Blog For Freedom

NBC, CBS Refuse Ground Zero Mosque Ad

We all know how the alphabet news stations (aka liberal media) like to selectively report the news, so you'll only know what THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW.  But refusing to run this ad is ridiculous...

Read the Arizona Law Before You Criticize It!

We The People Stimulus Package

This is well worth the roughly 5 minutes it takes to watch...

Obama Has No Birth Certificate

I received this in an email...

 

Obama Man Can - he sprinkles it with Hope and makes the world feel good!

This is too funny!  Click below to play...

Finally... a Cure for Too Much Barack Obama!

This is definitely my favorite email of the week!  I know there are plenty of people who would really love to buy some of this stuff.  I need to take some just to watch the news these days!

ORIGINAL SOURCE UNKNOWN

Barack Obama Empty Rhetoric Award

I know many politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are worthy of this award.  I just can't think of anybody quite as deserving as Barack Obama...

 

ORIGINAL SOURCE UNKNOWN

Barack Obama is for Hope & Change Alright!

This is so true that it's just plain funny... but kind of scary at the same time...

 

ORIGINAL SOURCE UNKNOWN

Ronald Reagan Was So Right When He Said...

"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other."

Be sure to keep this in mind on election day by voting only for responsible candidates - those who are accountable to their constituents.

Help this AZ Republican & Fight the 'Open Borders' Crowd

Arizona State Representative Russell Pearce is facing some tough opposition as he runs for AZ State Senator of District 18.  As a State Representative, Pearce has been one of Arizona's leaders in the fight against illegal immigration.  In fact, Pearce was the force behind Arizona's landmark employer-sanctions law, which requires employers to verify legal status and severely punishes those who hire illegals.  Now the pro-illegal loons are trying to punish Pearce for doing his job and representing the interests of his constituents.

And it's not just the open borders crazies that are attacking Pearce.  Even some other Republicans are trying to keep Pearce from being re-elected... like AZ Congressman Jeff Flake who sponsored his very own amnesty bill last year.  Apparently, Flake is pushing to get his immigration lawyer brother-in-law, Kevin Gibbons elected to this AZ Senate seat instead.  Gibbons has apparently taken alot of money from those who support the illegal workforce.

Pearce has endorsements from Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas, both of whom have also fought hard against illegal immigration.  But that's not enough.  Russell Pearce needs our support.  The ugly reality is that money may buy this Senate seat. Pearce is running as a publically-financed Clean Elections candidate, while Gibbons will likely enjoy donations from many of his brother-in-law, Jeff Flake's donors (not to mention the open borders crowd).

Hopefully the will of the people, rather than the almighty dollar will decide this election.  The people of Arizona need more elected officials like Russell Pearce fighting for us.  And to Congressman Jeff Flake who is running for his 5th term after promising voters he would limit himself to 3 terms... and who has stayed in office by default in somewhat unchallenged elections... please stop being such a 'Flake'.

SUPPORT RUSSELL PEARCE FOR ARIZONA SENATE!

 

Other related articles of interest:
Who do you trust with the future of District 18?
Grassroots Arizona is anything but: Funded by high rollers with open borders agenda
The unvarnished truth in the assault on Rep. Russell Pearce
Time to be focused
Kevin Gibbons fails to show
Russell Pearce announces run for State Senate in 2008

Here's Why You Should Vote Republican...

My favorite email this week offers a good explanation of how Democrats will screw up our economy if we elect Obama, especially if we also re-elect our Democratic Congress.  Enjoy!

"Once upon a time, on a farm in Virginia , there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.
 
She called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
 
'Not I,' said the cow.
 
'Not I,' said the duck.
 
'Not I,' said the pig.
 
'Not I,' said the goose.
 
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.   The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
 
'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.

'Not I,' said the duck.
 
'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
 
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
 
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
 
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
 
At last it came time to bake the bread.  'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
 
'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
 
'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
 
'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.

'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.  She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'
 
'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
 
'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
 
'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
 
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
 
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
 
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'
 
'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.

'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
 
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'
 
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
 
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
 
EPILOGUE
 
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
 
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
 
That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
 
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?"

ORIGINAL SOURCE UNKNOWN

IRS Tax Audit Joke

Here's a funny IRS joke I received by email.  Enjoy!

