Say Anything Blog

Here is one from the cry me a fricken river department: illegal aliens are sucking the life out of this country and people are sick and tired of paying taxes and affording benifits to people that have no right to be in this country. What part of illegal do you not understand.

ID law packs fear factor

By Jennifer Brown, Allison Sherry and Elizabeth Aguilera

Denver Post Staff Writers

Article Last Updated: 08/05/2007 12:32:06 AM MDT

Hospitals and nonprofits that help the needy say a law barring state funds for illegal immigrants has kept away those eligible for aid.

David Dawson, executive director of Radio Reading Service of the Rockies, works the control board as a volunteer reads the Boulder Camera on the other side of the glass. The Radio Reading Service of the Rockies is struggling with concerns over House Bill 1023 because they get about 2/3 of their funding from state/local contracts and they don’t know how to “prove” that all of the beneficiaries of the non-profits are legal citizens. The executive director worries that the law will hurt legal senior citizens. (Post / RJ Sangosti)A homeless man tried to yank out his abscessed tooth with pliers and fishing line after he was turned away from three hospitals because he wasn’t an emergency patient and had no proof of U.S. citizenship.

I can see a new program coming, government issued id’s for homeless people.

And some illegal immigrants are too scared to ask for food at soup kitchens or medical care at free clinics - even those funded by private or federal money - because word has spread of a Colorado crackdown on illegal immigration. Not our problems go to your nearest ICE/Border patrol office and they will give you a free trip home.

A year after state lawmakers passed what they called the toughest illegal-immigration

Liz Miller helps client, Paula Atkinson, 44, retrieve a marriage certificate and divorce papers so she can receive a social security card. Miller helped Atkinson get an ID card in just a few days, “It was a great relief,” Atkinson said. laws in the nation, there is no proof illegal immigrants have been caught taking advantage of taxpayers. Instead, there are abundant stories of citizens eligible for services who can’t prove it because they lack the required ID.

Supporters of Colorado’s get-tough stance argue, though, that it’s impossible to tell how many illegal immigrants are not asking for public services because of the new laws.

The centerpiece of Colorado’s anti-illegal-immigration package, passed in a special session last summer, is House Bill 1023. It prohibits spending taxpayer money on illegal immigrants. Exceptions include K-12 education, medical emergencies, immunizations, prenatal care and soup kitchens. Well good the law appears to be working, that is why we have legislatures in the first place.

Concerns about the paperwork required for a Colorado driver’s license or ID card and other consequences of that law already have been documented and addressed by the state.

But health care and social-service providers say effects they consider unintended and absurd run much deeper than most people know.

“We have nothing to show that this law is doing what it was intended to do,” said Maureen Farrell, executive director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. “The reality is that more

Even sponsors of HB 1023 concede that its ill effects are numerous.

“Colorado only stepped into the fray because the public demanded it, because Congress was doing nothing,” said Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, who co-sponsored the law.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, a Denver Democrat who sponsored HB 1023, said lawmakers tried to clear up problems this year.

“We did not intend to deny or delay access to citizens or others of legal residence,” he said.

Other lawmakers, meanwhile, argue HB 1023 doesn’t go far enough.

Schultheis said he believes the law is keeping illegal immigrants from applying for social services in the first place. Good that law is working again, if you don't pay taxes and your not a citizen your not entitled to benifits.

It is estimated there are nearly 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and about 225,000 to 275,000 in Colorado.

Hospitals, too, say they’re paying a price for Colorado’s new illegal-immigration laws. Yeah because the tax payers get stuck with the bill for someone that doesn't belong here in the first place

“The real consequence of HB 1023 is the fear that is instilled in people, both those without documents and those trying to do good for those without documentation,” said David Lack, executive director of the clinic.

Patients who receive care through a state-funded program at the clinic must provide proof of legal residency. If the treatment they seek is funded by the clinic’s privately raised money, they are not required to show proof of legal residency.

“We don’t serve undocumented people; we serve sick people at this clinic,” Lack said. “Their status in this country is less important than their status as a person in need of health care.”

Brad Osborn, who runs a walk-in treatment center for substance abusers in Aspen, said he would never turn anyone away, illegal resident or not.

“What about that person who’s been here for 30 years and doesn’t have documentation? How do we turn those people away?” he said.

About half of the $255,000 annual budget at Osborn’s center, The Right Door, is public money.

