About Me

Name: Ben Amis
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

New Hampshire Predictions

With only twenty-four hours left until the nation's first primary in New Hampshire, after a sprint of campaigning, debating, and "foruming"...how are the candidates stacking up?? Let's mark this my "Official Analyzing and Prediction Poll" for New Hampshire 2008.

First, the Republicans. According to my friends over at Real Clear Politics, the average of the polls are putting Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., ahead by nearly five points, with former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts right on his heels. My personally endorsed candidate, the former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, is trailing in a distant third place to the other two front-runners. I believe that, if any prediction can be gleaned from these numbers, I believe things will probably play out as these polls say. I expect McCain to win New Hampshire, although I doubt it will be a wide spread, with Romney right on his tail. The Arizona Senator will most likely win because he did well in 2000, and also because he's put immensely more time and effort into New Hampshire than Romney did, who was too busy focused on Iowa, which he didn't win anyway. I do believe, however, the Huckabee can close the gap in New Hampshire, and maybe even give Romney a run for his money at second place if he can really step it up, but I don't believe he will win. Huckabee needs to focus on South Carolina, where he's already leading in the polls, and Romney should be concerned with Michigan, where his father, the late George Romney, was governor.

For the Democrats, Real Clear Politics has the Junior Senator from Illinois Barack Obama, leading by over seven points. Some polls have him leading even further, such as a recent USA Today/Gallup poll that gives the history-making candidate a thirteen point lead. The only polls in which Clinton is still leading would be a recent Suffolk/WHDH poll that places the New York senator at two points ahead, another Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll which gives her a one point lead. I don't think there's much debate, I think we'll see Clinton coming in at a decent second, but not close to Obama. John Edwards is holding his own at third, but I don't see him doing any surging, I believe he'll be staying right there tomorrow. I'm giving this one to Obama. Clinton needs to focus on bigger states, and Edwards needs to be pandering to the South.

Now, I'll remind everyone reading, the New Hampshire electorate is very different from the Iowa electorate we saw last week. New Hampshire is indefinitely more secular, and a great deal more independent, nearly forty percent of New Hampshire voters are registered Independent! So, with that in mind, those Independent undecided voters could always swing the vote and blow predictions out of the water, because they can vote in either primary they choose. I'll be watching the results like a hawk, you can be sure of that, this'll be interesting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee and Obama Take First Spots in Iowa

Well, at just after 1 AM here in the east, I sit as I close out my browser windows, cancel live feeds and streams, and turn down my television after this good and historic night in U.S. politics and I must say I'm happy with the results that have come out of Iowa tonight, and not just because I got it right.

I'm glad to see Huckabee win in Iowa, and I'm glad to see McCain come in fourth literally right behind Fred Thompson (literally, both men have received 13%). I also congratulate former Gov. Mitt Romney on his work in Iowa coming in second. I believe now I can say that since Huckabee has won this caucus, he can go on to achieve second-place in New Hampshire as long as he keeps it up, and maybe even first, although I want to give that title to McCain, I believe it will be close. Romney will probably end up third, although I feel like we have a long way to go from now until Tuesday, anything could still happen.

Also, congratulations to Senator Barack Obama. The African-American from Illinois has made history tonight, being the first black man to win the Iowa Caucus, and by an eight percentage point margin at that! Now, I don't have to say that I won't support Obama for President, my lines are drawn, but I'm not going to criticize policy tonight. I feel like Obama has a good chance in New Hampshire now, and can definitely get first or second place. I believe we're going to see the Hilary Clinton campaign working overtime for the next five days in New Hampshire to get up her numbers to try to win New Hampshire. I believe it's possible she could receive first or second place. Edwards had an amazing show coming in second, I believe he's solidified his position in this race for awhile now, just like I said he would. I think all three of these candidates will have to fight and campaign their hearts out in the next five days.