The IRS decides to audit Ralph, and summons him to the IRS office. The IRS auditor is not surprised when Ralph shows up with his attorney.

The auditor says, 'Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I'm not sure the IRS finds that believable.'

'I'm a great gambler, and I can prove it,' says Ralph.  'How about a  demonstration?'

The auditor thinks for a moment and said,  'Okay. Go ahead.'

Ralph says,  'I'll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye.'

The auditor thinks a moment and says, 'It's a bet.'

Ralph removes his glass eye and bites it.

The auditor's jaw drops.

Ralph says, 'Now, I'll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye.'

Now the auditor can tell Ralph isn't blind, so he takes the bet.

Ralph removes his dentures and bites his good eye.

The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Ralph's attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.

'Want to go double or nothing?' Ralph asks. 'I'll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.'

The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there's no way this guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.

Ralph stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can't make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor's desk.

The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win. But Ralph's attorney moans and puts his head in his hands. 

'Are you okay?' the auditor asks.

'Not really,' says the attorney. 'This morning, when Ralph told me he'd been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and piss all over your desk and that you'd be happy about it..

Original Source Unknown

Americans Want Change in Washington

This is classic...click below to view a video on "Change" that even Democrats can laugh at!

Should I Vote Democrat or Republican? Be Careful How You Vote!

This is my favorite email of the week.  And with the 2008 Presidential election right around the corner, this story has two great lessons we should all definitely remember!

Awsop's Favle told and retold.....

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.  The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.  CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome."  Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.  Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.  Hillary gets her former employer, the Rose Law Firm, to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a jury comprised of single-parent welfare recipients.  The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.  The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be careful how you vote.

Democrats Reject Democracy in US House of Representatives

First of all, let's get one thing totally clear...SCHIP is a SHAM.

It's truly a shame.  Not only are the Democrats back to their old tricks of trying to hand out government services to every illegal alien they can find.  But they're doing it:

• in a corrupt manner
• at the expense of senior citizens and other hard-working Americans
• behind the backs of their constituents

SCHIP is not about insuring children and poor people.  It's a farce - the Democrats are USING CHILDREN and POOR PEOPLE to gain support for a bill they know would otherwise be overwhelmingly opposed (Remember the Amnesty bill - HELLO?).  SCHIP is really a step towards socialized medicine, and an attempt to give free health care to illegal aliens.  Call your Senators and Congressmen - or you'll be paying for this free illegal alien healthcare before you know it.  And when you get old, you yourself will find yourself with no Medicare.  Since we can't afford to give healthcare to everybody, the Democrats have decided that illegal aliens are more deserving of free healthcare than hard-working American senior citizens who have spent their entire lives paying into a corrupt, sham system that promised them something in return.

Below is another email I received from Congressman John Shadegg.  This really is a sad day for America.

To: Shadegg Insiders
From: Congressman John Shadegg

Last night I witnessed something I never thought possible on the floor of the U.S. House.  Below is the press release I issued about it.

DEMOCRACY OVERRULED
Democrats Abuse Power - Alter Vote Count

WASHINGTON , D.C. - House Democrats last night overruled a clear vote showing that the Republican Motion-to-Recommit on the Agriculture Appropriations bill had passed.  Democrats ruled, instead, that the motion failed.

With the vote total boards at each end of the House Chamber clearly showing the Republican motion prevailing by a vote of 215 to 213 and the word "FINAL" displayed beside that count, the Democrat Chairman gaveled the vote closed, announcing the Republican motion had failed on a 214 to 214 tie.

"I have been here almost 13 years and I thought I had seen it all, but tonight's display of corrupt, raw, partisan political power was stunning," said Rep. John Shadegg (AZ-03). "I honestly didn't think this could happen in America.  This is a sad day for the U.S. House and a tragic day for our nation."

Following a protracted period of chaotic protest and procedural w rangling, Democrats altered the displayed vote total two more times.  However, when Democrats refused to acknowledge their abuse of power and accept the passage of the motion, Republicans walked out en masse in protest.

"If my vote doesn't count, what point is there in voting?" Shadegg said.  "I owe it to my constituents and to this nation to demand integrity and fairness in the operations of this institution."

