Tancredo Trades Principle for Politics, Blows Immigration Stance
Dec 20, 2007 Immigration, Political
Tom Tancredo officially dropped out of the GOP race today and he threw his support behind Mitt Romney. Tancredo has great positions on immigration but he is a one trick pony. All he ever talked about was immigration. I am sure there are other issues he has positions on but he failed to come across as anything more than an advocate for tough immigration law enforcement. The one trick got old fast for a number of people who realize that there are many issues in addition to immigration. In dropping out Tancredo had the chance to show how principled he was with regard to his signature issue. Unfortunately, he failed miserably.
Tom Tancredo threw his support behind Mitt Romney who Tancredo met with to receive assurances that Romney would be tough on the issue of immigration. In throwing his support behind Romney Tancredo stated that he was “the best hope for our cause.” This is where I have problems and where it appears to me that he abandoned his principles and went for the politics of the issue. Romney is not as bad as Giuliani or Huckabee when it comes to immigration but he has had his issues with it. I don’t believe that Romney should be held accountable if the company he hired employed illegals. It is the responsibility of the company to do that. However, the company in question had been caught using ILLEGALS before and Romney failed to keep an eye on them or to replace them all together. It took a news report showing admitted ILLEGALS working on his property for him before he fired the company. This man is running for the presidency. He is under much higher scrutiny than the guy next door and he should have been on top of this. He says he is tough on immigration but it does not appear that way.
Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the only remaining GOP candidates with records that reflect tough immigration policies. If Tancredo wanted to show that he was absolutely concerned about the issue he should have selected one of these candidates to throw his support behind. Ron Paul has a very good plan with regard to immigration and while I am not in favor of many of his other policies I like his stance on immigration and our borders. Fred Thompson has an equally good plan at his site as does Duncan Hunter. Any of these guys would have been a better choice to be “the best hope for our cause.” Yet, Tancredo neglected each of these people, people who have stands and would not need to provide reassurance, in order to support Romney, a man with questionable views on Immigration. Before the Romney crowd beats me up, remember, Tancredo needed to get reassurance. That is usually not necessary if you have been clear and consistent.
It is unfortunate but Tancredo traded his principles. It gives the impression that Tancredo was not all that serious about immigration because he could not back one of the people who is actually tough on the issue. Since that was his only issue he could have at least picked someone who held the same beliefs. If Romney gets elected and he ends up signing an amnesty bill Tancredo and his efforts will go to the ash heap of history. He will be viewed as a man who backed the guy who gave the country away.
It is unfortunate that Tancredo could not get this right but at least it shows that he would not have been a good president. If he blew this easy choice this badly think about how terribly he would do with judges, justices, and just about any other appointee.
Source:
Des Moines Register

Tags: fred thompson, Immigration, mike huckabee, mitt romney, ron paul, rudy giuliani, tom tancredo
Hillary Finally Takes a Position
Nov 14, 2007 Immigration, Political
Hillary Clinton finally took a position on issuing driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS (she calls them undocumented) by declaring that she agrees with New York Governor Spitzer’s decision not to issue them. Hillary sort of supported his position when he was going to issue them, then said no, then say yes and left it at a maybe. Since Spitzer has finally decided the Hildabeast figured it was OK to take a stand. She also indicated that, as President, she will not issue driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS and that she will fix the immigration problem in America.
The President is not the person to fix these things. Congress is the body that is supposed to come up with bills that address these kinds of issues. After it is worked out it is sent to the President to be signed into law. The President can tell Congress how he wants things and they can work together but the biggest thing the President gets to do is sign it into law or veto it. Hillary Clinton will have little success with immigration if the Congress does not act. She had a better chance of doing something as part of the Senate and yet I can’t seem to find any bills she has authored to address the problem. The only thing she has done is criticize GOP efforts to toughen criminal laws regarding ILLEGALS and blame the Bush administration for a problem caused by Democrats long before he ever took office. In fact, Bush and Congress tried to ram amnesty down our throats and Hillary voted for that plan. She wants to give them licenses but not until she gives them amnesty. Hillary Clinton votes to help ILLEGALS.
I am sure this is not the last we have heard on this issue. If a poll comes out in a few weeks indicating that Hispanics are supporting another candidate and they cite this stance as the reason, Hillary will change faster than you can shake a stick.
Tags: amnesty, Congress, criminal laws, Democrats, governor spitzer, hildabeast, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, immigration problem, President, take a stand, veto
O’Hare Invaded by ILLEGALS
Nov 8, 2007 Immigration
Nearly two dozen people have been arrested and charged with crimes in an operation that involved ILLEGALS working at O’Hare airport. The ILLEGALS had security badges and were able to gain access to many areas of the airport. I am sure there are those who will say that these poor people meant no harm and were only looking for work. That might be true but they once again broke the law and this time the national security implications are even worse than their violation of our borders.
It is one thing to be able to sneak across hundreds of miles of unattended borders but to sneak into an airport that is supposed to have a high level of security raises a lot of concerns about just how secure we are. Perhaps these people meant no harm but if they did they would have had virtually unfettered access to anything they wanted to destroy and they could have put thousands of lives at risk. Fortunately, they were arrested as were their employers who developed the scheme that used phony Social Security numbers and ID badges. I hope the employers get a very long jail sentence.
