Among Democratic contenders, former Sen. John Edwards now holds a 5-point lead, climbing up to 27 percent. Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, both fell 6 points. They now sit at 22 and 16 percent, respectively.On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney bumped his numbers up to 25 percent, and unofficial GOP candidate Fred Thompson rose to 14. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani slips a bit, falling to 13, and Sen. John McCain, who had been the leader of the pack in May, is now seeing 10 percent.
The poll, conducted by KCCI-TV out of Des Moines, surveyed 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections. It carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Romney also holds a lead in the New Hampshire primary polls, yet the media continues to report Romney in fourth place in national polls. National polls mean nothing during the primary season. If Mitt wins Iowa and New Hampshire he could be on his way to an upset win. But who would consider this an upset? The media, who continues to tell us he is in fourth place.
The national polls also tell us Edwards is a distant third yet he is leading in Iowa. Who knows what could happen if he pulls off what the media would consider an upset.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) today proposed an amendment to the homeland security bill that would fund a seven hundred mile fence at the southern border.
an amendment devoting $3 billion to increase border security efforts as part of a $38 billion homeland security funding bill.
The amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) provides funding to build a 700-mile long fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, as called for in the Secure Fence Act. It also requires the federal government to establish and to demonstrate operational control over 100 percent of the land and maritime borders between the U.S. and Mexico.
What is shocking to me here is that the senate approved it by a vote of 89-1. It’s not the margin of victory in this vote I am referring to,although it is impressive, it is the fact that they approved it at all. Maybe the Republicans are finally realizing that although they are in the minority they do have some power to legislate if they hold firm in what they believe in. The Democrats have a very slim majority and need Republicans to vote with them in order to accomplish anything. It’s time for the Republicans to start assurting themselves like the Democrats do. Show some balls and stand up and serve the American people.
The amendment provides to hire, train and deploy 23,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents. It seeks to permanently end the “catch and release” of illegal aliens by providing the resources necessary to detain up to 45,000 individuals a day.
The amendment also provides funding for 300 miles of vehicle barriers at the border, 105 ground-based radar and camera towers, and the deployment of four unmanned aerial vehicles at the border. In addition, it provides funds to cover the deportation of absconders and visa overstays.
The American people let their voices be heard during the immigration reform debacle and the politicians had no choice but to listen. WE told congress that WE wanted the border secured first, work on the other problems after that. WE spoke in such large numbers that they had to pay attention in Washington, and they did.
A town in Pennsylvania decided they needed to crack down on illegal aliens and the people who hire them. This sounds like a very good idea to me and most Americans. However Judge James Munley is not most Americans, he ruled that the town had to stop cracking down on illegal aliens.
A U.S. judge on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional a local law designed to crack down on illegal immigration, dealing a blow to similar laws passed by dozens of towns and cities across the country.
U.S. District Judge James Munley said the city of Hazleton, 100 miles north of Philadelphia, was not allowed to implement a law that would fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants and penalize landlords who rent rooms to them.
I don’t know what has happened to our country, we are being invaded by illegals who do not wish to assimilate into our culture. Read more…
The latest New Hampshire GOP fundraiser seems to have drawn the ire of the Democrats in the state and some Republicans looking to capitalize on the new politically correct liberal New Hampshire. They have rented the Pelham Fish And Game Club and will host a shoot that features Uzis, M-16 rifles and other automatic weapons.
“The citizens of Manchester have lived through a deadly spike in violent crime the past year-and-a-half, despite the campaign promises of (Mayor) Frank Guinta to lower crime rates,” Pappas said. “That the mayor’s political party would seek to glorify the use of machine guns for political gain is unconscionable.”
Pappas, who was quoted above, is the chairman of the New Hampshire Democrat party, and he is looking to politicize the republican fundraiser because it involves guns. We know that guns are evil because Democrats have been telling us this for years. This will not play well even in the new Blue Hampshire as we still have a majority of gun toting, second amendment supporters, which is why the Republicans took this approach. It highlights a major difference between the two parties here.
