fred5678, first of all, let’s not tar John McCain with the nonsense of Hillary Clinton.

I only tar McCain with only this single issue – and he deserves it more than any Republican for pushing REWARDS of residency for illegal aliens on the public last Summer.

Hillary is still condemning President Bush for not having passed comprehensive immigration reform, as if there had been no public revolt against last summer’s proposed immigration reform that carried with it what loosely was referred to as amnesty.

It wasn’t amnesty – it was worse. It promised REWARDS of residency for illegal behavior. McCain gets to correctly call his plan not amnesty and confuse the issue because he imposes a small fine bribe to gain precious citizenship.

John McCain has been saying for months (I heard it in person in September 2007) that we have to have law enforcement first.

“FIRST” – that’s exactly the problem. It should be first, last, and ONLY. We don’t need to reward illegal behavior. McCain held the security of this country hostage with his demands for the Z visa. If he had dropped the rewards part, that bill would have sailed through. He insisted on rewards, and enforcement at the national level continues to suffer. McCain IS the problem.

Secondly, your immigration “solution” is to deport all 12 million illegals.

Again, not my solution. Read carefully.

Sounds nice, but you are not factoring in at all the tremendouss resources that it would take to accomplish that task, nor the disruption of the economy from the sudden departure of 12 million people from this country.

More straw man argument – you are not arguing against what I am advocating, just like Bush, Hillary, and McCain do all the time. They continue to deny the third option- which is working just fine, thank you.

John McCain’s point of departure is the same as what most

Wrong. See the Zogby poll. You sound like Karl Rove.

people think is a matter of realism — that we are not in a position to be doing a massive deportation.

Straw man redux.

We can and should deport all illegals who are caught committing crimes, and John McCain has said that. So the question is what do we do?

We certainly don’t want to repeat the same proven mistake as the last seven “amnesties” since 1986, do we?

Right now, we do law enforcement as best we can

Wrong again. Only 4 states are doing it. The national enforcement plan was held hostage by McCain last year.

and until we get the borders secured; however, that is not going to result in deporting 12 million illegals.

Getting weary of this straw man. READ what I say.

So what do we do at some in the future? One thing to consider is to provide an avenue of citizenship that is difficult and is not a reward;

Completely silly. You would award the convicted burglar with the stolen goods, as long as he has to pay a fine bribe.

and that was the intention behind last summer’s bill.

No. The intention of last year’s bill was to REWARD 12 to 20 million with immediate permanent residency, while holding our border security as hostage.

Thirdly, I take it from your comment that you do not disagree with most of my Saturday 8:03 PM post. You are only arguing about the immigration part.

BINGO! You inderstood only one thing I wrote.

Phil Byler on January 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM

fred5678, first of all, let’s not tar John McCain with the nonsense of Hillary Clinton.

I’m only tarring with a single issue – illegal immigration.
McCain, Guliani, Huckabee, Obama, and Edwards all get the same tar. And especially McCain – he was the prime mover behind the shameful Z visa of the shamnesty bill.

Hillary is still condemning President Bush for not having passed comprehensive immigration reform, as if there had been no public revolt against last summer’s proposed immigration reform that carried with it what loosely was referred to as amnesty.

Loosely and incorrectly – see previous posts defining amnesty and rewards.

John McCain has been saying for months (I heard it in person in September 2007) that we have to have law enforcement first.

That’s exactly the problem, as I have explained many times before. It should be the ONLY thing, not the first thing. McCain’s lesson was one of politics – give the people what they want (enforcement) so he can later get what he wants – REWARDS for illegal behavior. Why not be happy with just enforcement – it’s WORKING! And it is what Republicans AND Democrats want – see this poll. Please see these examples - especially the Georgia video.

Secondly, your immigration “solution” is to deport all 12 million illegals.

Are you hard of reading?? Are you a shill for Huckabee, Guliani, McCain, and all the Democrats? You gotta be putting me on. Hillary used the this quote last night: “You would need 20,000 buses in a line to deport all undocumented workers.”