Clinton is coming into New Hampshire behind, but she's going to be geographically closer to her constituency. Obama is coming into this ahead but removed from his more Mid-Western appeal, and Edwards is probably the most disadvantaged as a southern democrat coming into New England. I believe Obama's appeal to the young demographic will keep him up high, and put him in a dead heat again with Hilary who's now in a state that's much closer to home. I believe the order that these candidates will come out in is important, but it will be very close. The only one I can really see slipping is Edwards, who could easily make up for it in South Carolina, where he'll be near his home. These three are going to be competing for awhile still yet.

So, congratulations to our winners, and good show to those who did not do too well. We say goodbye to Senators Dodd and Biden tonight, who've withdrawn from the race. We are now, as one commentator has said, in a dead sprint. I believe that after South Carolina, the GOP nomination will most likely be fairly well-defined, but I can't yet say that for the Dems, although I have my thoughts that I'll keep to myself for now. I think it will take Super Tuesday to show us who the likely Democrat will be, and will solidify the GOP nomination.

Still anything can happen, this isn't over, and none of our main players are fully out quite yet. Watch these next few races closely, and keep checking back here, I'm sure I'm going to have plenty to say.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Countdown To Iowa

Tomorrow is the first primary in the nation...the Iowa caucus. Did you really think I wouldn't have something to post about?

I know you've not seen me since last August, and for that I really am deeply sorry. However, I've now made it through my first college semester and will hopefully be able to post more often. For those who don't know, I'm a Theology major at Asbury College. Even my contact information has been updated to reflect my new residence!

So, in spite of my lack of activity, if you've seen some of the articles I've work on at SmallGovTimes.com, I've been supporting long-shot candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R). Well, Since then, The Governor has shot into the top tier and is giving former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., a run for his money -- no matter that Romney is out funding Huckabee 20-to-1. The two are in a dead heat for Iowa, and I really feel like it's a toss-up right now. Either of these men could come out ahead, but neither of them will be able to get too far from the other - it'll be down to the wire.

I believe we'll see Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, come in for a decent third in Iowa, but I feel that he will make second in New Hampshire, whose primary which is just  a few days away. I thought McCain was finished at one point, but he's really surprised me and I wish him the best. I don't believe Huckabee will be able to appeal too greatly to the New England demographic and should probably spend a few days there and secure a third-place spot, and then head down to South Carolina where he can make a big dent. The last real contender in the race is, of course former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who I think could gain some ground in both New Hampshire and/or Florida.

For the Democrats...Iowa serves as a very interesting event. While the Republicans are very similar to a primary where caucus-goers simply vote for their candidate, the Democrats are a little more complicated. For Democrats, people have to choose a candidate, and if their candidate doesn't get above 15%, they're eliminated and the others try to convince you to make a second choice and caucus with another candidate, or you can simply leave. This method makes the Democratic caucus decidedly more dynamic and interesting to watch. Many times, this has made or broken a candidate in Iowa, and the second-choice politics have already been clearly seen as having an influence.

Right now, The Democrats are in a three-way tie between Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-New York, Sen. Barak Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina. However, I believe we could easily see Obama or Edwards come out with the vote tomorrow. I believe Edwards, with his social change and action agenda, is a very popular second among Iowa democrats and therefore could garner votes that way. I also believe the same for the political young-blood. Obama, who has officially received a "second-choice" endorsement from Congressman and President Candidate Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, whoasked his supporters at an event that, if for whatever reason, he doesn't reach the 15% mark, to make Obama their second choice. With this, I believe either of these candidates could receive the majority tomorrow.

