posted on June 29, 2007 08:21:01 AM new
"""Linda_K
posted on June 28, 2007 03:14:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who want to come out of their 'darkness'/blind, head in sand mode....
notice any names you recognize that DID support this bill that didn't pass? ROFLOL"""
Ya, I recognized bushit's name
"""Thank God for small favors. So ALL haven't lost their minds, totally"""
posted on June 29, 2007 09:27:59 AM newWell, Profe, since Bush is a liberal, those who support him are liberals too. After all, they are supporting nation building, big government and big spending.
You can say that again, and your statement about disaffected conservatives is right on the money too. Here is an example of one such group, and I like very much what they have to say. I particularly like their about us page. Link first for those who can post, but not read lengthy pieces.
Bruce Fein, among other things a writer for the Wash. Times
Bob Barr, A Georgia representative, Reagan appointed judge and occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and serves as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association.
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Richard Viguerie, Reagan's ( and others') principal fundraiser and author of the book, "How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause".
Hardly a group of foaming at the mouth liberals.
I don't have time right now to put a bunch of quote tags on the piece below. It is from their page linked above.
The American Freedom Agenda’s (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution’s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and repeatedly claims that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.
President Bush asserts the power to detain American citizens indefinitely as illegal combatants at Guantanamo Bay based on evidence extracted by torture, with a presumption of guilt, and before a biased military tribunal. He is intercepting or claims the right to intercept the conversations, emails, and letters of Americans and to break and enter their homes on his say-so alone. The President is shielding counter-terrorism programs from congressional scrutiny by bogus invocations of executive privilege. He is disregarding hundreds of provisions of bills he has signed into law by declaring them unconstitutional. He has authorized the prosecution of alleged war criminals with secret and coerced evidence. With the consent of Congress, he has suspended the Great Writ of habeas corpus for alleged war criminals or illegal enemy combatants. He has created secret prisons abroad to interrogate kidnapped suspected terrorists or delivered them to foreign intelligence organizations anticipating torture. He has denied that Congress may limit his power to initiate warfare. And he has threatened criminal prosecutions of the news media for exposing his usurpations. Now is no time for summer soldiers or sunshine patriots in defense of American freedom.
The 10-point AFA statutory agenda would repeal the Military Commissions Act’s authorization of military commissions for the trial of alleged war criminals based on coerced or secret evidence. The trials should proceed in civilian courts or by courts-martial which feature time-honored procedural safeguards to insure reliable verdicts.
The Act’s suspension of habeas corpus for alleged war criminals or unlawful enemy combatants would also be repealed. The Great Writ of habeas corpus requires the executive branch to justify detentions before an independent and impartial judge. Habeas corpus has been a hallmark of the rule of law since Magna Charta in 1215.
The Act’s open-ended definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” would be repealed. It reaches both citizens and non-citizens,and any person affiliated in marginal ways with international terrorist organizations. The substitute definition would confine unlawful enemy combatants to persons engaged in actual hostilities against the United States.
The National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 would be denied funding. Appropriations would also be prohibited for any executive spying programs that have not been fully disclosed to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The state secrets privilege would be revoked. It denies victims of constitutional violations any remedy where proof of the government’s wrong doing would disclose national security information, for example, an agreement by the United States to assist kidnappings by a foreign intelligence service.
Presidential signing statements, which declare the President’s intent to disregard provisions of bills he has signed into law because he asserts they are unconstitutional, would be subject to challenge by the House and Senate collectively in the Supreme Court. The signing statements are tantamount to line-item vetoes which unconstitutionally encroach on legislative prerogatives.
Legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate would be empowered to decide claims of executive privilege invoked by the President to withhold information from Congress based on national security. Controlled by the legislative branch, the committee rulings would be final and binding.
A Sword of Damocles would be removed from the media by creating a journalist exception for the publication of national defense information leaked by the executive branch, Congress, or otherwise.
Renditions to foreign countries where torture or worse can be reasonably anticipated or secret prisons operated or employed by the United States abroad would be prohibited. Both practices have been prominent features of the "war on global terrorism," but are flagrantly inconsistent with the rule of law. They invite chilling injustices, for example, MaharArar, that fuel the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda and thus make the United States less safe.