The concept prompted shudders across the political aisle. Chris Pappas, the city Democratic party chairman, called the event “not just in poor taste; it is downright offensive.”
Just remember that statement New Hampshire, it is offensive to have a target shoot in New Hampshire with all these liberals running amuck in our state. This will be used as a springboard to further gun control in this state if we keep electing liberals.
All of the Republican presidential hopefulls were invited to attend the event and all of them declined siting the upcoming straw poll in Iowa as an excuse. LAME. We all know that Mitt Romney is an avid hunter and shooter of varmints, couldn’t he have found the time?
It seems to me that the Republican presidential candidates were afraid to come to this event for fear of alienating the gun control crowd. We know that Rudy is for gun control so wouldn’t this have been a good chance for a GOP candidate to try and seperate himself from the pack, at least on one issue?
I believe that president Bush’s lasting legacy will be his supreme court nominations. John Roberts and Sam Alito will shape the direction of the country for years to come. It comes as no suprise then that these two fine Americans would come under attack. What is suprising is who has decided to attack them. Republican senator Arlen Spector has said that he will personally investigate the testimony from their confirmation hearings.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.
Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.
What the hell is going on here? Two conservative justices were approved to the bench and now that they are issuing rulings that lean conservatives they need to be probed. I am really getting sick and tired of all these probes and hearings. It is getting sickening. It is time for this do-nothing congress to do something. Is this their idea of governing? Hearings are the only thing that this congress seems cabable of. Read more…
Senator Joe Biden wants to Intervene in Darfur Civil War
According to the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said he would send 2,500 U.S. troops to Darfur to try to end the civil war there. “They think we can save them,” he said, “Guess what? We can.”
Senator Joe Biden says we should send troops into Darfur to fight in a civil war, yet we are told we need to leave Iraq because our soldiers are caught in a civil war. What is the difference between the civil wars? President Bush has not sent troops to Darfur and we have troops in Iraq. The Democrats whole policy is based on opposing Bush, that is the only difference between the supposed two civil wars. If America was in Dafur the Democrats would be calling for withdrawal. Ater all some people cannot handle being free. Isn’t that what the Democrats have been telling us?
It seems that disgraced professor Ward Churchill will be fired tomorrow for his disgraceful comments he made about the victims of September 11th. I say, what took so long?
The university’s governing board plans to hold a closed session on the Boulder campus today, and a decision on Churchill is expected in the middle of the afternoon.
A panel eventually concluded that he had plagiarized, fabricated and falsified some of his research and writings.
On top of being a despicable human being for his comments about 9/11 he has plagiarized his opinions from others.
Churchill drew attention to himself by writing an essay questioning the innocence of those who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. He described the victims as “technocrats” and “little Eichmanns” (Nazis).
Of course his supporters and the ACLU say his freedom of speech is being attacked.
Churchill’s liberal supporters insist that he’s being fired for voicing unpopular views. Churchill himself believes “that going through my scholarship with a fine-tooth comb was simply a pretext to fire me for my constitutionally protected speech.”
The ACLU argues that the University of Colorado had no grounds to fire Churchill for his unpopular comments, so it kept digging into his scholarship — “in an effort to find more defensible grounds for sanctioning him.”
I am all for free speech, that goes without saying, but this man has it coming. What good can come from calling the victims of September 11th Nazi’s? None. Call Hillary or any of the Democrats Nazi’s and watch the fallout. The victims of September 11th were just people going to work trying to support their families, then to have someone like this denigrate them is reprehensible.
Goodbye Ward, we hardly knew you.
Let me first mention that I did not watch the Democrat debate last night as I am not voting for any of these socialists, and they are all the same anyway. It doesn’t matter who you vote for on the Democrat side, there is no difference. That, and I didn’t care to hear about how bad America is.