Democrats Increase Taxes to Expand Government, at the Expense of Seniors Who Rely on Medicare

What a country!  Before the Senate gets around to voting on this, everybody and their brother needs to call, fax, and write their Senators to let them know that the State Children's Health Insurance Program, aka 'SCHIP' is a bunch of SH CRAP!  Below is a copy of an email I received from Arizona's Republican Congressman John Shadegg.  In my humble opinion, Shadegg is one of the good guys - he stands up for conservative values even when it's unpopular with his peers.   In fact, to those Arizona Republicans looking for a true conservative to support financially (you know all you people who used to donate money to Senator Kyl and Senator McCain!), I strongly recommend donating money to Congressman Shadegg.  From what I've seen, he actually represents his constituents as he was elected to do.  He opposed the Amnesty bill while AZ Representative Jeff Flake and Senators Jon Kyl & John McCain caved to the President's shamnesty bill.  Shadegg remained firmly opposed even when Bush and his Washington heavies tried to strongarm amnesty opponents - they even went as far as to label opponents as 'racists'.  Anyway, before I get side-tracked further, here's Congressman Shadegg's email:

To: Shadegg Insiders
From: Congressman John Shadegg

On Wednesday night the Democrats in the U.S. House passed a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  The expansion allows states -- even encourages them - to provide coverage to ADULTS, including CHILDLESS adults.  A bill which will extend SCHIP funding beyond the working poor -for which the program was intended - to not just middle income families making more than $45,000 a year, but also to upper middle income Americans making $60,000 to $80,000 a year.  And the bill has no asset test, so the children of the richest Americans could be eligible. To pay for their expansion of coverage beyond just the uninsured children, the Democrats cut spending for the Medicare Advantage program.  It would eliminate coverage for 3 million seniors across America (more than 50,000 in Arizona alone).

The Democrats rushed this through Congress in barely 8 days, with no committee hearings, no Republican amendments and only three hours of debate on the floor. To try to hold the Democrats accountable, on the day before the vote Republicans attempted to discuss the problems with the Democrat's SCHIP bill while debating the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill. 

The Democrats were none too happy about this maneuver.  And, it actually was a lot of fun to use floor procedure to engage in the debate.  Below you will find my floor remarks and my back and forth with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and the Chair as I point out the flaws in the Democrat's SCHIP bill in the context of my support for a cut in the Agriculture appropriations bill.

---

Congressional Record, July 31, 2007, Debate on McHenry Amendment to H.R. 3161, Department of Agriculture appropriations bill

Mr. SHADEGG. I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment to reduce the budget of the Office of the Secretary by $101,000.
   
The reason I support that amendment is because I do not support cutting the Medicare Advantage program by billions of dollars and hurting seniors.
   
POINT OF ORDER
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
 
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has confined his remarks to the pending amendment. The gentleman may proceed.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. I would rather cut the Secretary's budget by $101 billion as a way to save money than to cut the Medicare Advantage program because the Medicare Advantage program helps millions of Americans and thousands in my own congressional district. So as the Democrats propose to cut that program in their SCHIP bill, I believe it would be better to cut this program.
   
I rise in support of the McHenry amendment to cut $101,000 from the Secretary's budget because the Medicare Advantage bill will cut 3 million seniors' ability to collect their benefits through Medicare Advantage. That 3 million includes some of the poorest of seniors who are on Medicare Advantage, and I would rather cut $101,000 from the Secretary's budget than cut that money going to Medicare seniors who need it desperately.
   
I support the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr . McHenry) to cut $101,000 from the budget of the Secretary of Agriculture because the other cut we are faced with is a $15 billion cut in part A, including a cut in benefits to skilled nursing facilities, as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill.
   
I would rather cut the Department of Agriculture's budget than----
   
POINT OF ORDER
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
   
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate about the SCHIP program in another bill for another day.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
   
The gentleman may proceed.
   PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
   
Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. I presume I can state my reason for supporting the amendment; is that correct?
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must keep his remarks to the pending question, and there must be a nexus between the pending question and broader policy issues.
   
The gentleman may proceed.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. And I will continue to say that a $15 billion cut in skilled nursing facilities is, from my perspective, a bad idea, much worse than a $101,000 cut from the Secretary's budget. And, therefore, I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment because I don't want to see skilled nursing cut as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill.
   