Finally, the President’s authority to list organizations or persons as implicated in global terrorism based on secret evidence, a marginal connection with terrorists, and no opportunity for genuine judicial review would be repealed. The criminal law, including conspiracy and aiding and abetting provisions, has proven sufficient to deter, to thwart, and to punish terrorism in all is moods and tenses consistent with due process safeguards indispensable to reliable verdicts.
The AFA eschews any sunset clauses. It is intended to celebrate an enlightened equilibrium among the three branches of government for the ages.
posted on June 29, 2007 11:39:45 AM new
You're welcome helen and mingo. These diehards whose conservatism is defined by blaming boogeyman liberals without the slightest examination of what has become of classical conservatism under the hand of the neoconservatives make me laugh out loud. Their time is thankfully up though. Lots of real conservatives have had enough of their wanton spending and warmaking and are beginning to speak up.
posted on June 29, 2007 09:23:20 PM new
Thanks CC. I used to consider myself a conservative, until these charlatans, these pod people took over. Makes me sick.
posted on June 30, 2007 04:37:15 AM new
Me too. They are far removed from any political philosophy, be it conservative, liberal or anything in between. One of my favorite authors, Taylor Caldwell, had an opinion, which was reflected in her writing, that the world is run by a relative few vastly wealthy and powerful businessmen. She believed they orchestrated every important event, manipulated governments,selected leaders and started/ended wars. Not such a far-fetched idea, eh?
posted on June 30, 2007 06:00:30 AM new
""She believed they orchestrated every important event, manipulated governments,selected leaders and started/ended wars. Not such a far-fetched idea, eh? ""
posted on June 30, 2007 07:25:09 AM new
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
William Kristol, Chairman
===================
ROFLOL and the radical left feels 'threatened' by the above?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 30, 2007 07:25:15 AM new
Clicked on a link and surprise , surprise....the list of names includes Wolfy, Scooter, DICK Cheney, Quayle, Forbes, and a few others who are our REAL CIC.
posted on June 30, 2007 08:25:54 AM new
The PNAC was rejected by Bill Clinton and accepted as protocol by George Bush. The colossal failure is clear for all to see today.
Pitt describes the plan in 2003....
Blood Money
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 27 February 2003
"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
- President Dwight Eisenhower, January 1961.
George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration.
In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed.
The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.
PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.
Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.
Who is PNAC? Its members include:
* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;
* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;
* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;
* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;
* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;
* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;
* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;
* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.
The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.
The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.
The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.
Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."
This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.
Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.
At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.
Thus, the payout.
It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.
Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.
More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.
Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.
Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.
Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.
Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.
One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems, amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.
In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.
Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.
This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.
There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.
This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.
Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been governed for 227 years.
And yes, of course, a great many people will die.
It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.
Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.
posted on June 30, 2007 08:36:07 AM new
"PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict."
clinton had no problem vetoing bills he didn't agree with. But NOT this bill. He signed it....HIS signature made it law...and no one had a gun at his head making him agree with this change in American policy....to remove saddam from power.
Try to twist it anyway you feel you need to distort the FACTS....but clinton signed the bill making it law.
Liberals just can't take responsibility for what their party has done. Like voting FOR the war in Iraq. No, it's the big, bad conservatives who are the only ones responsible.
Again, living in reality is NOT a liberal trait.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Notice just how much in AGREEMENT about Iraq clinton and President Bush were.
One difference is one had the backbone to finally TAKE ACTION.....not just continue TALKING about it - while our American interests and soldiers continued to be murdered by the terrorists.
FIVE attacks during the clinton administration....then 9-11. Because the dems were too busy TALKKING and twisting their hands on what should be done.
And now old hillary is talking like a hawk....lol....she'll SHOOT THEM DOWN - to get them to 'listen', while she wants to admit defeat and surrender to the terrorists we ARE already fighting.
WOW...what courage...what strength. LOL LOL LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 30, 2007 09:13 AM ]
posted on June 30, 2007 09:51:12 AM new
"""Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.""
posted on June 30, 2007 10:29:30 PM new
Since MOST polls show that MOST Americans do NOT want illegals to be given amnesty....or anything pretending not to be amnesty....I thought these remarks from the dems/liberals were very interesting.
They ALL support giving illegals amnesty.
