PAWaterCooler.com

Oh the hypocrisy.

Ever since Arizona passed its controversial law allowing police to check a suspect’s immigration status, the federal government had been intimating that it would file suit to stop the measure. 

Which it finally did.  (Although, in a moment of utter embarrassment, Attorney General Eric Holder testified of his intention to file suit despite his admission that he’d NEVER READ the ten page Arizona law!) 

And the results of the lawsuit?  Wholly predictable.

The Right is furious, the Left satiated, and, as always, common sense people are still out in the cold.

Fact is, the Arizona law, signed by a Republican Governor and a red-meat issue to the GOP base, is 100% meaningless.  Beyond providing fiery agenda-driven rhetoric — for both sides —, it’s just the latest futile attempt to solve America’s out-of-control illegal invader problem.

Why the hypocrisy? Because instead of focusing on the real issues, like building a border wall and cracking down on employers who hire illegals, the Administration is trying to score political points by hoping the Republican position alienates Latino voters.

If Obama and the Congress were really concerned about reigning in a state for doing its own thing — against the wishes of the federal government —perhaps a better lawsuit would be one against those who are in flagrant violation of federation immigration law. After all, these states are the biggest obstacle to sound immigration policy.

New Mexico would be a good start.

*****

After we get through the white noise of Arizona’s law being one that harasses the good illegals who have broken America’s laws to get here, or conversely, that such a measure is mandatory to protect our citizens from the invaders, it would be nice to stop and actually ask the most basic question:

How, exactly, are the police supposed to check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally? What document proving citizenship will they be seeking?

There is no national ID card, and probably about six people nationwide even know where their Social Security card is, so, for the most part, that leaves the driver’s license.

Granted, not everyone drives, but it would be a good starting place. 

Well, except for one small thing.

Several states still issue drivers licenses to illegal invaders.  States like….New Mexico, which just so happens to border Arizona.

(This practice does not comply with Federal Real ID Act requirements.  The Act mandates that, in order for a license to be recognized by the U.S. Government, states may issue licenses only after determining “proof of identity and lawful status of an applicant” and “verification of the source documents provided by an applicant.”)

So when Juan Valdez is pulled over for a traffic stop, on suspicion that he is an illegal, he will be required to prove his status as a citizen or legal immigrant.

As he whips out his license from New Mexico, Utah or Washington, or any of the eight other states that until recently issued licenses to known illegals, along with car insurance (because you can’t get car insurance without a license), a sly smile will creep across his face. There will be no deportation this night.  God Bless America!

Of course, it doesn’t stop with licenses….

Read more at Philly Mag’s Philly Post and post a comment:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/07/27/arizonas-immigration-law-well-intentioned-but-meaningless/

About Chris Freind:

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

The Times Herald is running a three part series on immigration; part two, called “Living in the Shadows” by Jenny DeHuff, ran in Sunday’s edition, and this morning, editor Stan Huskey ran a column on it.

Ms. DeHuff’s piece attempts to paint a sympathetic picture of a woman and her child in abject poverty:

In an exclusive interview with The Times Herald, Arias, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, offered this reporter an expose, in an effort to clarify some points, offer her side of the story, and help Americans understand why she dodges immigration.

The last straw came on a hot summer day, more than decade ago, when Arias was living in Mexico City with several family members. Crowded in a small house with her mother, Arias was struggling to make a living for herself and her young daughter, “Jessica,” now 19.

A fruit truck drove through Arias’ neighborhood selling whole watermelons and watermelon slices, at five pesos a pop. Thirsty and hungry, her nine-year old pleaded for a morsel. After rummaging in the house for coins, Arias came up empty, not being able to afford even a slice of watermelon for her daughter. She realized something had to change.

It was not long after that Arias packed up her daughter and headed north toward the border.

She walked for eight hours with minimal food and water until she crossed the border, where a truck awaited her and brought her to the southern states.

Inquisitiveness is apparently not a trait of this reporter, since DeHuff never asks “Imelda” how it was that she found herself in such abject poverty with a child. Throughout the story, there is never a mention of a husband or father, but while the focus of this vignette was “Imelda’s” daughter, (indeed that was the only one she took north with her) her “children”–plural—are mentioned throughout.

Besides a general unwillingness to assimilate into American culture (and it’s worth noting here that “Imelda” has been in this country for TEN YEARS), hard work has been replaced by a bit of an entitlement mentality. “Imelda’s” daughter, “Jessica” feels no shame in calling attention to the hardship of having to pay the higher non-resident tuition for college. It seems never to occur to her that taxpaying citizens, of which her mother is not a member, subsidize the cost of Montgomery County Community College. We are just supposed to feel bad for her and sympathize with her struggle to “make a better life for herself.”

“Imelda” herself has the temerity to gripe about employers treating her like an “animal,” yet it never seems to occur to her that if she was here legally, she wouldn’t have to work for people who exploit her. If she spoke English, her chances of finding a better job would be improved. And if “Imelda” gets deported, we are now supposed to worry about the fate of her children, when clearly, “Imelda” herself gave no thought whatsoever to the consequences of breaking our laws when she came here.

While I can forgive DeHuff’s piece as a the consummation of a dewey-eyed cub reporter’s dream of a meaningful crusade on the side of social justice, Stan Huskey has been around long enough to know better. His piece started out fairly enough; Huskey states:

How many Native Americans do you know?

Not many, if any at all, right?

So why all the outcry over illegal immigrants?

I’ll tell you why, it’s the “illegal” part.

I don’t think many people have a problem with people who come here legally to make a better life for themselves or their family.

It’s the next sentence where he makes his mistake:

And yet, legal or illegal, when it comes to the Hispanic population, some people tend to lump them all together as one big problem for our country.

Straw man thus set up, Mr. Huskey climbs aboard his high horse and proceeds to lecture:

What Arizona and every other state in the nation should be doing is requiring employers to ask for documentation on every person they hire. We do it here at the paper, so why doesn’t everyone? You probably already know the answer — it’s because the people hiring illegal immigrants know they’re hiring illegal immigrants. They know it and they don’t want to change a thing because they’re getting good, cheap labor.