I support the McHenry amendment which would cut $101,000 from the Secre tary's budget because I don't support cutting rehabilitation facilities as the Democrats would do in their SCHIP bill.
   
Indeed, I would much prefer to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's budget than to cut, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill, rehabilitation facilities.
   
POINT OF ORDER
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
   
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate about a piece of legislation that will come up in a few days. We are discussing the Agriculture appropriations bill.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the pending question.
 
The gentleman may proceed.
& nbsp; 
Mr. SHADEGG. As I believe I have, quite skillfully.
   
I do rise in very strong support of the McHenry amendment because I believe that cutting the Secretary's budget is a much better idea than cutting skilled nursing facilities.
   
I believe it is a much better idea than cutting long-term hospital facilities, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. And I think it would be much better to cut $100,000 from the Secretary of Agriculture's administrative budget than to cut, as the Democrats do, funding for long-term care by hospitals.
   
It seems to me this is a simple debate: Where do we cut? I would much rather cut $100,000 from the budget of the Office of the Secretary than to cut $9 billion from Medicare plan B, including payments for oxygen, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. It seems to me that kind of cut in their SCHIP bill is a bad idea. I would rather support the gentleman's amendment.
&nb sp; 
POINT OF ORDER
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the gentleman sounds like a broken record. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment, and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a point of order that the debate is irrelevant?
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am making the point of order that the debate is absolutely irrelevant.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Arizona mu st confine his remarks to the pending question.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I seek a clarification. What was the ruling of the Chair?
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is correct. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. Precisely how did my remarks not----
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending question is the amendment by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina to the amendment by the gentleman from Georgia. That is the pending question.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. And I thank the Chairman for her ruling, and I am pleased to say that each of my points have tried to explain that I support, adamantly support the amendment by the gentleman to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's budget because I don't favor these other cuts. I don't favor cutting the funding for end-stage renal disease programs. I would much rather cut the Department of Agriculture ad ministrative budget than do as the Democrats would in their SCHIP bill, cut $3.6 billion from the end-stage renal disease program.
   
It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina to cut $100,000 from the administrative budget of the Secretary is a much-preferable method to achieve the savings that we need. In each of these instances, I believe that cutting the Secretary's budget would make much more sense than cutting the Medicare program.
   
I have constituents in my district who would much rather see us cut the Ag budget than see us cut Medicare or see us cut end-stage renal disease or than see us cut oxygen therapy as is all done in the Democrats' SCHIP bill. For all of those reasons, I believe it is very important that we support the gentleman's amendment.
   
POINT OF ORDER
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman fr om Illinois may state his point of order.
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. There is nothing irrelevant about it.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will suspend.
   
Does the gentleman make a point of order that the debate is irrelevant?
   
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I make the point of order that the debate is irrelevant.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
   
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
   
RECORDED VOTE    
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
   
A recorded vote was ordered.
   
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, noes 178, not voting 39

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
   
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. As I understand the ruling of the Chair, it is appropriate for me to say I support the gentleman's amendment because I do not support cuts in skilled nursing facilities or cuts in rehabilitation facilities or cuts in long-term care hospitals or cuts in oxygen, or cuts in brachytherapy, or cuts in end-stage renal disease or cuts in Medicare Advantage; but that I cannot say which appear in their SCHIP bill. Is that correct?
   
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is permissible to identify as preferable an alternative object for funding. It is not permissible to dwell on the merits of that alternative object.
   
The gentleman may proceed.
   
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank you very much for your ruling.
   
Madam Chairman, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I believe that we have to find the funding necessary for essential government programs and that cutting the Secretary of Agriculture is much better than cutting such programs as skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, oxygen under Medicare, brachytherapy under Medicare, end-stage renal disease funding under Medicare or Medicare Advantage.
   
For those reasons, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
   
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Senate Amnesty Excuses & GOP Damage Control Begin

I just received this excuse letter from Senator Jon Kyl.  Read it carefully...it seems he gets what Americans want, yet voted for the opposite.  My message to Senator Kyl and every Senator that voted for cloture today: You're right about one thing.  This amnesty bill was definitely a compromise...a compromise of our national security, not to mention our core values.  UNACCEPTABLE.

The Senate voted this morning against invoking cloture on the immigration reform bill, taking the issue off of the Senate’s calendar for the time being. While there is still a chance that a reform bill could be resurrected, the legislative schedule for the remainder of the year is such that significant immigration reform is unlikely to be considered again in the near future.