I’ll say it one more time, then you promise to watch this video and hear it from the mouths of self-deporting illegal aliens. I am advocating ENFORCEMENT ONLY, not mass deportations. I have never suggested mass deporatations. Nor has Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, or Romney. You constantly use the tired false argument of Bush, et al.

Sounds nice, but you are not factoring in at all the tremendouss resources that it would take to accomplish that task, nor the disruption of the economy from the sudden departure of 12 million people from this country.

Again, you are not reading, listening, or paying attention. No mass deportations, just solid law enforcement that is working already in 4 states.

John McCain’s point of departure is the same as what most people think is a matter of realism — that we are not in a position to be doing a massive deportation.

Drop your strawman, already.

We can and should deport all illegals who are caught committing crimes, and John McCain has said that. So the question is what do we do? Right now, we do law enforcement as best we can

No, we don’t. Only 4 states are “doing the job Bush and Congress refuse to do.”

and until we get the borders secured; however, that is not going to result in deporting 12 million illegals. So what do we do at some in the future?

We certainly don’t want to REWARD illegal behavior for the eighth time since 1986. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, is the definition of insanity – McCain’s and yours.

One thing to consider is to provide an avenue of citizenship that is difficult and is not a reward; and that was the intention behind last summer’s bill.

So I can steal you car, and if I pay a fine, I get to keep it? Duh. Any reward for a particular behavior begats more of the same behavior. You have never trained a dog not to poop on your rug, have you?

Thirdly, I take it from your comment that you do not disagree with most of my Saturday 8:03 PM post. You are only arguing about the immigration part.

BINGO! You are paying attention at last. There is hope, after all. Please, please, read my previous posts. I grow weary of trying to explain to otherwise good folk who think that rewarding, in any way, illegal behavior will ever stop the illegal behavior.

Phil Byler on January 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Secondly, your immigration “solution” is to deport all 12 million illegals. Sounds nice, but you are not factoring in at all the tremendouss resources that it would take to accomplish that task, nor the disruption of the economy from the sudden departure of 12 million people from this country. John McCain’s point of departure is the same as what most people think is a matter of realism — that we are not in a position to be doing a massive deportation. We can and should deport all illegals who are caught committing crimes, and John McCain has said that. So the question is what do we do? Right now, we do law enforcement as best we can and until we get the borders secured; however, that is not going to result in deporting 12 million illegals. So what do we do at some in the future? One thing to consider is to provide an avenue of citizenship that is difficult and is not a reward; and that was the intention behind last summer’s bill.

Thirdly, I take it from your comment that you do not disagree with most of my Saturday 8:03 PM post. You are only arguing about the immigration part.

At least then it would then be “official.”

God help us if either one is the nominee for the republicans.

You say what about immigration? The problem with immigration is that we just cannot do nothing, which is what we have been doing for 20 years. We have had de facto amnesty because the the law enforcement provisions in the immigration law signed by President Reagan were not enforced.

Let’s try one more time. McCain’s excellent military record and strong stance on the WOT does not mean that he is right on illegal immigration. national security is meaningless withou border security, and you will NEVER have border security, no matter how high and sturdy a fence you build, unless you remove the attraction to future border crossers. The attraction is periodic ‘amnesties’ which is not amnesty, but a REWARD.

‘Amnesty’ is forgiveness for past misdeeds – it is not a REWARD for illegal behavior. ‘Amnesty’ had been misused by all parties to describe rewards – not forgiveness of past crimes. How about we give true amnesty to all illegal aliens (no fines and no jail time) but not reward them with residency in our country – the exact thing they stole in the first place?

If a burglar broke into your home and stole your plasma TV,
would you object if the judge fined the burglar $300 (McCain’s “no amnesty – they have to pay a fine” strategy) but let the burglar KEEP YOUR TV?? Of course not – so why should we reward illegal aliens with their ill-gotten goods? It will only encourage millions more to cross our border, no matter how high a fence we build. You have to stop giving REWARDS of residency via “amnesty” or the flood will never stop. Why is that so hard to understand?