I do not believe that Hilary will cease the vote, simply because she is such a polarizing figure most people either pledge undying support, or consider her as one of the last people they would pick. Because of this, I don't expect her to pick up too many second-choice votes, meaning I feel like she won't be able to keep up with the second-choice votes being thrown to Edwards and Obama. I also feel like if Obama and Clinton continue their fighting and negativity, it will turn the party off to both of them, and having them running to Edwards. So many people have talked about how much danger Edwards is in, but I honestly look for him to come back and make something out of himself in this race. I believe that, if things continue as they have, Edwards has a really good shot at getting the nomination, and depending on how the Republicans operate, he could very well be the next President of the United States.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats on Education

I was able to catch part of the Democratic Presidential debate on ABC today, the last part, and came in just before they began discussing education. I heard some interesting, and perhaps troubling, answers from the candidates about education reform, and as someone who has worked in the educational system before, I thought I would throw in my two cents.

Most candidates, well, as I recall all of them, said this: More early education. They reasoned that starting children earlier meant that they would do better. I believe they're wrong, and will explain why in just a second. Before I do so, I'd like to briefly mention the other answers that some of the Democrats gave, and other didn't. For example, some wanted to reform NCLB, others wanted to get rid of it. Some candidates also suggested more arts education, teacher pay raises, and more "qualitative" education (although there wasn't much elaboration on the word). Some interesting ideas.

Now, why do I think more early education is the wrong way to go? Because our educational system doesn't need quantity, it needs quality. Just because we hold children in school for a few more years doesn't mean that we're going to be able to teach them more, at least not on a decent amount more. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, was right when he said we needed qualitative education, but he didn't adequately explain what that meant.

First, those that said we need to reform NCLB was right, it forces teachers to teach the test rather than to give a quality education, but it's not the source of what I see as the biggest problem in American education - standardized testing. These types of tests limit our  children's learning ability and forces them to pick from a group of answers, placing further limit on them concerning creativity and logical reasoning skills.

To develop these all-important skills, states need to establish testing systems that utilitze writing - articles, essays, open responses, and other forms of prose writing, and elimate or at least extremely decrease the number of standardized questions. These types of questions allow students to expound and explain their answers, and demonstrate knowledge that they would not be able to express by simply picking A, B, C, or D.

For example, a history question may ask "Who was elected President of the Confederate States of America, and who did he select as his leading general?" with answers of A. "Lincoln...Lee"B.  "Lincoln...Grant" C."Davis...Grant" or D. "Davis...Lee". Of course the answer is 'D', President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee. However, that question tells us nothing about those two men. It doesn't allow the student to explain that Davis was born in Kentucky, like his counterpart, Lincoln, but raised in Missouri, and was a Democratic Senator from Missouri when the south seceded. It also doesn't let the student tell that Lee was a Virginian, and was against such things as slavery, and even wanted to, as was invited to, fight for the Union. However, went with the Confederacy when Virginia left the Union because he said, "I am more a Virginian than an American."

This is the most important step that must be taken in order to put our children back on track.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arms Deal With The Enemy?

Recently, President Bush has publicly announced a new plan to halt the growing Iranian threat - arm other Middle East countries to counter the arms build-up by Iran. Now, most nations that would receive parts of the multi-billion dollar arms deal are our allies and would probably not be a problem. Such nations include Israel, Qatar, and Kuwait. However, these countries also include Egypt and Saudi Arabia, nation known for having substantial radical Islamic factions within their borders. So, the question is, would we be arming the enemy?

I'm not even going to beat around the "Bush", as the case may be, and am going to outright condemn this action. We must NOT arm these foreign nations, namely Egypt and Saudi. Why? These countries are known for radicals...especially the Saudis, and we could potentially be arming the same enemy we're trying to stop. Simply put, these nations aren't as evolved as the United States, and I question their ability to responsibly handle advanced technology.

This is not racism or Islamophobia, this is simply truth. There are nations which I absoluely love, but would never want to give these weapons to, at least not without conditions. An example would be fellow the democratic state and former U.S. terroritory of the Philippines. I have many friends that live there/come from there, and absolutely love the nation, but their government is struggling to sustain itself right now, so I know they couldn't handle having these weapons. If we couldn't trust this democracy to be responsible with these weapons, why should award them to a nation like Saudi Arabia, which is a dictatorship?