The result of the cloture vote demonstrates just how difficult it is to achieve the consensus necessary to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. The bill before the Senate had something for everyone to love, and hate. For conservatives, the bill included unprecedented additional resources to help secure the border (including the dollars upfront to pay for them), an end to chain migration, an effective employee verification system to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining employment, and a temporary worker program that is truly temporary. For liberals, it offered a way to deal with illegal immigrants who are already here, though the automatic pathway to citizenship they wanted was eliminated.

To get something done, both sides had to make concessions. Considering that Republicans are in the minority, I believe we won far more than we gave up. I’ve linked to an editorial from the Washington Post that illustrates how the liberal media and Democrat politicians scorn the bill’s strong enforcement bent and the common-sense amendments some of us offered. Nevertheless, Senators from both the right and the left ends of each party united to block the bill’s further consideration. It was a case of letting the pursuit of the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Many people have rightfully criticized the federal government for failing in the past to enforce the law and deal effectively with the problem of illegal immigration. I agree with them. And they understandably look skeptically on our current efforts to strengthen the law, even while they demand that Congress act. But we will never be able to solve the problem by saying “no” to new legislation because of past failures. And we cannot simply say “enforce the law.” As I’ve said before, much of the current law is unenforceable. The Senate’s vote today regrettably means the status quo will continue, with thousands of illegal immigrants continuing to pour across our borders every day and millions who are already here continuing to receive silent amnesty.

Senators have been listening to their constituents around the country – the number of calls, letters, faxes, and emails has been unprecedented, even jamming phone lines into the Senate earlier today. I, for one, have tried to turn constructive suggestions into meaningful amendments to enhance the enforcement provisions of the bill. Though the current legislation has been defeated, I’ll keep fighting for additional resources in upcoming appropriations bills for more Border Patrol agents, the construction of border fencing and other barriers, and improved technology along the border. I will urge the Bush administration to enforce those parts of the law that are enforceable in order to demonstrate to a skeptical public that our government is indeed committed to enforcing the law. I also intend to introduce legislation that will focus on enforcing immigration laws at the workplace and securing the border. Clearly, the American people want more enforcement before doing anything else.

I’ll continue to listen, and I invite your comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Thank you.

Sincerely,

JON KYL

So, he realizes the American people want enforcement first, AND he understands we want enforcement first because we don't trust the government to do any enforcement otherwise (like in the past)...yet he voted against what he knows his constituents want.  He says much of the current law is unenforceable.  So we do NO ENFORCEMENT?  Hey Senator Kyl, guess what?  Many parts of the current law ARE enforceable - so let's start enforcing.  And how about that fence that was already approved - where is it?  SHOW ME THE FENCE!  Senator Kyl says, "we can't simply say 'enforce the law'."  Why not Senator?  Aren't laws intended to be enforced?  I'm so sick of hearing "we can't" and "it's the best we can do".  Then move aside and make room for someone who CAN and WILL get the job done.

Senator Kyl says, "It was a case of letting the pursuit of the perfect become the enemy of the good."  Is he smoking crack?  They weren't pursuing anything close to perfection and passage of this bill, not defeat, would have been the "enemy of the good".

This Senator aknowledges "the number of calls, letters, faxes, and emails has been unprecedented, even jamming phone lines into the Senate...", yet he refused to listen to the messages being sent by his constituents.  Either he's deaf, hard-headed or just plain doesn't care what his constituents want.

Senator Kyl says, "we will never be able to solve the problem by saying “no” to new legislation because of past failures."  Well we'll never solve any probelms by REPEATING past failures either.  Are our elected officials really too stupid to learn from past mistakes?

The Washington Post editorial referenced is such B.S. that I excluded the link.  This Senator is just truly clueless.  Apparently, Washington will do that to you after awhile.  Perhaps it's time to re-examine term limits?

Bush - Kennedy Amnesty Bill Defeated

The best news I've received all week:  The traitors were defeated!  However, I must also say that I'm especially ashamed today, since both of my Arizona Senators betrayed their constituents by voting for amnesty.  But no worries, we'll be sure to remind them of their betrayal when they're up for re-relection.  I predict both Senator McCain and Senator Kyl are serving their LAST term as an Arizona Senator.