So why don’t we want them here?

Could it be because they don’t look, talk and act like us? Could it be because of the color of their skin?

I’m going to go with D, all of the above.

Look, folks, we have to figure out the illegal part. That’s all.

Hispanics have as much right to be here as everyone else. The illegal portion of the population is doing what darn near every one of us would do if we were faced with the same fate as “Imelda,” and rightfully so.

Are you folks really concerned about the law, Mr. Huskey appears to be asking, or are you just exhibiting antipathy towards those who look different than you while you cling to your guns and religion?

Funny since the election of the first post racial president, it seems that dissent can never be about the rule of law or the constititution, it always has to be about some deep seated, unacknowldeged fear of someone whose skin color is a few shades darker than yours. Or to put it another way, if you don’t like the way things are going, shut up, RACIST!

It seems to me that anyone who makes a statement claiming that the vast majority of illegal immigrants just want to come here, work hard and make a better life for themselves is just as guilty of making sweeping, stereotypical generalizations as someone who says all illegal immigrants steal jobs from Americans, services from taxpayers, and set up brothels and drug rings in our cities.

Lord knows we can find plenty of both types of immigrants on the streets of Norristown.  Sometimes in the same illegal immigrant.

Huskey has a bit of a point about the employers who hire illegals, but at best I would say that’s a symbiotic relationship in that both parties are getting something out of it by breaking the law.  In my mind, both parties should be punished.

To prove we’re all just uncompassionate racists, Huskey then doubles down on the race card by playing the moral equivalence card:

Native Americans are the only people who have absolute authority for being in this country, and there are very few left because the people who illegally immigrated to this country about 400 years ago nearly committed genocide on the race. And they probably did so because they didn’t look, talk and act like them. The color of their skin was off, too.

Hmmm. Sounds like someone really internalized Dances with Wolves.

Regardless of how the first settlers came here, right now, this is a nation of laws; it’s complete hogwash to say that only Native Americans have an absolute claim to this land. Exactly how far back in time should we go to redraw the world’s borders? Should all the European nations claim “natives only” on their lands and send their immigrants packing? Pick a date, someone, please, and let us know when only aboriginals can lay claim to the land they currently occupy. Then you be the first to turn over your deed.

Native Americans did not build this country or its great infrastructure as it exists today; it is the product of many people of many different backgrounds; a country that had not been “invaded” by the white man would look very different than the United States of today. Perhaps it would be better, perhaps it would be worse, but it’s worth remembering that there is a reason that people want to come to the United States of America, and it’s not because the Native Americans were here first. It has much more to do with the opportunities and freedom created by founding fathers.

I’ll leave the white-guilt and self flagellation to others; I cannot change my country’s history, and while there are events in our past for which this country should be less than proud, on the whole, America is the shining beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world; indeed, that is why so many want to come here.

Legal immigrants of the past were proud to call this country home and proud to call themselves Americans. That is not the case today with so many hyphenated Americans who seem to be more concerned with where they came from than where they are going. Legal immigrants of the past assimilated into our culture and learned our language. They yearned to rise above the ghettos and were not afraid to work toward building a better life for themselves and their progeny.

But from the tone of Ms. DeHuff’s piece, we are supposed to feel sorry for “Imelda’s” plight, which, we are led to believe, has been thrust upon her through circumstances wholly beyond her control. And Mr. Huskey insists that “only a heartless, soulless animal” would not feel compassion” for “Imelda.”

Is it too much to ask people like “Imelda” to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Is it too much to expect that if they want to avail themselves of the vast opportunities and freedom that this country has to offer that they agree to obey the first principles of our country: our laws?

Mr. Huskey’s piece, like Ms. DeHuff’s piece the day before, is deliberately designed to silence opposition to illegal immigration by painting the opponents of illegal immigration as racist, as prejudiced against ALL immigrants simply because these people are “different” from us.

They are different from us, Mr. Huskey.

We obey the law.

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

This Sunday’s Gospel reading for Catholics is the parable of The Good Samaritan, in which a priest and Levite pass a man on the road who was robbed, beaten and left for dead and they do not stop to help him. The only one who stops to help him is the Samaritan, who is held in far less esteem than the other men. The lesson of the story is that only the supposedly lowly Samaritan was a neighbor to the victim on the side of the road.

I have already begun to hear the comparisons made between the victim in this parable and illegal immigrants. Patricia Sanchez of Celebration magazine, who writes a weekly column which pertains to the Sunday Catholics readings, wrote the following:

How do we in turn impact the world in which the law says that certain amoral ethics like abortion and the execution of prisoners are legal? How are we to deal with ever-tightening laws that call for the arrest, incarceration, abuse and deportation of undocumented people? How do we account for the fact that their families are being torn apart and made to live in fear and dire need?

While I certainly understand that enforcing our immigration laws will result in some deportation, it is truly difficult for me to see a direct link between a man who was minding his own business, walking down the road when some thugs jumped him, beat him within an inch of his life, stole his possessions, and left him to die, and someone who crossed our borders illegally and suffered the legal consequences of doing so.

I also find it vexing that nobody is talking about Mexico’s immigration policy, which is far more strict than ours.

Still, two wrongs don’t make a right, and though it is unbelievably hypocritical of Mexico to complain about how supposedly brutal our immigration policies are while theirs are far worse, we’re talking about human lives here. Whether or not they broke our laws, they still have to be treated with the dignity due to the human person.

Personally, I would like to see something done to combat the root cause of the illegal immigration – crushing poverty and rampant crime in Mexico. Somebody has to do something about it, and if the Mexicans will not, perhaps we should. I’m not advocating anything rash here; there must be some way we can partner with Mexico to make into a country where people actually want to live so that they’ll stop coming here.