McCain wants to REWARD illegal aliens with a “pathway to citizenship” with the Z visa, which provides a generous cynical 24 hours for DHS to process the applications of over 12 million illegal aliens – background check and health check – or they would get immediate permanent residency. How more cynical could it be??

Why can’t he be satisfied with only strict law enforcement and not insist on REWARDS, as 4 states (including his own Arizona!) have now done out of frustration with Congress? And it’s WORKING!

McCain and Hillary basically said the same thing on TV news tonight: “You can’t deport 12 to 20 million illegal aliens THEREFORE we have to make them citizens”. B___S___T, to use a Navy term that McCain can understand. Both of them and all pro-”amnesty” proponents ignore the enforcement only option. They held America’s border security hostage last summer, denying increased enforcement, by demanding REWARDS for illegal aliens. America’s response: the capitol switchboard was shut down in protest. Mccain has not learned his lesson – he just wants to defer the rewards until after we have full enforcement. Why not just stop at enforcement and skip the rewards? See the only poll that offered all three choices – the results were overwhelming in favor of enforcement only.

Last summer’s legislation was an attempt at comprehensive reform

demanding rewards for law-breakers in return for enforcing our laws.

that did include strong law enforcement provisions.

Why not stop there? Why insist on adding REWARDS to the bill?

What John McCain understands is that the American people just did not trust that the law enforcement provisions in last summer’s proposed legislation would be enforced. If those law enforcement provisions were enforced, then you would not have de facto amnesty.

Exactly. But stop there and don’t add REWARDS of residency and ‘pathway to citizenship’.

Phil Byler on January 12, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Maybe you would like to see how the correct solution is working already in 4 states. And here is what McCain’s (and Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, and Guliani) strategy ignores – a shanty town complete with brothels and Sunday Mass – in San Diego’s backyard. This will just perpetuate as long as you continue to offer the enticement of REWARDS of residency. No thanks.

Independents are what carried John McCain in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won the most Republican votes. Why do independents get to decide who the Republican nominee is? Shouldn’t Republicans get to pick their own nominee for President?

Betrayal, deceit, corruption and John McCain

While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 — just a month after dumping his crippled wife and securing a divorce.

Let me preface my explanation, though, by referring to the fact that I care deeply about who will be the next Commander in Chief. My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab and paratroop wings) who for 15 months until October served as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq and for his service he earned a Bronze Star and an Army Commendation Medal for Valor for actions under fire. My younger son will be commissioned a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant in May after college graduation this semester having already passed officer training at Quantico. So I have flesh and blood on the line.

John McCain, the son and grandson of U.S. Navy Admirals and a U.S. Navy combat aviator, has spent a lifetime of service ot the nation. He is a genuine war hero and patriot. Since his election to Congress in 1982, John McCain has been involved in military affairs and national security matters; that is 25 years of experience.

The Iraq War has been a test case. He has visited the troops often; he voiced his criticism of the Rumsfeld light footprint strategy as leaving too few boots on the ground; and then he vocally and forcefully supported the surge under the leadership of General Petraeus from the start. While Democrats declared defeat and most Republicans either were looking for a way out (Senator Lugar) or were looking at their feet (Governor Romney), John McCain never wavered in his support of the troops and their mission. I know because my older son was an infantry platoon leader when truly supporting the troops was not politically popular. John McCain has been proved right; he took the positions he did because he knows his stuff.

That John McCain knows his stuff on military matters, national security and foreign affairs and is the best candidate to be Commander in Chief is reflected in the endorsements he has received: former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig; former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball; former national security officials Robert Inman, James Woolsey, Tom Ridge, Bud MacFarlane and Tom Kean; former Cabinet Secretaries (outside State) James Schlesinger, Jack Kemp and Robert Mosbacher; and national security savy Senator Joe Lieberman.