Here's a list of all 18 Senators who changed their amnesty vote from 'YES' to 'NO', along with a list of all 53 Senators who voted 'NO' on amnesty today.  I guess all those faxes, emails and phone calls I made weren't a waste of time afterall!  Kudos to EVERY AMERICAN who voiced their opinion and defeated this bill.

Pedro and Carlos - Go Back to Mexico

Pedro and Carlos are panhandling in Los Angeles. Pedro drives a Lexus SUV, lives in a mortgage-free house and has a lot of money to spend.  Carlos only brings in 2 to 3 dollars a day.

Carlos asks Pedro how he can bring home a suitcase full of $10.00 bills every day.

Pedro says, "Look at your sign. It reads: "I have no work, a wife and 6 kids to support. Look at *my* sign."

Carlos looks at Pedro's sign. It reads: "I only need another $10.00 to move back to Mexico for good."

Dear President Bush & Congress: It's the Border, STUPID!

The past few weeks has been an enormous wake up call to Americans everywhere.  As a result of the immigration amnesty battle in Washington, Americans now realize that politicians cannot be trusted...PERIOD.  If we take our eyes off them even for a second, the Kennedy crowd starts looking for ways to screw hard-working Americans.  And even more disturbing, our so-called "Conservative" Senators jumped right on the immigration bandwagon along with the Dumbocrats.

Here's a link to the names, addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers of several US Senators.  These Senators NEED to hear from you - tell them what you think about their 'Shamnesty' bill.

Below is the letter I faxed to most of them (I also faxed a second page containing only a huge "A" for Amnesty!)  I feel so much better now...you should try it!

Dear Senator [insert your traitor Senator's name here],

If you support the current immigration bill:

1.  You are voting for Amnesty.  Spin it anyway you wish, but the American people are not stupid and Americans, more than two-thirds of whom oppose amnesty, will remember you as part of the A-gang. (“A” is for Amnesty)

2.  While even legalized ‘illegals’ will NOT be eligible to vote for many years, angry Americans WILL BE VOTING AGAINST Amnesty supporters in huge numbers.  All those Americans who called, emailed and faxed your office will be voicing their discontent in the form of a vote for many elections to come.

3.  Ask Senator Kennedy how many FAILED AMNESTY bills he’s helped author to date.  With his track record on amnesty, he shouldn’t even be allowed in the room while an immigration bill is being written. 

4.  Also please ask Senator Kennedy how much our taxes will have to go up to pay for this and how much social security and medicare benefits will have to decrease.  Certainly a responsible politician would NOT propose a bill that will cost Americans TRILLIONS of dollars without first knowing where the money’s coming from.  But wait, nobody thought of that...of course, why worry about how much of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY YOU’RE SPENDING?  Americans struggling to make ends meet can’t go shopping without making sure we have money in the bank first.  Yet Congress wants to import tens of millions of welfare recipients without giving any thought to how they will pay for it because it’s NOT THEIR MONEY.
 
5.  WHERE’S THE FENCE that was already approved?  There isn’t one yet - that’s exactly  why Americans do NOT believe you will secure the border even with amnesty.  We are tired of being LIED TO...PROVE YOU CAN & WILL SECURE THE BORDER, and maybe Americans will be willing to swallow the amnesty pill.  But NOT until AFTER the border is PROVEN to be secured because we’ve been tricked into amnesty before.

6.  If you’re lucky enough to be one of the very few who supports amnesty and doesn’t get voted out of office next time you’re up for re-election, have you thought about what you’ll tell your constituents NEXT time the government considers amnesty for the millions of illegals who are encouraged by the passage of this Amnesty bill to illegally cross our still unsecured border in the future?

7.  Time will prove this amnesty bill to be a lie.  Time will prove that the government still has no intention of securing the border.  All who support this bill will be considered liars and traitors by their constituents...actually, I think sell-out is the most common term I’ve heard used.  Perhaps you too will feel betrayed by your colleagues who convinced you that the border REALLY will be secured this time if you just give amnesty first.  Yet still, you’ll be looking for a new job.

But you still have a chance to do the right thing... Don’t be naive - OPPOSE AMNESTY or look for a new job.  SECURE OUR BORDERS NOW, then we’ll talk about amnesty.