That said, I strongly disagree with this characterization which I have no doubt will be repeated in countless Catholic churches tomorrow, that those who entered this country illegally and now face the consequences of doing so are being victimized just as the the victim in the parable of The Good Samaritan was. It’s offensive and wrong to make that comparison.

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to stay for free.

Philadelphia is expected to end the arrangement that permits federal immigration agents to scrutinize the city’s computerized list of arrests, including country of origin and other data, Everett Gillison, the deputy mayor for public safety, said Sunday.

Immigrant advocates say the year-old agreement between the city and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service, known as ICE, has resulted in deportation proceedings against immigrants arrested on even minor charges. Under the agreement, ICE agents can routinely access the city’s Preliminary Arraignment Reporting System (PARS). That agreement is up for renewal on Thursday.

“It is the mayor’s view that the PARS agreement should not be extended,” Gillison said, speaking at a South Philadelphia church meeting attended by more than 300 immigrants and their supporters.

He said there would be a formal announcement of the city’s position in the coming week, probably on Friday.

Mayor Nutter has expressed concern about the human rights of all immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

Left unremarked are the human rights of the victims of the crimes that the illegal immigrants have committed.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Blame Bush and the GOP For Health Care Mess

“I believe that the will of the people is reflected sooner or later in the will of the government.”

So says the only man in America who can make George W. Bush look like a genius — John McCain. The Arizona senator was making a prediction that the Democrats would pay a heavy price for passing government-run health care along purely partisan lines.

If you didn’t know how incompetent McCain is, you’d actually think he makes sense.

But unfortunately for John and his dysfunctional Republican Party, the real message of the health care debate is still lost on them.

After a year of battling on the issue, from the town hall to the halls of Congress, the Republican Party’s leadership —and that term’s a stretch— still can’t figure out why it lost, despite virtually every poll showing a majority of Americans opposed the Democrats’ health care reform plan.

Instead, all its leaders can weakly muster are statements that it will attempt to have the bill declared unconstitutional, and, even better, that the GOP will repeal the bill once it retakes the House and Senate in the November elections.

Well, John, I’ve got news for you:

1) Fat chance of that happening. The Republicans will, in fact, pick up their fair share of seats, as almost always happens for the party not in the White House, but it is an extreme long shot that either chamber will swing back to the GOP.

2) The main reason is because the Republicans haven’t given the American people any reason to vote FOR them. They have become the Party of No, virtually bereft of ideas—-and have precious few leaders who can articulate a vision for the ideas they do have.

3) This is the most important one: The GOP has not yet recognized or even acknowledged its past mistakes — all the ones George Bush and his Republicans made when they controlled the House and Senate by sizable majorities from 2000 to 2006. And as philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.”

*******************

Blame for the sake of blame is counterproductive. But casting blame to recognize past failures so that positive results can be achieved is invaluable……

Read the rest at www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Column Link: Please feel free to post a comment:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/national-news/item/33-blame-george-bush-and-the-republicans-for-health-care-mess

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the discussion or Share This...

Friends,

I am pleased to inform you that Philadelphia has been selected to host a monthly Center-Right Coalition meeting, following the hugely-successful model of Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). We will be one of the few non-state capital cities to have such a gathering.

The kick-off meeting, which I will be hosting, will be Thursday, November 12 at the Union League in Philadelphia, with Mr. Norquist in attendance. Light refreshments will be served at 7:00 AM, with the program going from 7:30 to 9:00. The Union League is located at 140 S. Broad Street, just two blocks south of City Hall.

In Grover’s words, the objective is “to get everybody who is center-right to tell each other what they are doing, to share technology and tactics, and to tell stories” regarding issues facing Pennsylvania and the nation.

One key function, according to ATR, is to facilitate collaborative activities of coalition members, many of whom may have not previously known one another, and foster the potential for mutual cooperation.

The rules are simple: Anyone who so desires may speak for three minutes on current initiatives, answer questions, and pass the microphone to the next speaker.

The only prohibition is whining. It is a positive meeting, one that will unify southeastern Pennsylvania.

Attendees will typically include influential political, business, policy and grassroots leaders.

If anyone who would like several minutes on the agenda, please let me know.

You are encouraged to bring any literature for distribution.

I hope to see you next Thursday.

For future reference, the monthly meetings will be held on the FIRST THURSDAY of each month at the Union League, with the same time format as above.

Feel free to invite colleagues and associates. All meetings are off the record.

Steadfast,

Christopher Freind
“Freindly Fire”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
610-659-0098
christopherfreind@hotmail.com (E before I in Freind)
CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Rep. Joe Wilson called Obama a liar for saying that illegal immigrants will not be covered under ObamaCare. Democrats took serious issue with this claim, and said that Wilson, not Obama, was the liar.

Now Obama has explained how it is that he’s not a liar when he says that illegal immigrants will not be covered: If you just give all of the illegals amnesty, they’ll all be legal citizens, and then you can cover them! Wasn’t that easy?

By the way, I know a certain US Senator from Pennsylvania who will gladly support this plan.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

So we’ve all seen the cartoon (and counter-cartoon) about healthcare. Here is a pretty thorough debate between one person posting it, and another refuting it (and posting the counter-cartoon) via facebook, without calling each other names. Who said facebook wasn’t useful?
(If you haven’t seen one or both cartoons, links provided)

Original post:
Mike Lavanga: Humorous but accurate cartoon that helps to dispell some of the myths about Obama’s health care plans:
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Source: www.dailykos.com
I found this video today, and it does an amazing job of explaining the public plan, and knocking down some of the sillier counter-arguments against it. It might be a bit remedial to some of the experts here, but it’s a great video to forward to others.
August 28 at 2:42am

Comment thread:
Kevin McKay: That’s total crap.
[Lots more, after the jump]
(more…)

Email KevinMcKay, Start the discussion or Share This...