I don't like dealing with any non-democratic state. I've been very outspoken against our dealings with nations like Saudi, and our trading relationship with nations like China...yes, China! I look forward to the day we break ties with them and bring all of that revenue and work back to our own shores. As if that will ever happen...sigh...

I've been a supporter of the President, but I have to question his logic on this move. I don't think it would be wise, and I can't see how we could justify making an arms deal with dictators and--potentially--terrorists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Levin/Reed Cloture Fails

 

ClotureResult-allnighter.jpgThe vote on the motion to invoke cloture to the Levin/Reed amendment failed this morning after the democratic majority forced an all-night session to debate the amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill. Sponsored by two democrats, the amendment would have forced a reduction in troop numbers in Iraq within 120 days of enactment.

Graham3-Allnighter.jpgI believe the two best speeches I heard this morning both came from Republicans, which combated the speeches given by the various Democrats through the night. The first would have to be Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who challenged the Senate that the right course of action is and should be to reinforce our troops, rather than reduce them. He argued how bringing the fight to the enemy has turned around groups, having them join the Coalition when before they had been fighting with Al Qaeda. He carried a poster of his own to the floor, no doubt to counter the “Let Us Vote” sign displayed by the Democrats. The Senator’s poster quoted the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, stating out a retreat would be seen as a historic victory by the terrorists. He claimed that the real reason for Al Qaeda being in Iraq, instead of because of the U.S. like many of the Democrats claimed, was to stop the swift to democracy in the Middle East. Graham contested that if we were to withdraw, the terrorists would use Iraq as a type of springboard to reach the rest of the Middle East, especially Iran, who is actively supplying terrorists in Iraq with IEDs and the like.

Craig-Allnighter.jpgThe other best speech would have to go to Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who was visually frustrated as he told the Senate that Congress cannot act as 535 generals and infringe upon the Constitutional right of the President as the sole Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. He had no qualms about openly declaring that Levin/Reed is nothing short of “cutting and running” and that a pull-out would allow the terrorists to exploit the ensuing civil war between the Iraqi sects. Co-sponsor of the amendment, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, also was able to speak.

Reed-allnighter.jpgNot soon after these speeches, the remaining time prior to the scheduled cloture vote was quickly winding down, and several senators made a dash to the floor to speak for only a minute or two and ask to insert the rest of their official statements into the record. This is a usual practice in the Senate, but this particular rush included a large number of senior senators and presidential candidates including Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, and Mel Martinez.

  Biden-allnighter.jpg Obama-allnighter.jpg Martinez-allnighter.jpgAfter these rushed speeches and inserts into the records, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee and the Majority and Minority Leaders spoke on the legislation. After the last speech, made by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Navada, a guest chaplain led prayer to start a new legislative day and the motion to invoke cloture was read and the vote began. After the vote, the numbers fell 52-47, falling eight votes short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill to a vote for final passage.

McCain2-finalstretch-allnighter.jpg Levin-finalstretch-allnighter.jpgMy personal opinion is very much like that of Senators Graham and Craig. We can’t have Congress micromanage the war. The commanders on the ground must be the ones to make the decisions, and Congress can’t critique them, especially after it unanimously agreed to the confirmation of General Petraeus, 81-0, on the Senate floor and have officially requested a report from him in September. This order for a report went out in May, meaning we have only been waiting for this report a few months, and decided to have it completed in September. By jumping the gun, Congress is not only overriding the authority of the commanders, but they are cutting themselves short as well! They confirmed Petraeus and ordered this report and the time it would be delivered, not the Bush administration, and so Congress must shoulder the burden with the executive branch instead of blaming them for it.