A dozen nonprofit organizations say the ban on publicly funded services for illegal immigrants has created more paperwork headaches and confusion for them. Looks like people are actually going to have to work for their pay checks

Instead, they’re creating new accounting methods to comply with HB 1023.

“We have never, as an organization, tracked or cared about what people’s legal status was. If we did have to, that would be an administrative nightmare,” said Suzanne Crawford, chief executive at Sister Carmen Community Center in Lafayette. In my opinion these people are part of the problem.

Making new law workable

Denver Human Services struggled to interpret the new laws just as much as the nonprofits, said Julie Gefke, the agency’s privacy officer.

“It took several months of everybody flying by the seat of their pants before we could nail down these questions,” she said. “All nonprofits were affected somehow.”

DHS created a questionnaire for contractors to determine whether the law applies to them. Most programs for the homeless, including a motel voucher program, do not require legal verification of residency.

“If you come ... and say you have no place to sleep tonight, we will give you a motel voucher and we will not ask for ID,” Gefke said.

Lawmakers tried to tweak ID laws this year in response to complaints from service organizations.

HB 1313 would have allowed applicants for a state ID to prove their identity with insurance records, marriage certificates or tax returns.

Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed the bill so the Department of Revenue could revamp its own rules, which went into effect last week. The department clarified what documents are required and set up an exception process for people who have difficulty producing their records.

Since February, Liz Miller has helped about 400 people piece together their identities.

The Colorado Citizens ID Collaboration Project sprung up because of HB 1023.

Many of Miller’s clients are homeless or disabled people born in other states who have lost their birth certificates and can’t afford to order new ones. Some are elderly and were born at home.

House Bill 1023

Took effect Aug. 1, 2006. Requires all adult applicants for nonemergency public services to prove they are U.S. citizens or legal residents.

My first question is why is he still alive? When I see this moron, I can’t understand how this guy can become a terrorist traitor? I guess he likes living in third world caves more than the civilized world. More from the false religion that one that claims to be the religion of peace. I am surprised he hasn't be invited to speak at the Yearly Kos. These are the people the left wants to surrender to...

This guy has the right idea on how you deal with these people This more like it...

Listening to these democrats should make people scared and shutter with fear if these if these leftards get control of the White House, Congress and Senate. The title President Hillary Clinton should cause GOPers nation consider the damage this woman could do to our great republic if we don't put a candidate out there that has a chance of beating the Clinton machine. With President Hillary the first thing that is going to happen make no mistake about it; is She is going to raise your taxes and make it hurt. Next the a left wing administration will take away guns from legal gun owners. After they are down confiscating guns they are going drive the economy down with excessive taxes further driving big businesses out of country. All you can hear is talk about give aways and entitlements.

It’s the same old tired dishonest propaganda First off you have to blame Bush for everything. Incase you haven’t heard the next ten hurricanes are already Bush, Cheney and Rove’s fault. Next thing is take shots at Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. Lastly, make sure to envoke the Nazi refference. That always gets a cheer from the dishonest left wing bloggers.

Its funny all the stupid things you hear from the "Daily Kos Yearly Kos"... Oh boy this guy is dislusional, and out of touch with reality. The same guy that talks about two America's then lives in a mansion. The same guy that made a fortune suing doctors. Lets not forget the 400.00 hair cuts.

Let's not kid ourselves. Edwards has no chance of the primary or being elected in the general election, so I recommend that Edwards quit wasting his 100 million dollar nest egg and our time.

I love how these guys say they are going to close Gitmo. No more wire tapping Americans. I just don’t see the candidates not taking any PAC money either. While your at it, give back your Harper Collins money too…

It seems like the left is getting a little ahead of themselves. If I am not mistaken isn’t the congress lower in approval rating than the president? These polls aren’t just rating the republicans leaders poorly its all of the congress. I think it is a little early to be counting seat gains yet.

the link to the story

GOP Facing Another Wave
Democracy Corps recently conducted surveys in key battleground districts for 2008 “and the results look like a rerun of 2006—an election when Democrats lost no incumbents and swept the competitive seats.”