     It became clear to me recently that our government and those that “Represent” us truly don’t understand what it means to live by American principles. They have just recently passed a law that “encourages” volunteerism among the young and old in America. Since when have you known any American that needed the government to tell them that it was good to volunteer your time and energy to a good cause? I believe the difference that I as an American am seeing in this type of innocuous legislation is the fact that government is now trying to gives us direction, or as they would put it “Encouragement”, as to what type of things I should volunteer on. Isn’t this the opposite of what volunteering means? The dictionary defines a volunteer as “a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking” or in the legal context “a person whose actions are not founded on any legal obligation so to act.” So, this sounds like to me that our Legislators have either never picked up a dictionary before in their lives or never truly volunteered for anything that they had no real expectation of anything in return except a feeling of having done good for the sake of being good.

     I never needed to be told to be charitable or give first. Not only do I volunteer for several different charities in my area but I grew up knowing that service for country and my fellow American always came first. When I was making the decision to join the Navy, I talked to my father about it, a veteran of the Army and a 6th generation Hayes to answer his country’s call to serve. He didn’t ask me “What job do you want” or “What branch of service?” but looked me dead in the eye and just asked “Why?” He wanted to know if I really understood what I was getting into. I remembered exactly what I said because it was one of those turning points in a person’s life, an epiphany, and I said “Because I don’t believe that I could ever ask for anything from anyone else unless I was willing to give up something first.” That is when he and I both knew that I really understood to look beyond myself and my own self-serving interests and knew that to be American is to give willingly to your fellow American FIRST before anything else. Americans know this and don’t need government telling us from on high how to live our lives and treat our fellow man.

     In Europe, there is a level of Socialism that is entrenched in every level of government and in just about all facets of the average Europeans life to one extent or another. Well, We Are Americans, Not Europeans. Our Founding Fathers and their fathers before them left Europe specifically because the governments of Europe intruded upon every facet of their lives and tried to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do what they told them to do. Most importantly, they were told by those same leaders to Not Ask Questions; just do as they said because it was “The best thing for us.” Sound Familiar anyone? They left for the new world to escape this tyranny and choose their own destinies.

     Well everyone, there’s nowhere else to run to. I may be an American Nobody just like you, but even I can see that this is our home at its time to make a stand. The tyranny of the Old World has found us again and we need to draw a line in the sand and stand firm. “This far and no further!” Some of us have begun to gather our friends together to start talking about what we can do to halt this downward spiral and right our course again and set our country back on its intended course. I just hope enough of us see the path before it becomes too overgrown with weeds and is lost to us.

     Forever.

Email Ian Hayes, Start the discussion or Share This...

I got some feedback from another attendee of the forum I wrote about earlier and thought it warranted an update.

Jonathan Jenkins of Corps Strategies sent me this via email, and I wholeheartedly agree with what he says:

Joe – thanks for reporting on the proceedings of CPAC.  It’s important to allow those who were unable to attend to better understand the arguments being made per issue.

I thought you covered the topic of the Hispanic vote well but I felt the commentator (Nadler) was so unprofessional and irrational that this needed mentioning.

For a moderator to be so angered (to the point of yelling) because a number of attendees still insist we enforce the immigration laws when we speak about immigration reform.  We are a nation of laws and we can ill-afford crimes to knowingly occur because some members of our legislative bodies and media lack moral courage to express what they really think anyway.

Nadler attacked those who spoke about the enforcement side of the article when he was to moderate.

Nadler – it’s not about you cupcake.

Email Joe Collins, Start the discussion or Share This...

Impressed as I was with the CPAC opening salvo by John Bolton’s mustache, (accompanied as is usually the case by Amb. John Bolton), by far the most thought provoking event I attended Thursday was “Building the Conservative Hispanic Coalition”.

Barack Obama (and the Left generally) talk about talking about race.  But at CPAC, the Republican party was actually talking about matters of race and ethnicity.

And the whole spectrum of debate took place right before my eyes – the good, the bad, and the ugly.  (There was some yelling.)  Even the good conversation was a little rough around the edges.  The three panelists,(Mario H. Lopez, Hispanic Leadership Fund ; Danny Vargas, Repub Nat’l Hispanic Assembly ; Mario Diaz, Concerned Women for America), were generally constructive.  Unfortunately the moderator Richard Nadler set a provocative tone from the start.
(more…)

Email Joe Collins, Join the discussion or Share This...

No really.  That’s the question the Daily News is asking today regarding a skit by the B. Love Strutters featuring Joey Vento of Geno’s Steaks:

Geno’s Steaks owner Joey Vento might make a delicious Philly cheesesteak, but he’s not exactly the poster boy for good taste.

So it’s not surprising that a few people who watched this year’s Mummers Parade took offense to Vento’s starring role in a performance by Comics brigade B. Love Strutters titled “Aliens of an Illegal Kind.”

The skit featured Vento popping out of the top of a float labeled “Gewizno’s Steaks” with a “When ordering, speak English” sign. Vento waved a poster reading, “What?” and tossed fake cheesesteaks into the crowd.

Then an announcer for B. Love Strutters cried out, “Uh-oh, here comes the Border Patrol!” Club members wearing Texas-sized cowboy hats and brandishing wooden rifles pretended to hold back a rioting crowd of “immigrants” from storming the border “fences.” As the immigrants burst forth, they traded in their country’s flag for an American flag, and a Mummer dressed as President-elect Barack Obama handed out Green Cards.

Look, this issue has been beat to death.  As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t like Vento’s sign, go buy your cheesesteak somewhere else.  Of course there are many more people that like Vento’s sign than not.  Personally, I like Vento and think he deserves a lot of credit for standing up to the PC weenies in Philly.  He’s also a huge supporter of law enforcement and donated $40,000 to this year’s Mummers’ Parade.

Also, I’m not a huge fan of the comic brigades.  I’m one of those “string-bands only” people who basically think that the comics are nothing more than a bunch of drunks in wigs and dresses.  However, it’s interesting that they stirred up a little controversy this year. 

By far the most outrageous part of this whole story is the following quote:

“I couldn’t believe what I was watching. Could the Mummers really allow that kind of blatant racism?” said Erica Vanstone, 33, who watched the parade on television at her New Kensington home. “Or, if you don’t consider it racism, clearly it’s a right-wing, conservative political statement. Is that really needed in the Mummers Parade?”