Reid1-finalstretch-allnighter.jpg McConnell1-finalstretch-allnighter.jpgCongress has to just cool its jets and wait a little while. The report, as requested, will be in shortly, and then if they feel it is necessary, Congress may legislate. They have shown us time and time again, at the majority party has, that they have grown impatient with the war as a whole and are ready to pull out. Yet, if they don't want to respect the disgression of the military commands on the ground, they should at least respect their own decisions and policies and let this report be compiled and reviewed before the decide to take any further posthaste action at all concerning the war.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All Nighter 2.0

Well, we've made it through the night  and continue on through the morning, just three hours away from the cloture vote for this amendment, at which time I will give yet another post to you, right here. However, as the rays of sunlight penetrate the clouds of Washington and shine upon the dome of the Capitol, I have to believe that this amendment is doomed to never receive the up-or-down vote so passionately called for by the Majority.

McCain-Allnight3.jpg McCain-Allnight2.jpgAfter my last post, debate hit an all-time low. The Senate grew tired, as did I, but it still trudged on through the night. After Sen. Sessions, John McCain, R-Arizona, took the floor to speak for a time. He displayed true leadership, examining in-depth the situation in Iraq, complete with an analysis of the Middle East region, and what would happen to the various nations there. A surge of Iraqi refugees to little Jordan, and a rising threat to Israel as countries like Syria and Iran send in their terrorists to Iraq.

Then, another presidential candiate took the floor, Ms. Hilary Clinton, D-New York. She began by praising the troops that had done such a fine job in Iraq, such as those in Anbar, but then also repeatedly called Iraq a civil Hillary2-Allnighter.jpg Hillary1-Allnighter.jpgwar, and that Al Qaeda is not the primary cause of instability of Iraq. She, rightfully so, criticized the Iraqi police force, some of who looked the other way as members of their sect operated illegally, and sometimes even turned on coalition forces and their national government in favor of their sect. She ended by calling to move our troops out of the way of the Iraqi civil war.

This was most of what we heard throughout the night, through Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Bob Casey, D-Penn., and others. The Senate floor began to get lively again as the ever-interesting Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, got the floor, stating that he'd love to see an end to Iraq, and would also love to "balance the budget" and "cure AIDS". He warned that we have to be cautious and do things carefully.

Later on, Ken Salazar, D-Colorado, got up and criticized the "partisan bickering" that he had seen throughout the night, and urged passage of the amendment.

Inhofe-Allnighter.jpgCurrently, James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, is speaking. He has discussed his opposition, and reminded the Senate of the positive effects of the war this far. He's said how amazed he is at the volunteermanship of the military as opposed to a draft, which he was caught in once, and stated how he was glad that Fox News was over there for them now, and not just CNN International, so that they know the people at home are behind them.

Klobuchar-Allnighter.jpgIt's been announced that the Senate will adjourn for one minute at 10 AM in order to officially start a new legislative day. Then after 11 AM, the cloture vote will occur, and you will hear from me at least one more time concerning this session. So, as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., takes the floor, I ask you one last time: stay tuned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senate All-Nighter

I've been awake all night, and will remain awake, watching the all-night session currently ongoing in the U.S. Senate, as they debate the Levin/Reed Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill, which would call for the reduction of troop levels in Iraq one hundred twenty days after passage of the bill. This is my first post over this topic of at least three. I plan to post again at 8:00 AM and again after the cloture vote, which could end around 11:30 AM. This way, I can give an accurate summary of the speakers I've seen since midnight, when I began watching.

Stabenow-LetUsVote.jpgThe Democrats have been spilling their rhetoric down the center aisle of the Senate, reading letters of those in opposition and criticizing the minority for their filibustering. They also criticize Bush for blindly going into Iraq and helping Al Qaeda to regroup under pressure. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, the current speaker, as we're just about at twenty minutes after three in the morning, has been the most insane and outspoke, even topping the manure laid out by Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, just a couple hours ago. Both speak with a large "Let Us Vote" poster, advocating for an up-or-down vote on final passage, and criticizing their opponents instead of support their own unique ideas to fix this problem.