Key findings:
In the battleground of the 70 most competitive congressional districts (35 Democratic and 35 Republican-held), the Democratic incumbents, including the big class of freshmen, have quickly moved into dramatic leads in the named congressional ballot (52% to 40%.)
In the 35 Republican battleground districts, the named Republicans trail their generic Democratic opponent by 5 points, 49% to 44%.
In a poll across seven Republican-held U.S. Senate seats, the named U.S. Senators had a vote to re-elect of only 37% and were garnering only 44% of the vote against a generic challenger.
The overall image of the Democratic Party has fallen back from the honeymoon post-election period to essentially where it stood for the whole 2006 election period—and that has been stable since April. On the other hand, the Republicans have weakened in the current period since April to their lowest thermometer score in the past half century

From the Democratic Hate Site

July 2007: 77

July 2006: 46

July 2005: 58

July 2004: 58

July 2003: 49

There is a true trend. A trend that, month-by-month, has contributed to the 3940 Coalition fatalities so far. And while politicians keep talking about premature withdrawal, by Labor Day at least 4000 Coalition soldiers will have been prematurely buried.

Iraq by the numbers is an infuriating and ferociously saddening exercise. But let's do it anyway.

655,000: Iraqi deaths a Johns-Hopkins study attributed to the war nine months ago.

2770: Iraqi civilians killed in May 2007, according to government reports. (Actual figure unknown because the Iraqi government refuses to share its data with outside agencies that could verify totals.)

1.9 million: Estimated Iraqis displaced within the country.

2.35 million: Estimated Iraqi exiles outside the country in January 2007.

18,000: Iraqi doctors who have fled the country since March 2003.

???: Iraqis orphaned by the war – no reliable statistics.

25%: Iraqi children who are malnourished (May 2006).

130,000: U.S. troops taking part in the invasion at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s insistence.

500,000: U.S. troops estimated to be necessary by generals who put together a prewar contingency plan.

$60-$95 billion: Total cost of Iraq war and aftermath calculated by Paul Wolfowitz in February 2003.

$600 billion: Money Congress has allocated for direct costs of the war and occupation so far.

$750 billion: Total the Cheney-Bush Administration has sought for keeping the occupation going through September 2008.

$140,000: Estimated cost per minute of the war and occupation in 2007.

$2 trillion: Total direct and indirect costs of war and occupation (through 2010) calculated by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes in January 2006.

$9 billion: Taxpayer money that disappeared in Iraq.

$549.7 million: Value of unaccounted for spare parts shipped to contractors in 2004.

$1.4 billion: Overcharges by Halliburton.

6,000-10,000: Estimated number of U.S. troops whose injuries have included brain trauma.

30%: Estimated percentage of troops who develop serious mental problems within three or four months after returning from Iraq.

14: Journalists killed by U.S. forces in Iraq.

112: Total number of journalists killed in Iraq.

1-2 a day: Hours of electricity available to the average residential household in Baghdad. (Actual figure unknown since U.S. no longer reports the electricity figures for the city.)

5000: ”Diehard" insurgents the Pentagon estimated to be fighting on July 28, 2003.

20-30,000: Insurgents the Pentagon estimated in October 2006.

70,000: Insurgents the Pentagon estimated in March 2007.

69%: Iraqis who say U.S. presence worsens security situation (polled in March 2007).

71%: Iraqis who want U.S. troops out within a year (polled in September 2006).

71%: Americans who want U.S. to withdraw troops by April 2008 (polled in July 2007).

52%: U.S. Senators who have voted to withdraw most troops by April 2008.

8%: Republican Senators who have voted to withdraw most troops by April 2008.

By citing this leftist hate blog I am actually giving them credibility and credence but I can’t help it. I can't believe some of the stupidity that comes from this page. It makes the Huffington Post look credible or at least objective. No were in this blog article does it talk about winning or the good things that the American soldiers are doing in Iraq. All I see is negativity. After each answer it should say all Bush’s fault.

The fact that 2700 civilians died in Iraq is the fault of the terrorists. Under Sadam Hussein the numbers would have been bigger.

Here is a shock the surge is working and all we can hear is how we are going to surrender to the jihadists. I say lets give it some time to work before we pull our pin.

Link To Story

The Surge Succeeds

By J.R. Dunn

It’s now quite clear how the results of the surge will be dealt with by domestic opponents of the Iraq war.

They’re going to be ignored.

They’re being ignored now. Virtually no media source or Democratic politician (and not a few Republicans, led by Richard “I can always backtrack” Lugar) is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months. Coalition efforts have undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near-textbook example as to how an effective strategy can overcome what appear to be overwhelming drawbacks.