So it’s either blatant racism or a right-wing conservative political statement?  Why do I get the feeling that there is really no distinction between the two for narrow minded liberals like Vanstone?

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

I bought my first six-pack at 12:05 am on my 21st birthday at this place.

The neighborhood has soured a bit since.

[Jose] Moldonaldo-Luzuriaga, who worked in the take-out section of Salute, but was not working the night of the accident, but appeared to be intoxicated when he arrived at the bar. As a result the bartender denied the defendant a drink and gave him a glass of water.

When Maldonaldo-Luzuriaga was spotted drinking a Corona, that a friend had given him, he was escorted out of the bar by William Sullo and Carl Slaton, both employees of the bar.

Upon leaving the bar, Moldonaldo-Luzuriaga got in an argument with patrons outside the bar and got into a white Ford pick-up truck. He drove the truck around the parking lot approximately 3 times, without a license, before stopping his truck approximately 45 feet from the front of Salute Restaurant Bar. The defendant revved the engine and traveled at a high rate of speed over the curb striking Sullo and the bar.

In addition to the obvious homicide charges he is also facing reckless driving charges as well as driving without a license.

The lesson of this story? Jose Moldonaldo-Luzuriaga has been living illegally in this country for at least five years.

Defenders might say “Maybe if he had a license to drive he would not have been so rash and quick to anger.”

If our federal officials cared about the borders and visa holders, Mr Sullo would be alive.

Maldonaldo-Luzuriaga will be prosecuted to the fullest extent. If charged, the Maldonaldo-Luzuruaga will serve his time here, in the United States. Once the defendant completes his sentence it will be up to the authorities as to where he will go.

How about the f back where he came from? What’s he going to do in prison? Study for the citizenship exam?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

The GOP Can’t Beat Something With Nothing

Give President-elect Obama credit for one thing. His central campaign theme was correct. Time and again, he pounded home the message that the policies of the last eight years have failed.

Most of them did.

The irony is that they were NOT Republican policies. They were spendthrift, traditionally Democratic policies trumpeted by a very wayward Republican Party.

The unfortunate part is that much of the GOP bloodbath was absolutely preventable. But as Voltaire always said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Common sense tells you that you can’t win something with nothing, but that’s been the Republican Party’s unchanged strategy for years.

Only when you look back at your mistakes, and commit to learning from them, can progress be realized. The sheer simplicity of this rule makes it seem obvious, yet it remains a foreign concept to the GOP.

The Republicans controlled the White House and enjoyed substantial majorities in both houses of Congress for six straight years. By calling all the shots, the Party’s fate would live or die on what it – not its opponents – did. The results are apparent:

1)The national debt doubled since 2000, topping $10 trillion. It is now so large that the National Debt Clock in Times Square ran out of numbers earlier this year. Deficits are also at record levels.

2)Claims by many Republicans that Congressman Barney Frank and the “liberal Democrats” are responsible for the economic crisis, especially in regards to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle, need a refresher in Civics 101. Only the Congress can appropriate money. Not the President, and not the minority party; just the party in power. Despite Frank’s desire to spend, spend, spend, the Republicans did his bidding, placing its imprimatur on every bloated budget and pork-filled spending bill. And blaming Bill Clinton didn’t sell, either, because the GOP controlled both chambers for six of his eight years in office.

3)The Republicans had no messenger. No one can be upset at John McCain for being the Party nominee, but clearly, he was the default candidate in a very weak field. This highlights one of the GOP’s most glaring weaknesses: no bullpen. There are very few younger Republicans being groomed to take the mantle of the Party. Instead, the “It’s your turn” mentality still runs rampant throughout the Party hierarchy. Instead of choosing the best candidates, the GOP seems to coronate the old guard simply because they have “been around” for a long time. Bob Dole and John McCain are two prime examples. It is nearly impossible to have a message of “reform” and “reinvigorating ideas” resonate when the party leader is a 30-year Beltway insider who never held a private sector job in his career. While Obama’s resume is paper-thin, he had the advantage of playing the outsider against an unpopular incumbent party.

4)Despite all the aforementioned issues, the presidential race could have, and should have, been significantly closer. Many voters still felt uneasy about the President-elect, but pulled the lever for him anyway because they viewed the McCain campaign as “more of the same.” Incomprehensibly, the true Republican message was never articulated.

There was never any love lost between John McCain and George Bush, so why the Republican nominee didn’t differentiate himself from the unpopular president remains a mystery. While campaigning on optimism and hope for the future is important, McCain should have hammered home how he was different from the President. In doing so, he would have energized an irritated base and gained immense credibility with the Independent swing voters who no longer knew what the Republican Party stood for. And since McCain was always known as a fiscal-hawk “maverick,” he would have been convincing.

He could have said that it wouldn’t take him seven years to veto his first bill, seven years to call for domestic drilling, seven years to build a border wall, and seven years —and counting— to make the tax cuts permanent. He could have also highlighted his 2004 statement of “no confidence” in Donald Rumsfeld, and that he repeatedly called on the Bush Administration to listen more closely to America’s military leaders regarding Iraq War planning.

Instead, the campaign changed themes on a regular basis and only at the end drew distinctions from a Republican Party that had gone adrift.

Because the Party lost its identity, and forgot what it was and where it came from, it can now only play defense in an attempt to block Obama Administration policies. That only gets the Party so far. If the GOP ever wants to again be proactive in shaping the hearts and minds of America, it needs to eradicate party hacks and return to its core principles. Only when the Republican Party rediscovers its roots in the mold of Ronald Reagan will it be able to lead America once more.

Chris Freind is a columnist whose home newspaper is The Philadelphia Bulletin. His 300 columns have received thousands of responses from 6 continents, 30 countries and 50 states.
He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

While the leftist lunatics are lauding the leader of the Obama Nation this week, let’s not forget what he said about middle-class, Central Pennsylvanians:

…when small-town Americans lose their jobs they become bitter and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigration sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.”[1]

The original story is here.