As far as the Republicans go, I say as Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, is just now taking the floor, most have done a fair job of defending our reasons to be in Iraq. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., hoped that those who say Iraq will calm down if we leave are right if the legislation passes, although he stated that he doesn't believe they are. John Thune, R-South Dakota, reminded the Senate that the greater task at hand is the Defense Appropriations Bill, which also is increasing military pay, and is appropriating billions of dollars for training and equipment to make our troops safer. He urged we wait for September, seeing as the Senate only asks for this report in May.

To counter the outspoken Sen. Stabenow, Sen. Sessions, who is still speaking, criticized the body for blaming the President when the Senate has been the one to authorize the war, confirm the military leadership, and appropriated it. He asserted that they share the burden with the President, and that we wishes we could leave Iraq, but that we must do so "safely" and "smartly" and that we must listen to the commander, who the Senate recently confirmed unanimously, in a vote of 81-0.

More subtle speakers so far have included Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, one of the three Republicans supporting the amendment, who criticized the Iraqi Parliament for their lack of activity (and rightly so), and said that this amendment waits one-hundred twenty days after enactment before taking effect, reminding the Senate that the earliest a Defense Appropriations Bill has ever been signed into law was in mid-October. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, who displayed her mastery over saying very little in a long amount of time tonight, stated that we must continually and openly assure the world that we don't want to benefit from Iraq's oil and that we have no plans to have permanent bases in the country.

This is just the first summary, you'll have another one in about four hours, and then another. Don't worry, my in-depth opinion is coming! Stay tuned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christianity Being Silenced

I was going to use to this entry to talk about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, however there is another more pressing issue I feel compelled to write about, especially since I've already written an article on the Mid-East PM. You can read it here.

This pressing issue is an assault upon the freedom of religion in the United Kingdom. Our background story starts at the Millais School in Horsham (about forty miles south of London), where sixteen-year-old student Lydia Playfoot has been banned from wearing her chastity ring to express her Christian faith. The school banned the ring because they say its against their uniform policy, although they have religious exemptions for Islamic head scarves and Sikhism's steel bracelets.

However, the story gets worse. When Playfoot appealed to a court for a decision, they actually sided with the school and upheld their decision! This ruling "will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith," said Playfoot, and I have to agree!

Paul Diamond, Playfoot's lawyer, remarked that secular authorities "lack capacity to rule on the correct manifestation of religious belief.", and again, duh!

If the government starts telling us as Christians what is and is not correct or neccesary for our religious faith, they can control every facet of our faith and effectively squelch the freedom that western democracy is supposed to give its citizens. Many teenagers wear these chastity rings, ever since a movement to do so began in the United States over ten years ago.

I personally wore one all throughout my high school career, going to a public school, and am still wearing it. I will be wearing my ring until the day I get married. I haven't taken it off in four years, and would fight tooth-and-nail to keep it on. Whether Playfoot still wears hers to school, I don't know, but I know that I would. This is a gross enfringement upon religious freedom.

I'll be praying for Playfoot and Diamond as they continue this fight, as Playfoot intends to appeal. I will also pray for those misguided officials that have enforced and upheld this totalitarian policy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Holsinger Goes Before Senate Committee

 
Dr. Holsinger, President Bush's nominee to the office of Surgeon General, went before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee today for confirmation hearings. Holsinger was immediately drilled by the Democrats, especially Chairman Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass., concerning a paper he wrote for the Methodist Church in 1991 that discusses the health risks and unnatural origins of homosexuality.

The Doctor backed away from this paper, saying that it doesn't represent what he believes and who he is today - I hope he's not serious. This is a man of morals, I hope, that we desperately need in this nation. He is heavily opposed by gay rights groups and most ulta-left liberals, and probably will be despite his backpeddling from this paper.

