I just got some information in an email from a dedicated LFR reader. Here’s one portion of the highlights from that email:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana and, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
12. The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
14. ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.’

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

I normally don’t post something this statistic-laden but I thought it important in this instance because I felt it was the best way to highlight how much illegal immigration costs each one of us.

Technorati Tags: Immigration, Welfare, WIC, Anchor Babies, Education, Crime Rates

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

According to this Redstate Action Alert, Democrats have slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Why we care is because the bill has an amnesty provision in it. Here’s an overview of that provision:

Blue card status:
Authorizes the granting of temporary “blue card” status to an alien who pays a $100 fee, and who DHS has determined to:

• have performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days (one work day is defined as 5.75 hours, so this is the equivalent of 21.5 40‐hour work weeks, or less than half of a standard 50‐week work year), whichever is less, during the two‐year period ending December 31, 2006;
• have applied for blue card status during the 18‐month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month after enactment;
• have not been convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor involving bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property exceeding $500; and
• be otherwise admissible (with specified waivers available);

• Caps the number of aliens to be granted blue card status in the five years following enactment at 1.5 million;
• Requires each employer of a blue card alien to annually provide a written record of employment to that alien and to provide a copy of that record to DHS (lest the employer be fined up to $1,000 per violation), but sunsets that obligation six years after enactment; and
• Requires DHS to provide each blue card alien with a secure, biometric identification document (e.g., encrypted identification strip, biometric identifiers).

Do we really want to reward people for breaking the law? If you’re opposed to rewarding illegal behavior, call your senator at (202) 224-3121.

It’s time that we reminded the politicians that We The People oppose this ban in huge numbers.

Technorati Tags: Amnesty, Farm Bill, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Larry Craig, Illegal Immigration, We The People

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Based on this AP article, I’d say that Nancy Pelosi and her House leadership team are caught betwixt and between. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Republican leaders hope that by pushing the bill — endorsed by 48 centrist Democrats and 94 Republicans — they can drive Democrats into a politically painful choice: Backing a tough immigration measure that could alienate their base, including Hispanic voters, or being painted as soft on border security in conservative-leaning districts.

The plan is fraught with political risks for both parties. A full-blown immigration debate could call attention to Republicans’ divisions at a time when their expected presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, is fighting to gain the trust of the GOP base.

McCain, R-Ariz., played a prominent role in failed legislative efforts to grant some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already here a path to legal status, which conservatives deride as “amnesty.” He now says he would consider such a plan only after the borders have been fortified.

House Republicans are eyeing a bill by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., that would do just that, as well as mandate that employers verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally.

Leaders are expected as early as Tuesday to use a parliamentary tactic that would eventually force a vote on the measure if 218 lawmakers — a majority of the House — demand it. Republicans are pressuring Democratic backers of the measure — including several first-termers and dozens from swing districts, all facing tough re-election fights — to defy their leaders and sign the petition.

“Lots of Republicans and lots of Democrats would like to see something done,” Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the No. 2 whip, said Friday.

The move would be a rebuke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who opposes the Shuler bill unless it’s paired with measures to allow undocumented workers a chance at legal status and allow legal immigrants to bring more family members to the United States. Democratic leaders have been working behind the scenes to craft an alternative that could dissuade their more conservative members who back Shuler’s bill from joining the GOP effort to press forward on it.

This is a big deal. If this coalition can get 218 signatures on their discharge petition, then Pelosi’s hands will be tied. They’ll have to debate the bill.

Pelosi doesn’t want to get caught in this situation because it’s a lose-lose situation. That’s also why the AP is reporting that this would be a rebuke of Ms. Pelosi. (BTW, the fact that the AP is reporting it that way is telling by itself.)

With poll after poll showing that 70+ percent of the people demand that the border be secured first with the fence, this is a big issue that has the potential of splitting the Democrats and embarrassing Ms. Pelosi. It’s both good policy and good politics.

Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Immigration, Discharge Petition, Roy Blunt, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s the title of Richard Collins’ post at Redstate. Trust me, it’s must reading. The subtitle goes a long ways toward explaining why Hillary’s in such a difficult position:

Her unique blend of arrogance and stubbornness has been her undoing

I couldn’t agree more, though I can add alot more to that. I’ve long maintained that Hillary’s personality would sink her ship. Identity politics plays a big role in Democratic campaigns. Apart from being Bill’s wife, Hillary simply doesn’t have an identity.

It’s a scary thought to think that the Democrats’ most qualified candidate this year was Joe Biden. Even he had more personality than Hillary. For me, though, I still return to two things that fit into this meme.

When Hillary made the talk show rounds, when she’d be asked about something she didn’t particularly like, she let out ‘The Cackle’. Not just once, either. Then it got played on O’Reilly and other talk shows. ‘The Cackle’ had all the appeal of fingers grating against a chalkboard.

As I said here, though, her drivers license debacle will be seen as the cause of her fall. The drivers license debacle fits perfectly into Mr. Collins’ meme. Hillary obviously thought that she shouldn’t get pinned down on anything, a typical Clinton habit. That’s the epitome of arrogance. The downside of leaving yourself wiggle room is that you sometimes get caught saying opposite things in a short period of time.

Here’s the most significant point Mr. Collins makes:

Hillary has a long history of refusing to acknowledge obvious truths and stubbornly clinging to her own version of events. This pattern can be found in the scandals and failures of her husband’s administration and in her faltering presidential campaign. It is a constant in any even perfunctory review of her public life.

Bill and Hillary’s time in Arkansas, and in the White House, were - at the very least - filled with numerous instances of questionable judgment and a regular refusal to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. But any and all criticisms were immediately branded as personal attacks and as somehow illegitimate.

When questions arose Hillary’s first response was always to stonewall and deny. She would then move on to deceptively incomplete responses, if not outright lies. Any release of information, when it did come, came grudgingly and always as a last resort.

For eight years, the Clintons thought that they could do whatever they wanted. They got away with alot of things that likely reinforced their thinking. What they didn’t realize is that time had moved on and that they weren’t the ‘Golden Couple’ anymore. Now they’re finding out that Obama is the new Golden Child who can do no wrong.

That has to just frustrate the Clintons, especially Hillary since she’d planned on a coronation. This is a perfect example of why it’s never smart to underestimate your opponent.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Bill Clinton, Obama, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

According to Richard Adams, Hillary lost the nomination on Feb. 6. Here’s his reasoning behind his opinion:

We didn’t know it at the time, but February 6 was the day when there began a big blank gap on the Clinton campaign calendar. Because her team of battle-tested veterans failed to plan for much of anything after Super Tuesday. We now know that the Clinton campaign blew so much of its cash on the February 5 multi-state primary that it had little left in the tank for what was to follow, forcing the candidate to loan herself $5m and spend valuable time last night on television trying to raise more.

Mr. Adams makes several valid points, one being that they blew alot of their “cash on the February 5 multi-state primary.” I suspect that they initially thought that she’d wrap up the nomination that night.

I’d argue, however, that Hillary lost the nomination before the first ballot was cast. I’d submit that she lost the nomination at the debate debacle at Drexel. That’s the night Hillary went from inevitable to roadkill. Yes, she won primaries after that but those were more islands of hope in a turbulent sea than anything else. Here’s the Politico’s account of that fateful night:

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says. (continue reading post »)

Peter Wehner has an op-ed in the WSJ that talks about what John McCain needs to do to win in November. Here’s one of the points in his 5-point plan:

Third, turn Mr. Obama’s strength into a weakness. Right now Mr. Obama is presenting himself as a figure who floats above politics. His allure is based on inspiring but vague calls for hope and unity. This airy appeal can and needs to be firmly strapped down to the policies Mr. Obama would put in place. This requires defining Mr. Obama’s invocation of “change” for what it is: orthodox liberalism.