So now I read some of the quotes from the Debate (I can’t help myself, I guess part of me wants to get aggravated at them in some sick, twisted way), and I see that Obama wants to talk to all the dictators in the world today.
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes. I agree with Hillary on this one point.
Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive
“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper’s Web site on Tuesday.
Seizing what she sees as a political opportunity to try and woo moderate voters, she attacks Barack for wanting to talk to dictators. Obama believes that if we just talk to them they will see how smart and caring he is. They will give up their dictating ways, he will make them see the light. He believes because his intentions are so well-meaning that they will be in awe of him and become our friends.
The ironic thing here is that Hillary is very much in tune to these leaders way of thinking. Hillary is a socialist at heart and admires many of the qualities of these leaders. Now she tries to distance herself, and will probably succeed because of this apparent mis-step by Obama. Of course the Democrat’s constituents are also socialists at heart, even though most of them don’t even realize it, so his comments probably play well to them. It’s the moderates he could potentially lose here.
Barack predictably goes on the offensive by trying to link her to the Bush administration.
In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration.
The Democrats need to learn they are not running against president Bush. It is time for them to differentiate between each other, not see who can slam the Bush administration the hardest. Bashing Bush plays well to their base, but offers nothing to the mainstream Americans trying to decide who to vote for.
“Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
That is the bottom line here, he pandered to the far left by saying he would pander to dictators. While the left loves dictators the rest of America doesn’t.
Here are links I found on the New Hampshire GOP website.
These links provide the truth about United States Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes.
These links will be added to my blogroll and will remain there until these despicable people are voted out of office.
This almost seems like a set-up to me. San Francisco has a domestic partner law that provides equal rights to gay couples as marriage. The court of appeals upheld a ban on gay marriage because it ruled the domestic partnerships provided the same rights as real marriage. Now we have a man ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife even though she is now married to another woman.
Before I even get into the whole gay angle of this, isn’t alimony in general an antiquated idea? Why is a man still required to pay to support his ex-wife in a time when women are perfectly capable of providing for themselves? Child support I can understand, every man should support his children, it shouldn’t take a court order to have him take responsibility.
Marriage has been cheapened in more ways than one. Gay marriage is just the latest example. In today’s culture of no consequences divorce has become too easy to obtain. A man and woman used to have to consider carefully whether they were ready to, or in the right relationship to marry. Now, in today’s culture it is perfectly acceptable to have a sort of trial and error marriage. If it doesn’t work out, oh well, it’s time to move on with no committment to trying to work things out. Just move on to the next marriage.
Anyway, let me now get back on point.
A judge ordered an Orange County man to continue paying $1,250 a month in alimony to his former wife — even though she’s in a registered domestic partnership with another woman.
State marriage laws say that alimony ends when a former spouse remarries. So Ron Garber thought he was off the hook for the payments when he learned his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood, registered her new relationship under the state’s domestic partnership law.
The court of appeals already ruled that gay couples had the same rights as breeders, so why would this judge rule against the ex-husband in this case? I believe the judge to be an activist who wants marriage to be re-defined and doesn’t think domestic partnerships are enough. He or she is using his or her position to further an agenda. My oint I belive is reaffirmed here:
The case, which Garber said he plans to appeal, highlights gaps between the legal status of domestic partners and married couples, an issue the California Supreme Court is considering as it ponders whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.
There is no gap here, except the one seen by the judge. The woman is re-married so Garber should not be required to pay alimony. Are you trying to tell me that women can never support themselves? If so, then two women should not be allowed to marry if they need a man to support them.
Here is the agenda summed up:
Lawyers in favor of same-sex marriage are watching the Orange County case and say they will cite it to the state high court as an argument for uniting gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.
That’s the objective here, gays will not be happy until they receive the term marriage. This is not about gay rights, it’s about semantics. They want to trivialize marriage more than it has already been. They are in the process of destroying one of the fabrics that our country was founded on. They are gaining the rights, but they want the word.