I realize that we need to hold employers accountable and in this case, they are. I have often written that huge fines against employers who hire ILLEGALS would solve a lot of the problems (and increased pressure is working in some states). However, in this case the employers, or at least one of them, is suspected of being here ILLEGALLY. Since people who come here ILLEGALLY have no respect for the law it is not a stretch to say that ILLEGAL employers will have the same disregard as is clearly demonstrated in this case.
We need immigration reform and we can have it immediately by enforcing the immigration laws we have. We can make it a felony to be here ILLEGALLY (it is a felony when one is caught crossing the border ILLEGALLY but not when they are caught being here ILLEGALLY). We can also ensure that the United States Code that makes it every law enforcement agency’s job to enforce immigration law is followed. Police in all states need to be given the power to arrest and detain on the suspicion of being an ILLEGAL immigrant (in accordance with established code).
There are many other things that can be done but that would take politicians from their important jobs of running for office, seeking donations, and ruining the country.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: illegals, Immigration, immigration laws, immigration reform, national security implications, o hare airport, security badges, social security numbers, united states code
Follow the Bouncing Hillary Ball
Nov 7, 2007 Immigration, Political
Hillary Rodham is still having trouble with the issue of driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. It has been over a week since she answered the question about it several different ways and twenty-four hours after her waffle she came out in support of giving ILLEGALS licenses. It would appear, despite her claims of being clear on the issues, that she has not been clear on this one. In her latest nuance, Rodham says that issuing licenses to ILLEGALS should depend on the state. She stated that in a state like New York there is a huge security problem and a lot of ILLEGALS but that in other states it might not be a big deal. I guess the idea that it is wrong to reward ILLEGAL activity at all has never crossed her mind.
I know I have indicated that Rodham is a poll driven candidate but it would appear as if she is on the other side of public opinion on this one. About 77% of Americans surveyed [Washington Times] do not favor allowing ILLEGALS to get a driver’s license and yet, depending on when you talk to her, Rodham is for it, against it, for it and against it, or believes it is up to individual states [Breitbart]. Perhaps she is in favor of it because people often register to vote at the same time they get a license (motor voter) and if they do not have to prove they are legal when getting the license they do not have to prove they are eligible to vote. Obviously, it helps Democratic candidates to have a huge number of ILLEGAL voters on the books and Rodham is probably pandering to that large contingency. A huge Hispanic vote cannot hurt her in the election.
Obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right (though ILLEGALS have few rights under our Constitution) and bestowing a privilege on people who do not deserve it is wrong and counter productive. If the government of any state rewards bad behavior then the result is more bad behavior. By allowing ILLEGALS to get licenses we are telling them that what they did is perfectly OK and that they can continue to break the law. There is a lot of public outrage when ILLEGALS break the law and commit some terrible crime but what should we expect? We do not punish them for their initial bad behavior so they continue to exhibit bad behavior.
This is not to say that there are not millions of hard working, good people in this country who happen to be here ILLEGALLY but the fact is, even the good ones broke the law to get here. Hillary Rodham is fond of blaming this on Bush and saying that this country does not have an immigration policy. She is wrong on both counts. First of all, Ted Kennedy gave us both of the huge amnesties of the past and he promised after the last one that it would never be necessary again because the Congress would fix the problems. Here we are 23 years later and we still have the mess but we have millions more ILLEGALS. Kennedy and the Congress dropped the ball long before George Bush became president. Additionally, Bush tried to give a huge amnesty package that was defeated by the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress after the public outcry.
As for the idea that this country does not have an immigration policy, this is plain hogwash. We have plenty of laws concerning entering this country and we have rules that are supposed to be followed. The problem is not that we do not have a policy, the problem is that this country fails to enforce it. Instead of securing the border and stopping the flow of ILLEGALS, our government jails the border patrol agents who are trying to enforce the law while people continue to walk in unabated.
The United States Congress needs to get its head out of its rear end and start enforcing the laws we have and we need to start deporting ILLEGALS we catch. We need to jail those who break the law and we need to hold judges and elected officials responsible for failures in the system. Unfortunately, this issue will not receive the proper attention until an ILLEGAL rapes or murders a politician’s or judge’s wife or daughter or until one of their family members (or the entire family) is wiped out by an ILLEGAL driving a vehicle with or without the license Hillary wants them to have.
As for Rodham, she has bounced this ball back and forth for more than a week and is still unclear as to her position. I imagine it will change a few more times before the primary and she will take a more firm stance against it, should she make it to the general election. Hillary fails to understand that ILLEGAL behavior is wrong and that people should not be rewarded for it.
But, that should not surprise us. She and hubby Bill have been involved in a lot of illegal activity. Their people have also been involved in illegal activity for the benefit of the Clintons. Those people are rewarded for what they do, no matter how wrong it is.
Sandy Berger, anyone [The Hillary Project].