I hope that Dr. Holsinger does still believe what he wrote in his paper, and I hope that this committee, and then the whole Senate, confirms him as our eighteenth Surgeon General.

Dr. Holsinger has served as the Chancellor of the University of Kentucky's Chandler Medical Center, The Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet of Health and Family Services, and is currently the holder of the Wethington Chair at the University of Kentucky.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal Dream of Fairness Doctrine Crushed

Several liberal Democrats have been dreaming of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and using it to hurt talk radio. Well, the dreams of these Democrats, including Sens. Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, and Hilary Clinton, as well as Congressman Dennis Kucinich, were crushed in the House today thanks to an amendment by a heroic conservative.

Congressman Mike Pence, R-Indiana, offered an amendment today to the current spending bill before the House that would ban the FCC from spending any funds on a program similar to a fairness doctrine. The amendment received much support, over 300 votes.

Of note, during this debate, a few slurs from Congressman Dave Obey, D-Wiscon., the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, towards talk radio leaders caught some national attention. The Congressman reasoned that if conservatives thought they were being treated unfairly in the media, that they'd be screaming for a Fairness Doctrine and since we're not, it's evidence that we aren't. He continued on to say that people like "Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity" have as much impact on issues as "Paris Hilton".

Silly liberal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cloture Fails

The Senate has just voted 46-53 on the motion to bring the Immigration Reform Act debate to a close and final vote. We've won!

Despite the fiery passion of Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and the heartfelt tale of Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, we've managed to vote down this legislation. Afterwards, Leader Reid moved the Senate into a period of Morning Business, effectively pulling the bill from consideration.

This nation was so concerned, and moved forward against this bill so actively, that we actually crashed the telephone system of the Senate! I'd like to congratulate the conservative blogosphere and talk radio that has been so forceful in displaying our opinion to the Senate. Democracy was served today.

I hope that Congress will now draft and pass legislation that does not provide amnesty for those who have broken our laws. I have no problem with immigration, but I do have a problem for with being unjust and rewarding illegal aliens with citizenship would be just that.

Keep writing and calling Congress, urging them to do this, and we can fix this very serious problem we have in our nation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

One More Push

With a cloture vote coming as early as 10:30 Thursday morning, we have to keep pushing on the Senate to defeat the Kennedy-McCain-Bush Amnesty Bill! We're wearing down our Senators, and if we keep it up, I know we can beat this!

Keep calling your Senators and telling them that we can't stand for this "solution". Tell them that we won't open our borders (and wallets!) to welcome these 12-20 million people who have come here illegally. We refuse to reward them for breaking our laws!

According to NewsMax, we're only five senators short of being beyond any doubt of defeating this bill! We have to just keep up exactly what we've been doing - getting on that phone. Call talk radio, call your senators' office, even if your senator is against this bill, call him or her and reaffirm your opinion to get rid of this legislation!

I know I'll be calling both of my senators' offices again in the morning before the vote, join me, and we can defeat this bill!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senate Bill Revived

Today, the Senate voted 64-35 to resume debate on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. It's the plan of the bills supporters to pass it out of the chamber before they go on their week-long July 4th holiday.

Supporters of the bill are expected to move for cloture tomorrow, which would limit debate and bring it for a final passage vote on Thursday. This bill would grant citizenship to 15-20 million illegal aliens and set up a guest worker program. In order to make the bill more appealing to conservative Republicans, supporters have added a provision in the bill that would appropriate $4.4 billion to border security.

We cannot let this bill pass. Supports are trying to buy us off with $4.4 billion dollars, however, we can't forget that legalizing these illegals would cost Americans $1.8 trillion. I urge you all to continue calling your Senators and tell them you are against this legislation. We're pushing in Congress hard and they're feeling the pressure, let's keep it up.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senate To Attempt Amnesty Again

This is why I've not posted in awhile - busy trying to sway my own senator to oppose this bill!