Anbar is close to being secured, thanks to the long-ridiculed strategy of recruiting local sheiks. A capsule history of war coverage could be put together from stories on this topic alone - beginning with sneers, moving on to “evidence” that it would never work, to the puzzled pieces of the past few months admitting that something was happening, and finally the recent stories expressing concern that the central government might be “offended” by the attention being paid former Sunni rebels. (Try to find another story in the legacy media worrying about the feelings of the Iraqi government.) What you will not find is any mention of the easily-grasped fact that Anbar acts as a blueprint for the rest of the country. If the process works there, it will work elsewhere. If it works in other areas, that means the destruction of the Jihadis in detail.

Nor is that all. Diyala province, promoted in media as the “new Al-Queda stronghold” appears to have become a death-trap. The Jihadis can neither defend it nor abandon it. The Coalition understood that Diyala was where the Jihadis would flee when the heat came down in Baghdad, and they were ready for them. A major element of surge strategy - and one reason why the extra infantry brigades were needed - is to pressure Jihadis constantly in all their sanctuaries, allowing them no time to rest or regroup.

A blizzard of operations is occurring throughout central Iraq under the overall code-name Phantom Thunder, the largest operation since the original invasion. It is open-ended, and will continue as long as necessary. Current ancillary operations include Arrowhead Ripper, which is securing the city of Baqubah in Diyala province. Operation Alljah is methodically clearing out every last neighborhood in Fallujah. In Babil province, southeast of Baghdad, operations Marne Torch and Commando Eagle are underway. (As this was being written, yet another spinoff operation, Marne Avalanche, began in Northern Babil.)

The Coalition has left the treadmill in which one step of progress seemed to unavoidably lead to two steps back. It requires some time to discover the proper strategy in any war. A cursory glance at 1943 would have given the impression of disaster. Kasserine, in which the German Wehrmacht nearly split Allied forces in Tunisia and sent American GIs running. Tarawa, where over 1,600 U.S. Marines died on a sunny afternoon thanks to U.S. Navy overconfidence. Salerno, where the Allied landing force was very nearly pushed back into the sea. But all these incidents, as bitter as they may have been, were necessary to develop the proper techniques that led to the triumphs of 1944 and 1945.

Someday, 2006 may be seen as Iraq’s 1943. It appears that Gen. David Petreaus has discovered the correct strategy for Iraq: engaging the Jihadis all over the map as close to simultaneously as possible. Keeping them on the run constantly, giving them no place to stand, rest or refit. Increasing operational tempo to an extent that they cannot match ("Getting inside their decision cycle”, as the 4th generation warfare school would call it), leaving them harried, uncertain, and apt to make mistakes.

The surge is more of a refinement than a novelty. Earlier Coalition efforts were not in error as much as they were incomplete. American troops would clean out an area, turn it over to an Iraqi unit, and depart. The Jihadis would then push out the unseasoned Iraqis and return to business. This occurred in Fallujah, Tall Afar, and endless times in Ramadi.

Now U.S. troops are remaining on site, which reassures the locals and encourages cooperation. The Jihadis broke (and more than likely never knew) the cardinal rule of insurgency warfare, that of being a good guest. As Mao put it, “The revolutionary must be as a fish among the water of the peasantry.” The Jihadis have been lampreys to the Iraqi people. Proselytizing, forcing adaptation of their reactionary creed, engaging in torture, kidnapping, and looting. Arabic culture is one in which open dealings, personal loyalty, and honor are at a premium. Violate any of them, and there is no way back. The Jihadis violated them all. The towns and cities of Iraq are no longer sanctuaries.

The results have begun to come in. On July 4, Khaled al-Mashhadani, the most senior Iraqi in Al-Queda, was captured in Mosul. On July 14, Abu Jurah, a senior Al-Queda leader in the area south of Baghdad, was killed in a coordinated strike by artillery, helicopters, and fighter-bombers. These blows to the leadership are the direct outgrowth of Jihadi brutality and the new confidence among the Iraqis in what they have begun to call the “al-Ameriki tribe”.

We will see more of this in the weeks ahead. The Jihadis have come up with no effective counterstrategy, and the old methods have begun to lose mana. The last massive truck-bomb attack occurred not in Baghdad, but in a small Diyala village that defied Al-Queda. An insurgency in the position of using its major weapons to punish noncombatants is not in a winning situation.