Tags: Congress, Democrats, Hillary, illegal activity, illegals, Immigration, public opinion, security problem, waffle
Ghost Whispers; MA Dems Speak for the Dead
Oct 12, 2007 Uncategorized
There is an election next Tuesday to fill a vacant US Congressional seat in the state of Massachusetts and the Democrats have sunk to a new low, if you can believe they could get lower, by invoking the name of the Republican candidate’s dead brother. Here are the players in this story:
- Jim Ogonowski - Republican candidate for the vacant seat
- Niki Tsongas - Democratic candidate for the vacant seat
- John Ogonowski - Deceased brother of Republican candidate. John was a pilot of an airplane that was hijacked on 9/11 and he was killed when the terrorists who hijacked it, crashed it.
- Peg Ogonowski - Spouse of deceased pilot John
- Chester G. Atkins - Former Congressman who held the contended seat until he was defeated in 1992. Now has a public affairs firm
Jim is running for an open seat in Congress and he is very much against ILLEGAL immigration. He does not believe that ILLEGALS should receive amnesty and he believes that immigrants should have to learn English. His opponent, Niki, has a very opposite view on ILLEGAL immigration, much closer to the Ted Kennedy school which is why we have had two amnesties and now have millions of ILLEGALS here. Interestingly, immigration was the issue that cost Atkins the seat, oh so long ago. Atkins was an advocate for Cambodians coming here and settling in the Merrimack Valley district. John had no problem with the Cambodians because they came here LEGALLY. He allowed them to farm a portion of his property to grow specialty crops, stuff used in the Asian community. Atkins lost because of his support of the Cambodians.
Fast forward to today and Atkins, who supports Niki, is saying that Jim’s dead brother John would side with Tsongas on the immigration issue and that he had a better understanding than Jim does. Jim states that this is ridiculous because the Cambodians came here legally and the immigrants that Jim is against are all the ILLEGAL ones. Like many Americans, Jim does not like the way ILLEGALS come here, use services, get Social Security, take jobs, crowd emergency rooms and speak their native language and expect us to do the same. Jim does not agree with ILLEGAL immigration.
I cannot imagine that the people of this area of Massachusetts would vote for Tsongas and support allowing ILLEGALS free reign. These folks put Atkins out of office for supporting LEGAL immigrants so I find it very hard to imagine that they would support someone who is siding with the ILLEGAL ones. I know this is Massachusetts but even as liberal as they are, they have to be able to see the difference and which candidate supports our laws and which one does not. The problem is that the Liberals always neglect to discuss the ILLEGAL part. They always say that we are against immigrants (just before they call us racists) when none of us are against immigration, we are against ILLEGAL law breakers who sneak in like thieves.
Back to John and Atkins’ claim that John would have supported the ILLEGALS and was better than Jim, who Atkins calls a racist for his views. Just to clear it up, Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality. It is an old trick from the left’s play book to call the race card. No matter what the issue, they will find a way to call a Republican a racist regardless of the circumstances. Let me make this clear for Atkins and any other idiot who was educated in the public school system, Expecting people to obey the law, expecting the government to enforce the law, and refusing to reward those who break the law are not racist acts. If a black man robs a bank and his white neighbor saw it and calls the police and a white cop arrests him, the white guys are not racists. They simply respected the rule of law, something the left finds increasingly difficult. However, invoking the name of a dead man who cannot attest to the veracity of the claims made by Atkins is just wrong. It is also plain wrong to bring up his name and put the family through this.
To her credit, Peg called this politics at its worst and she was right. The Democrats in this situation chose to use a hero from 9/11 to score points with voters. If this is not bad enough, the dead hero is the Republican candidate’s brother. They are trying to convince voters that even Jim’s brother would be on their side. As Jim points out, it is ridiculous. He states that it is ridiculous for the Atkins to make like he would know John better than his family and, as Jim indicates, he would not likely support ILLEGALS especially since many of the 9/11 hijackers were here ILLEGALLY. Peg and Jim both question whether Atkins actually knew John. Neither remember him ever mentioning Atkins and since John is dead it would not be beyond a Democrat to do pretend he knew him just to score political points.
I hope the voters of Massachusetts will see through all of this and will elect Jim Ogonowski and his tough stance on ILLEGAL immigration. I hope that they will not only reject Tsongas for the support of ILLEGALS but also for the lowness to which the Democrats have sunk in this race.
One last thing. Ever notice how when President Bush mentions 9/11 the left goes nuts. They claim he is using scare tactics and is using 9/11 to stir emotions. They tell us that it happened 6 years ago and we need to move on, let it go, blah, blah. Interesting how they will invoke the memory of someone killed on 9/11 if they think it will further their quest for power.
I also think it is worth noting that it is possible that John would support the Democrats. It would not be the first time in history that dead people supported Democrats though usually they show their support by voting for them on election day…
If you live in the 5th District in Massachusetts and you want to honor the memory of John, vote for his brother Jim next Tuesday.
This story is from the AP.

Others:
Blogs for Bush
Tags: 9/11, Democrats, election, illegals, Immigration, Massachusetts, Political Commentary
Loading ...
Loading...

