served, we have been bombarded with the superior wisdom of one democrat leader after another telling us how inept he is and how smart they are. Why have no heavy hitter democrats with proven experience been willing to come forward and put themselves on the line? This is the reason I believe the fix has been in for Hillary from get go. In spite of this I believe the election is the Republicans to lose. We have superior candidates and if we work together we can win.

"Truth? Bill's running for a third term". You have it exactly right. And I believe that the democrats know very well that Bill will get a third and possibly fourth term if Hillary is elected president. The Clintons corrupt everything they touch. Politics were dirty enough before those two grifters took over the democrat party. They and their democrat party are in the process of trying to get around the 22nd amendment to the constitution which limited the presidential term to two four year stints. If her records are ever released they will disqualify her in the public mind because they will show one of at least two relevant things. One, that she functioned as unelected co-president, and has already had two terms as president. Or, two, the records will show that she did not and is therefore lacking the experience for the job which she claims is hers alone of the others on the democrat ticket. The Clintons are not in this alone, their whole party wants the power to turn this Republic into a socialist government and this 2008 election will seal the deal if they win. Why the Republicans are not informing the American public of this exploitation of the 22nd amendment is beyond me. For that matter, why are not the TRUTHERS shouting this particular truth from their liberal media mountain tops?

“The bottom line is that we cannot trust either the Administration or its possible Democrat or RINO successors to enforce the law.”

It is hard to disagree with that. But continuing the current system would be worse. Under the new law, there is at least the possibility of enforcement. It is frustrating, but not to try this would be just to throw up our hands.

It would work if someone would do it. Now it can’t work even if someone tried.

I’d sooner elect him and have him start enforcing current law - including the “fence law” - then run the risk of these Z-visas and this forgiveness for identity theft, illegal entry and presence, and fraud.
_________________________________________
Well, I guess that’s the whole point, isn’t it? I border enforcement is not enough. We have got to stop businesses from hiring them, and this new law is the way to do it.

As for the Z Visa, it does not seem like the greatest answer to me, but it will work. It will be completely worthless if we do not get employer enforcement, however... and then it would just take us right back to the ‘86 bill, I am afraid.

---

“I will reiterate what I said earlier, not passing this bill for fear that Hillary might be the one implementing the trigger is not really a reason not to pass it”

I don’t think BUSH will implement the trigger
________________________________________

Bush will be long gone before that is developed enough for him to implement it. The first Z Visas aren’t going to be issued for years. This bill just brings all those out of status out into the open and gives them probationary status until the Z visa can be issued (after the trigger is verified).

That’s a good point, but it can’t be fixed the way the law is currently written. That is, even if the current laws were being enforced, it wouldn’t stop the tide. We do not have a good mechanism to enforce the law on employers now. It is illegal to hire them, but difficult to detect it because there is no mechanism to force employers to present all hire information to a central database. They just keep files to be reviewed if an when ICE gets around to investigating them.

If we passed this, the IRS and USCIS would be notified as a matter of course when names, biological data, barcodes and Employment ID numbers did not match. Again, we have nothing like that now.

“The truth is that this new bill does present real enforcement provisions that do not now exist. It is a VAST improvement over the current enforcement scheme.”

The truth is that this will be ignored just as it was in 1986. We are not fools.
______________________________________

Now, that is a good point (as was the sphere barb - oval, sorry). :) It won’t be ignored if we elect somebody like Fred Thompson to enforce it. I know what you are saying, but that is not a reason to keep from passing the best chance at interdiction we have. I think the trigger issue on this is everything. We have got to have someone in office to implement it.

I will reiterate what I said earlier, not passing this bill for fear that Hillary might be the one implementing the trigger is not really a reason not to pass it. We need to make sure Fred Thompson wns, and then it will be the very thing he uses to fix the problem. If Hillary wins, immigration will be the least of our problems.