You say what about immigration? The problem with immigration is that we just cannot do nothing, which is what we have been doing for 20 years. We have had de facto amnesty because the the law enforcement provisions in the immigration law signed by President Reagan were not enforced. Last summer’s legislation was an attempt at comprehensive reform that did include strong law enforcement provisions. What John McCain understands is that the American people just did not trust that the law enforcement provisions in last summer’s proposed legislation would be enforced. If those law enforcement provisions were enforced, then you would not have de facto amnesty. But for now, however, what is a political imperative is that there be law enforcement provisons of current immigration law be enforced, and John McCain has stated steps that need to be taken, including the deportation of illegals cought committing crimes.

So, when you consider the whole of the matter and not be stuck in a mental rut about last summer’s debate over immigration reform, then it is not a close question: no one comes close to John McCain in terms of qualifications to be the next Commander in Chief.

See Allah’s later updates here regarding this developing controversy. Which seems to be a real thing, not just us Republicans saying ha-ha to a minor fooferall. The problem seems to be that whenever Hillary or her spokesmen say anything negative……

I love this blog, but I must say … the photo used of McCain makes the person who chose it as biased as the AP or NYTs. You are becoming who you detest. Sad

.
He does it to everybody except MM and MLK, so I wouldn’t necessarily call it biased.

She is staking out policy ground slightly to the left of Obama on domestic issues, and noticeably won the votes of those on lower incomes and without college degrees. In the words of that Clinton adviser: “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.“

All together now, “Imagine if a Republican adviser had said this.”

It should be fine to attack the superficiality of people who support Obama because he’s the Black messiah. Thus, let’s demand that Republicans have a right to speak about race, not that Democrats are forbidden to speak about race. Enabling the racial Inquisition by demanding that we include Democrats will only empower the leftist arbiters of what constitutes racism even more. We need to smash these Torquemadas instead.

You said MCCain is strong on military issues and national security. Curious how you don’t include the security of the borders as the MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. He is WEAK on national security because he refuses to fix the immigration problem.

Go Fred!

http://www.fred08.com/

don’t understand the McCain lovefest.

It’s an age old formula. Mainstream Republicans (and perhaps Dems as well) want to support the candidate who they feel has the best chance of winning in the General. That’s what happened in CA when Schwarzeneggar got elected.

Therefore, are we looking at a McCain/Clinton matchup?

Fox and Friends Saturday (Kelly Wright, Page Hopkins, and Greg Kelly) is getting pretty racy. They were discussing the twins who were separated at birth that met, got married, found out they were twins, and then had their marriage annulled….. Well, they did a split screen of Paige with herself inside a heart. Greg Kelly said hey that was pretty cool and all the guys would like to see some Paige on Paige action! Well, it escalated from there until they did the same split screen with Greg. He told the crew to get that crap of the screen. Paige replies saying that it was OK for her to do some Paige on Paige but it wasn’t OK for Greg. he said thats right and every guy watching knows exactly what he was talking about.

HAHAHA! What a riot!

Oh, and poor Kelly, who by my recollection is a regular church goer, just sat there shaking his head and laughing.

don’t understand the McCain lovefest. He’s not a good speaker, he has a bad temper when challenged, he does odd things out of the blue, and besides his Iraq policy he stinks on issues. Plus, I thought everyone hated the Iraq war? If they hate it so much, why are they in love with the #1 war hawk?

froghat on January 12, 2008 at 1:29 AM

Beacuse…anybody who can score a hit against the US Constitution has got to be a good guy in the minds of the Democrats. McCain will go down in history for his McCain/Fiengold Act and little else if the story stops here. I shutter to think of the story going on.

Fred Thompson pointed out his own differences with McCain on immigration, taxation, and supporting conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees.

Fred, the conservative, is endorsed by the New York Conservative Party.

Fredmentum!

Muy excelente.

MB4 on January 12, 2008 at 1:25 AM

Vielen Dank und Tack så mycket