Email Ed Angiolillo, Start the discussion or Share This...

An article in the Times Herald really caught my attention today. It seems that there was a sting operation to round up and arrest illegal aliens in Montgomery County on Tuesday. Some of the illegals were collared working in the public areas of Montgomery County courthouse and at One Montgomery Plaza!

So far, so good, eh? That’s what ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is all about, rounding up and deporting illegals. And it looks like they’re finally doing what they are paid to do…deport undocumented and illegal aliens.

Apparently, “community activists gathered Tuesday in front of St. Patrick’s Church on Dekalb Street to protest last weekend’s round-up of illegal immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement”.

I read on to find

Eugenio H. Villasantes and Roberto Ortiz as well as other union leaders of Local 32BJ SEIU, the union for building janitorial services, were at St. Patrick’s supporting the employees affected by the raid. The union condemned the actions of ICE and the tactics of ABM (the company that employs these undocumented, illegal aliens). Click here to read more.

Condemns the tactics? What is there to condemn? The use of a ruse to catch deadbeat dads, people in violation of parole, etc. has been implemented for years as a tactic for good law enforcement.

In a similar article written by the Times Heralds Margaret Gibbons, Union Vice President Valarie Long states, “Rounding up and deporting hardworking immigrant workers is an inhumane and counterproductive action that does nothing to fix our nation’s broken immigration system,” [...] “These raids, which are completely out of line with our nation’s values and ideals serve only to terrorize workers and create fear in our communities.”

I guess it’s just not “fair” to trick people who willingly break the laws of our land. Not to mention the loss of dues that these illegals paid to line the pockets of the labor unions who represented them. And, what of “our nations values and ideals” is law enforcement “out of line” with? Oh, yeah…unions offering illegal immigrants a lower wage while still collecting union dues from the hapless workers? Give me a break! These people broke the law. Besides, rounding them up is not counterproductive and inhumane. It’s called (once again) “law enforcement”!

The protesters are planning a rally on the courthouse steps on Thursday, at 1:30 p.m., followed by a march to St. Patrick’s Church.

If other municipalities catch on and start doing the same thing, maybe our illegal problem will slowly, but surely go away.

One can only dream that the day will come when we can call a customer service line and not hear “press one for English…”.

(cross posted on Writemarsh!)

Email BillShaw, Start the discussion or Share This...

With the amount of rampant violence and murder from unchecked drug cartels and reported al Qaeda and Hezbollah involvement in Mexico, at some point, should Mexicans rushing across the US border be considered refugees?

Generally, a refugee is a person who has fled his/her country because of fear of persecution. U.S. law incorporated the refugee definition contained in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Adopted in Geneva in 1951, which defines a refugee as a person who:

“owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The Refugee Act of 1980 created The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States.

Cash assistance is made available to refugees in such a manner as not to discourage their economic self-sufficiency.

There is a limit of 70,000 refugees granted asylum in the US per year.

In 2007, 48,000 refugees escaped persecution and were granted asylum in the United States.

Top Refugees to the US in 2007 (Source: US Office of Refugee Resettlement):

Burma 9,776
Somalia 6,958
Iran 5,474
USSR 4,583
Burundi 4,525
Thailand 4,059
Cuba 2,923

Other countries sending refugees:

AFGHANISTAN,
ANGOLA,
AUSTRIA,
BENIN,
BURKINA, FASO (UVOLTA),
CAMBODIA,
CAMEROON,
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC,
CHAD,
CHINA,
COLOMBIA,
CONGO,
COSTA RICA,
DEM.REP.CONGO,
EGYPT,
EQUATORIAL GUINEA,
ERITREA,
ETHIOPIA,
GABON ,
GHANA,
GUINEA,
IRAQ,
IVORY COAST,
JORDAN,
KENYA,
NORTH KOREA,
KUWAIT,
LAOS,
LEBANON,
LIBERIA,
LIBYA,
MALAYSIA,
MAURITANIA,
NEPAL,
NIGERIA,
PAKISTAN-KARACHI,
PHILIPPINES,
RWANDA,
SAUDI ARABIA,
SIERRA LEONE,
SRI LANKA (CEYLON),
SUDAN,
SYRIA,
TANZANIA,
THAILAND,
THE GAMBIA,
TOGO,
TURKEY,
UGANDA,
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
VIETNAM,
YEMEN,
YUGOSLAVIA,
ZAMBIA,
ZIMBABWE

I could easily see this being abused and exploited by leftists, and by Mexicans themselves, but is it a legitimate concern?

Email JackP, Start the discussion or Share This...

NBC10.com

An eastern Pennsylvania judge known for creative sentencing has ordered three men to learn English or go to jail.

Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said the men, who faced prison for criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, can remain on parole if they learn to read and write English, earn their GEDs and get full-time jobs.

Olszewski noted that the three men, Luis Reyes, Ricardo Dominguez and Rafael Guzman-Mateo, plus a fourth defendant, Kelvin Reyes-Rosario, all needed translators in court when they pleaded guilty Tuesday.
The four, ranging in age from 17 to 22, were in a group that police said accosted two men on a Wilkes-Barre street in May. The two said they were asked if they had marijuana, told to empty their pockets, struck on the head, threatened with a gun and told to stay off the block.

The judge sentenced the four men to jail terms of four to 24 months. But he gave Reyes, Dominguez and Guzman-Mateo, who already had served at least four months, immediate parole. Reyes-Rosario remains imprisoned on an unrelated drug charge.

Incredibly, no one complained. Yet.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

State of the Union: More of the Same (as appeared in The Philadelphia Bulletin)

I was lucky enough last Monday to be in the Capitol, watching President Bush deliver his last State of the Union message. Seeing virtually the entire United States government in one room is truly a sight to behold.

This event was remarkable for three reasons.