You will look long and hard to find any of this in the legacy media. Apart from a handful of exceptions (such as John F. Burns of the New York Times), it’s simply not being covered. Those operational names would come across as bizarre to the average reader, the gains they have made impossible to fit into the worldview that has been peddled unceasingly by the dead tree fraternity. What the media is concentrating on - and will to continue to concentrate on, in defiance of sense, protest, and logic, to the bitter end - is peripheral stories such as the Democrat’s Senate pajama party, reassertions of the claim that the war has “helped” Al-Queda, and the latest proclamation from the world’s greatest fence-sitter.

The situation as it stands is very close to that of the final phase of Vietnam. Having for several years confused that country’s triple-layer jungle with the rolling plains of northwest Europe, William Westmoreland in 1968 turned over command to Creighton Abrams. Though also a veteran of the advance against Germany (he had been Patton’s favorite armored commander), Abrams lacked his predecessor’s taste for vast (not to mention futile) multi-unit sweeps. After carrying out a careful analysis, Abrams reworked Allied strategy to embody the counterinsurgency program advocated by Marine general Victor Krulak and civilian advisor John Paul Vann.

Abram’s war was one of small units moving deep into enemy territory, running down enemy forces and then calling in massive American firepower in the form of artillery or fighter-bombers for the final kill.(Anyone wishing for a detailed portrayal of this style of operations should pick up David Hackworth’s Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts. It will surprise no one to learn that Hackworth claims that the strategy was his idea and that he had to fight the entire U.S. military establishment to see it through, but it’s a good read all the same.) This was a strategy that played to American strengths, one that went after the enemy where he lived. By 1970, Abrams had chased the bulk of the Vietnamese communists across the border into Cambodia and Laos.

But panicky reporters, many of whom had never set foot on a battlefield (not to mention figures at ease with manipulating the facts, such as Peter Arnett), were badly shaken by the opening moves of the offensive, among them an abortive attack on the U.S. embassy grounds at Saigon. Their reportage, broadcast and printed nationwide, portrayed a miserable defeat for the U.S. and its allies, with the Viet Cong and PAVN striking where they pleased and making off at their leisure. The media portrait of a beleaguered American war effort was never corrected, and became the consensus view. (This process was analyzed in detail in Peter Braestrup’s Big Story, one of the most crucial—and overlooked—media studies ever to see print.) After Tet, there could be no victories.

The success of the Abrams strategy was buried for twenty years and more, as the myth of utter U.S. defeat was put in concrete by “experts” such as Stanley Karnow, Frances FitzGerald, and Neil Sheehan. Only with the appearance of revisionist works such as Lewis Sorley’s A Better War and Mark Moyar’s Triumph Forsaken has the record begun to be set straight.

That was how it was played at the close of the Vietnam War. That’s how it’s being played today.

And what do they want, exactly? What is the purpose of playing so fast and loose with the public safety, national security, and human lives both American and foreign?

The GOP was disgraced and demoralized. The Democrats held the Senate, the House, and the presidency. There was absolutely nothing standing in the way of their maintaining complete power for as long as anyone could foresee… until Jimmy Carter’s incompetence proved itself, which caused the whole shabby and illusory structure to fell apart in a welter of ineptitude and childishness.

The American left wants a return to the 1970s—without Jimmy Carter. (Okay, without disco, either.) They want a cowed GOP. They want control of the institutions and the branches. They want a miserable, defeated country they can manipulate. And they want it all under the gaze not of the Saint of Plains, but of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who can assure that left-wing predominance will continue for a generation or more.
Will they get it? That’s a question worth some thought. Because as it stands, neither of the program’s necessary elements is coming to fruition. The war is not being lost, and their great political scandal has fizzled.

The Democrats needed a scandal - and not merely a run-of-the-mill, everyday scandal, but a mega-scandal, a hyper-scandal, something that would utterly cripple the administration and leave it open to destruction in detail. The targets were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, held by the MoveOn crowd to be the actual brains behind Adolf W. Chimp. When nothing at all could be dug up on the administration principals, the scandal was effectively over. Knocking off a vice-presidential aide might cause excitement within the Beltway, but nobody in the real world could be expected to care. It may be a bitter thought to I. Lewis Libby that he was taken down through sheer proximity, like a bystander during a drive-by shooting, but it was in the very best of causes. Libby’s sacrifice not only saved the administration, it may well save tens of thousands of Middle Eastern lives in the years to come. (This also explains why the President was so circumspect in dealing with the investigation - he knew exactly what the opposition was up to, and could afford to give them no ammunition whatsoever.)