The Senate is trying yet again to bring the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act to the floor and pull a successful vote for cloture - to limit debate and bring the bill to a final vote.  This is going to happen TOMORROW. The Senate convenes tomorrow morning at 10 A.M., when they will be resuming en bloc motions to consider H.R. 800 (the Employee Free Choice Act) and S. 11639, Conprehensive Immigration Reform.

We are really gearing up to try to take this bill down. You need to know if your senator is preparing to support this bill. Republican senators that are probably going to vote "aye" for cloture are:

Bond (R-Mo.)
Burr (R-N.C.)

Cochran (R-Miss.)
Ensign (R-Nev.)

Gregg (R-N.H.)
Hatch (R-Utah)


Bennett (R-Utah)
Coleman (R-Minn.)


These senators lean on voting "no" for final passage, but in the Senate, cloture is what really counts. Republicans that are planning to vote no are:

Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Allard (R-Colo.)
Bunning (R-Ky.)

Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Coburn (R-Okla.)
Corker (R-Tenn.)

Cornyn (R-Texas)
Crapo (R-Idaho)
DeMint (R-S.C.)

Dole (R-N.C.)
Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Grassley (R-Iowa)

Hutchison (R-Texas)
Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Isakson (R-Ga.)

Roberts (R-Kan.)
Sessions (R-Ala.)
Shelby (R-Ala.)

Smith (R-Ore.)
Sununu (R-N.H.)
Thune (R-S.D.)
Vitter (R-La.)

Democrats that are against the bill, but won't commit to a "no" vote on cloture include:

Bingaman (D-N.M.) -- voted NO on cloture two weeks ago
Boxer (D-Calif.) -- voted NO on cloture two weeks ago

Conrad (D-N.M.) -- voted YES on cloture but concerned about violations of the Senate budget process

Levin (D-Mich.) -- voted YES on cloture two weeks ago, but up for re-election next year and perhaps influenced by the state's junior Sen. Stabenow who has pledged a NO on cloture.

Nelson (D-Neb.) -- voted YES on cloture two weeks ago but NO on the amnesty last year. He campaigned for re-election last year as an anti-amnesty candidate. Problem is that he generally votes for cloture as a matter of principle to allow issues and candidates to get their debate. He needs to be helped to feel secure in a NO vote because the way S. 1639 is being brought up violates normal procedure and that the debate already occurred in May.

Webb (D-Va.) -- voted NO on cloture two weeks ago -- says he will likely vote NO on final bill but may vote YES on cloture to see if his amendment passes -- his amendment would reduce the number of illegal aliens getting amnesty by perhaps a third -- most people who know him well feel he has a great distaste for this whole matter of rewarding illegal behavior, as do most Virginians.

Democrats promising a "no" vote are:

Baucus (D-Mont.)
Byrd (D-W.Va.)
Dorgan (D-N.D.)
Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Pryor (D-Ark.)
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Tester (D-Mont.)

If your senator isn't listed here, they ARE PLANNING ON VOTING FOR this bill. If this bill passed it would be the:

  • largest amnesty for illegal aliens in history
  • largest increase in foreign labor in history
  • largest expansion of social welfare programs in history (to handle the 35-40 million -- mostly low-educated, low-skilled -- foreigners who would get Green Cards over the next 20 years alone
  • We can't let this bill pass. Call your senators. The Senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121, please call and ask for your senator's office. Tell their office that you OPPOSE this bill. Call them before the Senate convenes at 10 A.M. tomorrow. Flood their office phones and tell them we don't support this bill.

    This legislation not only gives amnesty to 15 –20 million illegal aliens, it does nothing to secure our border and nothing about illegal immigration. The government itself estimates that under this bill illegal immigration will only drop 13 % in 20 years. But it doubles legal immigration and costs us 2.8 trillion dollars.

    Email your senators, even better, CALL them. Let them know that America will NOT stand for this "deal".

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
    « Previous12Next »