First, witnessing both parties peacefully coming together, makes one realize just how awe-inspiring America really is. We certainly have our political differences, which are always on display in this town, and yes, the barbs are particularly acrimonious this election year. But that’s where it ends—with words. No matter which Party claims the White House in November, there will be a peaceful transition of power. There always is. In fact, we take this miracle for granted so much, that the only “divisive” part of the evening was the media focus on Barack Obama “snubbing” Hillary Clinton on the House floor (which was not the case at all).

Compare that with Kenya.

That nation had a disputed election in December, and the fighting still rages. Scores have been killed, including numerous children, and hundreds of thousands are displaced. Sadly, there is no end in sight.

The second noteworthy aspect was that the President’s speech lacked any type of “nostalgic” tone. Many news anchors compared Bush’s remarks to the final State of the Union addresses of Presidents Reagan and Clinton, which were much more reflective in nature. Of course, there is one, not-so-insignificant difference. Both Reagan and Clinton were highly popular; George W. Bush is mired with a dismal 30% approval rating. It is pretty tough to be “nostalgic” when most of the country thinks your Administration has been a flop.

That leads us to the third interesting point—the speech itself.

For starters, 90% of his address could be swapped, almost word for word, with any other State of the Union from the last six years. We need to get tough on terrorists, pressure the bad guys like Iran and North Korea, lower taxes, stop wasteful spending (especially “earmarks”), confirm judges and secure the border. Did I miss anything?

After visiting Washington, even for a day, you realize that there are two Americas: the one inside the Beltway, and the rest of the country.

Take the truck driver in Oklahoma, or the health care worker in California, or the inner city teacher. Why do they refuse to believe that government is serious about solving the tough issues? Because they know lip service when they hear it.

They don’t know all the ins and outs of political maneuvering, they can’t recite GDP numbers or trade agreements, and they are lost when it comes to governmental minutiae. But what they have is infinitely more important— the big-picture outlook. The ability to tell right from wrong, and the desire for elected leaders to be true to their word.

But all they get are empty promises.

The border wall has been funded for well over a year, yet only a very small portion is built. Illegals, and terrorists, continue to stream across our border unchecked.

A push to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent—before they expire in 2011— was made. But it didn’t happen when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, and it certainly won’t happen now.

We were told that “wasteful pending” must be eliminated, and earmarks, which are the special pork projects of legislators, must be drastically reduced. The best laugh of the night was when the Congress—both parties— actually stood and applauded this point. Yet almost of them will be putting earmarks in the next bill. But wait! Bush told the country that he would be signing an Executive Order the next day directing federal agencies to ignore future earmarks that weren’t voted on by Congress. Two questions come to mind: why wasn’t this directive issued in 2001, and how can Congress appropriate money that it didn’t vote upon?

The back room deals will go on, and spending will continue out of control. How do we know this? Past history. Our President showed us that he didn’t have a “Veto” stamp for seven years.

And now, we are supposed to believe that spending our way out of our economic problems is the ultimate answer. Never mind inflation, never mind that the values of “fiscal restraint” and “personal responsibility” are nowhere to be found, and never mind that Bush’s “solution” is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

It all sounds good, and for the Washington crowd, that’s all that really matters.

Chris Freind can be contacted at CF@TheBulletin.us

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

One on One With Senator Arlen Specter (as published in The Philadelphia Bulletin)

Freindly Fire recently interviewed U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in his Capitol office. The following is the second in a three part series with the longest serving Senator in the history of Pennsylvania.

FF: One more question on the illegal immigration issue. Philadelphia City Council recently voted down a resolution that would have required the police to check the citizenship status of everyone arrested for a felony. What is your position on this resolution?

AS: I think that people who are are arrested– and who are undocumented— ought to have a determination made on guilt or innocence in a deportation proceeding. I think the check on immigration status ought to be done immediately. The police complain that you can’t threaten to deport people who are undocumented, because (if you do) you won’t have witnesses come forward, which is a valid consideration. But that goes (away) once you have the issue of criminal conduct. I don’t think there is any justification for not asking—when someone is undocumented and has committed a crime.

FF: What is your feeling on the Mexican long haul trucks being able to freely access US highways? There is fierce opposition to this by groups citing the trucks’ less-than-stellar safety record and the fact that they are big polluters.

AS: I think it’s fundamentally a safety issue— there is a lot of evidence (to that effect). Until that is resolved, you have to place limits on it. I co-sponsored the Dorgan/Specter amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill (prohibiting the Mexican trucks from coming into the U.S. until the issues are resolved. The amendment passed.)

FF: You have been outspoken for the need to protect civil rights while effectively prosecuting the war on terror. Can you comment on what you think is the proper role for eavesdropping, warrantless searches and FISA courts?

AS: It’s important to have adequate, powerful law enforcement—that’s why I took the lead on the Patriot Act. I got it through the Judiciary Committee, I managed it on the floor, and we got it passed. It has a lot of broad power. When it comes to wiretapping, I believe that you have to follow established procedures on showing probable cause to get a warrant. I tried very hard, and finally succeeded, in getting the Terrorist Surveillance Program under my support. The President has a legitimate argument that his constitutional authority, as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, superseded the statute. But that had to have a judicial determination. You don’t have that (power) just because the President says so…that’s up to the Court. There was a legitimate constitutional basis for the President saying he wasn’t bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but you have to go to Court.

I am very critical of the Bush Administration putting that program into effect, and not following the National Security Act which mandates —yes, mandates— that he tell the Intelligence Committee. Or maybe he’d say that his constitutional power overrides that Act, too. He’s never said that, by the way. He’s just ignored the Act. But at least tell the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee—and I’m the Chairman of Judiciary.

There have to be checks and balances in our society. He claims he went to the so-called Gang of Four, the leaders of the House and Senate, but there’s a big controversy as to whether that was done. You have the issue playing out right now—the President wants retroactive immunity for telephone companies. And I’m opposed to it. If you cut off the courts, you don’t have checks and balances. And the Congress has not been effective on checks and balances. We have a big fight with the President on his not producing Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. For Congress to bring a contempt citation is not effective. So my idea is to substitute…the government as the part of “defendant” for the telephone companies. Stand in the shoes of those companies. Governmental immunity is something the telephone companies don’t have, and the government should not have it as to this suit. I don’t think those lawsuits are going to produce any money for anyone, but I would not cut out the courts. It is really perilous….