Plamegate ended last Thursday with a judge throwing Plame’s suit out of court on strictly technical grounds. (This is something of a disappointment - I would really have liked to see what that pair of hustlers would do when cross-examined by a competent defense attorney.) People like John Conyers are trying to create a conflagration by blowing on the embers of the attorney firings and the vice-presidential subpoenas. To no avail. Scandals, like forest fires, occur only when conditions are perfect. Through their failed efforts, the liberals have in effect set a backfire, surrounding the administration with wide barriers of burned-over ground. The Democrats themselves have rendered Bush unassailable, and all the slumber parties, the empty votes, and the rhetoric are intended to camouflage that fact. Bush will have hard days yet, but he will not be Nixonized.  He will be able to fight his war as he sees fit.

That means a continuation of the surge, and of the strategy of General Petreaus. Will that be enough? It’s impossible to say. But the past few months have been the most surprising in the entire Iraq saga to date. I have a feeling that Al-Queda (and the media, and the Democrats), will have a few more surprises coming in the months ahead.

If this isn’t hate speech I don’t know what is. I think O’Reilly is right in calling this site a hate speech site is right on the mark. This is the same site that had President Bush having sex with a farm animal, can you imagine this if the right has done such a thing to their treasured president Bill Clinton there would be out rage and public outcry.

Daily KOS Diary of John Stafford

First things first.  Bill O’Reilly is criticizing us for being a “hate site.” He even went so far as to compare DKos to Nazis and the KKK.  Does anyone else see the irony in that?  Maybe he’s just worried about someone else horning in on his territory.

I don’t know what’s more galling – the unmitigated hypocrisy or the metaphorical asymmetry.  The Nazis and the KKK are right-wing groups.  They are representative of conservatism in it’s most extreme incarnation.  Daily Kos is a liberal organization.  If you’re going to make outrageously exaggerated comparisons, at least keep you’re ideologies straight.  The extreme version of DKos’s philosophy would be better represented by comparing us to someone like Lenin.  Yeah, it’s just as ludicrous.  But I like consistency in my hate-filled sloganeering.  I’m old fashioned that way.

So here’s where it gets personal.  Today, on his radio show, Bill O’Reilly made a comment about a blogger on DKos who said that Tony Snow should die of cancer.  I’m here to say that I’m that blogger.

As usual, O’Reilly got it mostly wrong.  I never said that Tony Snow “should” die of cancer.  Nor did I say that I wanted him to die of cancer.  Or of anything else, for that matter.  What I said, in a comment responding to a diary about the White House spokesman’s illness, was that I really didn’t care if he died.

Now, you might say there’s not a lot of difference.  But I disagree.  Actively wishing for something to happen is not the same as expressing indifference as to whether that thing happens or not.

With that in mind, I’ll say it again:  I honestly do not care if Tony Snow lives or dies.  I see him as the propaganda minister for a regime that has perpetrated mass murder, sowed ethnic and religious hatred, and subverted the will of both the American people and the world community.  He has used his communication skills to further the agenda of people who have dedicated themselves to nothing less than the systematic dismantling of the Constitution in the name of greed.  Make no mistake – the people holding the reigns of power in this administration are evil.  And Tony Snow is their front man.

Would anyone have cried if Joseph Goebbels had died a premature death?  I doubt it.  (Bill O’Reilly is pretty fast and loose with his Nazi comparisons.  What goes around...) I certainly don’t actively wish any harm to Mr. Snow.  But neither would I shed a tear for him.

Murtha leading the Defeatocrat push to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq and Iran. Looks like the Democrats are not going to give up on this movement of surrender and cut and run. There must be promises of big kick backs and monetary gain if they are successful of getting out of Iraq before the job is done. This just proves that Moveon.Org, George Soros and others on the fringe of the Democratic party are calling all the shots.