So...might want to remember that before you vote for any one of them.
Just think....all 12-20 million illegals....and then what? three to four 'family members' that they can bring here also? Maybe even more - just think of the numbers. LOL LOL LOL WOW what population growth we'll experience. MOSTLY with POOR, UNEDUCATED workers who will continue to be a burden to our already heavy tax burden and socialist programs.
Just can't wait for one of these liberals/dems to be elected. Get those pocketbooks out and be ready to pay BIG TIME. The liberals can't WAIT to raise your taxes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the major Democratic presidential candidates were at Walt Disney World for a forum sponsored by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Of the GOP candidates, only California Rep. Duncan Hunter accepted the group's invitation to speak.
With the failure of an immigration reform bill in the Senate still fresh, all the candidates vowed to pursue comprehensive immigration reform in the future. All said they support a path to citizenship for the 12 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama defended his vote last year to build a 700-mile fence across the U.S.-Mexican border, saying it was just one component of a robust immigration bill he had worked hard to negotiate.
"Nobody has been a more consistent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform than I have been," Obama said. "Do I believe fences make good neighbors and are the right approach? No, I don't believe that."
linda's note - see what I mean? They SAY one thing then VOTE the opposite way
Clinton and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden also voted for the bill containing the fence provision.
Obama also promised a greater foreign policy focus on Latin America if elected president.
"It's not enough for us to have a Latin American policy based on not liking (Venezuelan president) Hugo Chavez and not liking Fidel Castro," Obama said.
linda's note: Yep, we should LOVE one another and be as huggie/lovie-dovie with them as carter is - forget they're COMMUNISTS and totally ANTI-American.
Biden drew applause when he noted that as many as 40 percent of illegal immigrants were not Hispanic.
"It's a race to the bottom - who out there can be the most anti-Hispanic," Biden said of the immigration debate. "Why is it we only view it through the prism of Spanish speaking people?"
linda's note: wouldn't matter if they were one eyed purple people eaters....they BROKE OUR LAWS....came here illegally. What part of THAT makes liberals excuse them from BREAKING our laws?
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards told the crowd his rural hometown of Robbins, N.C. was now half Hispanic. "They came for the same reason my parents came - they wanted their children to have a better life," Edwards said.
linda's note: LOL LOL LOL THIS from a man whose wife makes public HATEFUL statements about his POOR NEIGHBORS - what hypocrites - how phony
Several of the candidates laced their remarks with Spanish, with varying degrees of success.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, fully bilingual from his days as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic, cracked up the crowd when he told them, in Spanish, "I'm the only Gringo in the Senate" to speak the language.
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, saying he believed all American children should learn to speak Spanish, gave his closing statement in Spanish while apologizing in advance for his accent.
Audience members at first seemed unsure how to respond, but in the end appeared somewhat charmed at his efforts to soldier through.
"It worked, but barely," Democratic Texas State Rep. Rafael Anchia said of Kucinich's effort.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson won cheers from the audience as the first Hispanic candidate to run for president. He, too, spoke Spanish to the crowd, calling them "Mi gente, mi familia" - my people, my family. "I'm not running as a Latino candidate. I'm running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino," he told supporters. A fluent Spanish speaker, Richardson called his supporters at the association "Mi gente, mi familia," - my people, my family.
linda's note: This takes the cake. He's one of two or three governors who declared a state emergency for his state because of the DAMAGE illegals were doing to his state. Just another hypocrite
Florida, which intends to hold its important primary Jan. 29, is more than 20 percent Hispanic.
Yep...it's election time. Forget the damage that illegals have brought on our nation. Kiss their asses for the hispanic votes. After all, the taxpayers will be the ones paying for their being here illegally. But don't piss off the legal hispanic voters by actually ENFORCING our LAWS.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 30, 2007 10:36 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2007 04:25:09 AM new
I wonder when linduh, who says the liberals can't face reality, wil realize that this bill was backed by George Bush, the repug president?
posted on July 4, 2007 05:18:37 AM new
Helenjw
posted on January 1, 2007 03:56:17 PM
Oh, cut the crap, Mingo. Here, like at OTWA your clinging attention to Linda exacerbates the problem. If you want to continue it's certainly your prerogative to do so
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