FF: But a complaint among some in law enforcement is that it takes so long to get a FISA warrant, averaging ninety days. Is there a way to streamline the process?

AS: They can do it. They can get an emergency warrant. They have a period of time after the warrant (is issued) to go to court. So the “emergency” argument doesn’t stand up.

FF: You have traveled extensively throughout the world, in particular to Afghanistan and the Middle East. Some have criticized your meetings with Arab leaders, especially the Syrian President. Do such trips send a mixed message in that the State Department may be saying one thing, but several U.S. Senators are saying another? Should the United States deal with leaders such as Assad, with allegations that he has links to terrorists and is involved in the narcotics trade?

AS: The Congress has constitutional authority on foreign policy matters. We have to confirm our ambassadors. The Senate and the House have very extensive responsibilities on foreign policy. Appropriations, foreign operations subcommittees, foreign aid, ratification of treaties, approval of the defense budget, the state department budget. I think members of Congress have been very helpful over the years. One of my ideas is to have a parliamentary exchange with the Iranians. I have taken the lead in initiating a letter signed by Senators Biden, Dodd, Congressman Lantos, and other Republican and Democrats to have this exchange. And I’ve discussed it with President Bush, who thinks it’s a good idea. He thinks parliamentarian people-to-people contact is good idea.

I’ve participated in a lot of meetings with the Syrians, taking messages…on my last trip, I took a message from the federal government to Assad. So I think the role is a very constructive one. I think that we’re making a big mistake by not having a dialogue with Iran. We had one with North Korea, and it’s produced some significant progress. We think we’re on our way (with them). We made a deal with them; whether they live up to it remains to be seen. Quaddafi, as I frequently say, is the worst terrorist in the history of the world. He blew up Pan Am 103, blew up the discotheque, and now he’s made reparations. I spoken extensively about this…including an article I wrote in The Washington Quarterly that goes into detail about my views in this area, and the successes I’ve had in (having) these conversations…things I’ve accomplished with Assad.

FF: Speaking of Iran, let’s go back to the intense controversy that surrounded President Ahmadinejad when he spoke at Columbia. What are your thoughts— should have been allowed to speak? Why?

AS: I think that America is proof positive of the value of freedom of speech, the marketplace of ideas. The more he talks, the better we look! Oliver Wendell Holmes said, in a famous Supreme Court decision, “Time has upset many fighting faiths”.

FF: Please give your insight on this political peculiarity. The Bush Administration has demonstrated its commitment to Israel through immense aid and friendship, and the United States eliminated a direct threat to that nation by removing Saddam Hussein from power. Bush has also kept intense pressure on Ahmadinejad, given his statements advocating the destruction of Israel. Despite these positions, many American Jewish voters are vehemently opposed to George Bush and the Iraq war. Why is this the case when many of these individuals state that Israel’s security is of paramount importance?

AS: I think that Bush has gotten additional support (because his policies in those areas), but the Jewish voters have a lot of different interests. The domestic programs, such as spending on education and healthcare are very important. Stem cell research is very important. So it’s a lot of issues, balancing a lot of factors.

FF: Let’s shift gears to racial relations. The majority of blacks were Republican, proud to be in the Party of Lincoln, all the way through the 1930’s, yet their alliance with the GOP has shrunk considerably, to the point where George Bush captured only 8% in the 2000 election. However, you have traditionally garnered more support from black voters than most Republicans. What happened to that alliance, and what has to be done to bring them back home to the GOP, since many believe in core Republican values (school choice, tough law enforcement, against same-sex marriage, etc.)?

AS: A critical factor is paying more attention to the inner cities—housing, education, job training. It’s issues. That really is the kernel. And the Republicans haven’t done that (paid attention to those issues). As District Attorney, I had a large portion of my staff who were African-American…you can tell it in the hiring.

FF: In much the same way as black voters, many rank-and-file union members are Republican in beliefs and values, if not registration. Yet the GOP has not been able to effectively connect with either of them—some Republicans even write off those constituencies since they assume they won’t garner many of their votes in the short term. Your thoughts?

AS: There are a lot of Republicans in labor, but overall, I think the Democrats are more sympathetic to the labor issues; they take more of a stand on issues like unemployment compensation and prevailing wage rates. There are some Republicans who do, but I would say the balance is with the Democrats. It comes back again to the theme which runs through a lot of what I have to say, and that’s “issues”.

FF: A follow-up question on labor— the card-check issue (whereby a union could be organized by 50% plus one of employees signing an authorization forms [cards]; this procedure would eliminate secret-ballot elections). Does card-check take away the fundamental right of employees to have a free and fair election?

AS: I voted for cloture to take up the issue because there hasn’t been labor law reform in this country in about thirty years, going back to the seventies. There need to be some major changes with the National Labor Relations (Board). There need to be procedures expedited…cases last as long as five years, or more. I made a very extensive floor statement on the subject, and I did not vote to take away the right for a secret-ballot. I did not do that. My vote was to take up the issue and decide it. I’ve gotten very deeply involved in it…I’ve brought in all the members of the NLRB and talked to them about what’s going on. I’ve written a Law Review article on this. And I’m not finished. Business has a major interest in expediting those elections. The NLRB is essentially dysfunctional because it has abandoned its adjudicatory function and has become very biased. Both ways—Democrats and Republicans. That’s another illustration of what I do… which is to be “issue-oriented”. Before I cast that vote, I called up a lot of people and told them what I was doing and why.

I didn’t rush in there and vote for cloture!

Part Three will discuss Senator Specter’s economic stimulus legislation, the role of the Senate, and his accomplishments.

Chris Freind can be reached at CF@TheBulletin.us

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...