House Democrats Push New Withdrawal Bill



ANNE FLAHERTY | July 25, 2007 07:59 PM EST |

WASHINGTON — House Democrats have drafted new Iraq legislation they hope will appeal to Republicans fed up with the war: Start withdrawing troops in two months but leave it up to President Bush to decide when to complete the pullout.

Most recently, the House approved legislation that would have required troop withdrawals to begin this November and finish by April 1.

Under his latest plan, Murtha said he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete. A draft of his proposal did not include a firm end date.

In addition to the anti-war measure, Murtha said he also wants to propose next week amendments that would require troops to meet certain standards before being deployed and cut in half the $225 million budget for the Guantanamo Bay military prison.

The prospects of Murtha’s troop withdrawal measure passing next week were unclear, as Republicans have said they are willing to hold off until September and Democrats questioned whether it goes far enough.

“If they are not listening to reports from our generals today, how does anyone believe they will make an honest and objective decision in September?” asked Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party’s leader. “Our national security is not a political football, and Republicans aren’t going to treat it as such.”

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., a leading anti-war advocate, said she wants to keep the April deadline.

“The House voted two weeks ago on a withdrawal measure with a clear timeline, and I don’t know why we would back away from that,” said Lee.

Murtha said he has his sights set on September and thinks that by then Republicans and the White House will jump on board. If Bush were to maintain current troop levels through 2008, Murtha predicted that combat tours would have to be extended from 15 months to 18 months _ a politically unsavory position to take on an already deeply unpopular war.

The Defense Department has said extending combat tours of troops would be a last resort.

Bush has not given any indication he is open to a dramatic shift or a major redeployment of troops after September. Instead, he has talked extensively about the need to remain engaged in Iraq to fight al-Qaida and has repeatedly appealed to lawmakers for more patience.

For their part, top U.S. military officers also have indicated that the troop buildup initiated this year may be needed through next summer.

Also come September, Murtha said it is possible Democrats may not want to continue funding the war, or fund it in installments.

“We may decide in September we’re not satisfied with what Gen. Petraeus says and we may hold it up,” he said.

With Republicans unwilling to consider strong anti-war bills just yet, Democrats pushed other Iraq-related measures to show voters they are focused on trying to end the war.

The House voted 399-24 on Wednesday to pass a bill proposed by Lee that would ban permanent bases in Iraq. By week’s end, the House Armed Services Committee planned to draft legislation for a vote next week that would insist troops be given sufficient time at home in- between combat tours.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s ambassador to Washington, Samir Sumaidaie, told reporters Wednesday that he is making a case in Congress and elsewhere for extending the troop increase, despite the shifting political climate.

“Iraqi leaders are acutely aware of the political debate in Washington, that there is the possibility of a change in policy” and a reduction in U.S. troops, Sumaidaie said. “I think it is fair to say they are very concerned about that. Iraqi forces are not yet capable of holding the fort on their own.”

The diplomat also complained that the United States has been slow to provide weapons and other equipment requested by Iraqi armed forces and police, and said the delay is at cross-purposes with the U.S. goal of making Iraqis responsible for their own security.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has promised to work on getting the equipment moved to the Iraqis more quickly. Asked if the delay was due to Pentagon bureaucracy, Pace said no, adding that it had more to do with the recent increase in size of the Iraqi forces.

___

The vote will come next week, as members take up a $460 billion bill covering military spending for 2008. Another vote could come again in September, after Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and Congress considers a $142 billion measure needed to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is big time,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said of the upcoming fall debate. “When you get to September, this is history. This is when we’re going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out.”

The House has passed similar anti-war measures in the past, but has been unable to push the legislation through the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and Republicans have routinely blocked such bills from advancing.

This isn’t true of course, but it has a great point that most of us should take to heart.

Here is a classic statement in this video.

I don’t want to get anymore messages about saying that we need to pull out to pull out of Iraq. Let the enemy pull out. We are advancing constantly and we aren’t interested about pulling out of anything but a parking lot.

There is one thing that you men and women will be able to say when you when you get back home and you will thank god for it. Twenty years from now when your sitting around your family with your grand son on your knee and he asks you, what did you do during the war on terror you won’t have to say that I listened to far left bull shit sat on my ass and was more concerned about American Idol than I was about American security and freedom.

It unbelieve able that when a court doesn’t rule in your favor the court is an activist court. The McCain Feingold amendment was flawed and the court legally over ruled it. I am sick and tired of democrats complaining about how the evil right has ruined the supreme court. You know what that is the spoils of victory. If your party wins the election your party gets to pick the supreme court. I find it funny that when ever the ninth circus court makes a ruling you don't see the left wingers complaining. Up unitl recently the Dems only hope was the supreme court because they have had a hard time winning elections. If they current congress keeps up its antics they are going to lose more elections.

More Liberal Whining

Republican presidential candidates promised to appoint judges who applied existing law, not activists who imposed their own views of what the law should be. There are now seven justices (out of nine) appointed by Republican presidents, and the current Supreme Court is among the most activist in history. The most activist decision, not only in the history of the Supreme Court but probably in the history of any court was, of course, Bush v. Gore in which five Republican justices imposed their own views of who should be president on the entire world. In the process, they distorted the law so badly that they had to announce that their decision would not have precedent value. What their decision did assure, however, was an activist Republican Supreme Court for generations.

In the past term alone, the activist majority overruled key provisions of congressionally mandated campaign-finance reform, dictated to cities how to assign students to public schools, reversed the decisions of federal agencies, overturned jury verdicts against large corporations and overruled its own precedents. So much for judicial restraint!

Adam Cohen of The New York Times, after reviewing the current Court’s record of activism, concluded that:

“The other disturbing aspect of the new conservative judicial activism is its dishonesty. The conservative justices claim to support ‘judicial modesty,’ but reviews of the court’s ruling over the last few years show that they have actually voted more often to overturn laws passed by Congress—the ultimate act of judicial activism—than has the liberal bloc.”

So let’s not here any more nonsense about judicial activism from the Right. The real culprit is reactionary judicial activism from the current Republican Court.

I think most of us knew this was coming but Barrack Hussein Obama is the first one to say it. They don’t care if leaving Iraq causes blood shed. It’s really sad that these left wing leaning presidential candidates are being held over a barrel from the Moveon.org and George Soros.

ul 19, 10:19 PM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

(AP) Presidential hopeful U.S. Sen Barack Obama, D-Ill., stands on a picnic table to greet voters during…
Full Image

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now - where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife - which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.

Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

Doug Leier has a really good article on the stupidity of the anti gun crowd. guns n suv’s I know for the most part we are preaching to the crowd and the people we have to educate on the matter can’t be bargained with, however, the crux of the argument can be summed up in these three paragraphs of the article. Folks this is what we have to contend with if the Left Wingers like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schummer and Hillary Clinton get their Liberal majorities the MSM is hoping for. Gun owners rights will be the first to go.

Criminals are - and always have been - the problem with the firearms - or knives, or sticks or any blunt object with which trauma can be inflicted. And criminals seem to be getting younger -and more prone to violence.

That would seem apparent from the statistical analysis and one gang member’s recounting of how guns are passed from new member to new member in a “rite of passage”.

Apparently, however, it isn’t apparent to some.

One side of the firearms question believes that all we have to do to eliminate firearm violence is simply collect all the firearms - legal or otherwise.

To the lawful firearm owner, that’s a laughable position.

Amnesty is a piece of ...

I am shocked out own politicians would do this to the American people. We should have not have to pay for lawbreakers and criminals illegal behavior. I think the American people should demand an end to non-sense…

House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of Republican activists last night, called the Senate’s immigration compromise bill a “piece of s#!t”
Yep John I must agree.

Lets take look at the goodies/give a ways in the failed Shamesty bill

Legal status after 24 hours even if the back ground check isn’t finished.
The taxpayers would have paid for the immigration lawyers.
Permanent temporary visas. Meaning we would never get rid of these people.
Amnesty for Gang Members.
We would have paid Mexico to keep Mexican in Mexico.
No back taxes, Illegal aliens wouldn’t have had to pay them.
No border security anywhere in site
Amnesty for deportees

Thank God this bill failed.

---edit---
Our two favorite idiots are at it again. Talk about a love feast amoung morons/idiots. Actually, I watched this love feast on real time on my HBO on demand and I just don't know why Michael Moore is still realevant. First off Moore twisted the truth so much that no one knows where the B.S. ends and the truth begins. Of course the Hollywood elite loves this crap...

Now The master of deception has come out with another movie lambasting the American health care industry. The movie wrongfully lauds Cuba as being a health care giant and a model to build a universial health care program after. Mayer must not have much taste if he is impressed with this movie.