Mr. McCain, meanwhile, can be the man of substance, specific policies and reform. Presenting himself as that man, however, won’t be easy. In the past, Mr. McCain has shown a lack of interest in economic and domestic issues. But it is essential now for his success. His policies need to be creative, aimed at everyday concerns, and show intellectual rigor. Remember that among the GOP’s greatest electoral successes in recent decades (Ronald Reagan’s election as president in 1980 and the Republican capture of Congress in 1994) were based on philosophical contrasts. Pale pastel campaigns (George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996) are a road to defeat.

In my discussions with other conservatives, I’ve maintained that ‘The Fours’ are a great lesson for running winning campaigns. When I talk about ‘The Fours’, I’m referring specifically to 1984, 1994 and 2004. What ‘The Fours’ had in common is that each of those campaigns were highly idealistic.

When Reagan ran for re-election, he laid out a vision of America as the “shining city on a hill.” He re-iterated his ideals, saying that the Soviet Union had to be defeated, that taxes had to be kept low and that America had to stay strong economically and militarily. (continue reading post »)

Frankly, I loved John McCain’s speech to CPAC. That doesn’t mean I’ll swoon and give my everlasting devotion to Sen. McCain. It does mean, though, that I’ll listen to what he has to say. Here’s something that I loved from his speech:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

That should be music to a conservative’s ears. Here’s the next paragraph: (continue reading post »)

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti has written a blistering attack of Howard Dean’s recent fundraising letter. It’s a fisking worthy of the Fisking Hall of Fame, if such an institution existed. Here’s an amusing portion of the fundraising letter:

John McCain is a media darling, but don’t trust his carefully-crafted image; he’s worked for years to brand himself. From Iraq to health care, Social Security to special interest tax cuts to ethics, he’s promising nothing more than a third Bush term.

I can’t believe that this passes the laugh test with anyone but the craziest of lefties. John McCain twice voted against the Bush tax cuts, which makes Dean’s assertion that McCain’s for “special interest tax cuts” utterly absurd. During his speech to CPAC today, Sen. McCain promised that he’d veto bills with earmarks in them. That’s a major distinction between Sen. McCain and President Bush.

Here’s Dean’s next absurd assault against McCain:

After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign. In fact, two of the top three sources for John McCain’s campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms, and he looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.

Democrats have been exposed as corruption mongers, using earmarks as a fundraising tool. John Murtha has perfected it to the level of a science. The absurdity of Gov. Dean’s statements gets more apparent with each sentence. (continue reading post »)

In my post titled “The battle we can’t afford to lose“, I included a study done by the American Medical Students Association (AMSA) on the viability of a single-payer healthcare system. Here’s the ’study’ that AMSA did for the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition:

Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:

• Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
• Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
• Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
• Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
• There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.

At the time, I ridiculed the study for saying that “the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development” and for saying “The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care.” What they’ve just said is that the single-payer system would all but eliminate R & D spending and that they’d dramatically restrict profits for healthcare providers.

As alarming as that study is, AMSA is tied into something far more sinister and widespread than just single-payer. When I visited AMSA’s website, I found a link to an article about an upcoming event being held in Brooklyn, NY. Here’s the opening paragraph of that article: (continue reading post »)

Blogging has been light the last 10 days. For that, I offer this simple explanation: I’ve been fighting a nasty sore throat & a chest cold. Today, though, I return to serious blogging. There’s alot to accomplish; most importantly, we need to rally to Mitt Romney. Here in Minnesota, we also need to stop the “affordable health care” is a constitutional right crowd.

As I wrote here, that’s the battle we can’t afford to lose. Here’s some of the most egregious misinformation from one of the single-payer advocacy groups:

Q: How much does this overhead add up to?
A: Up to 30 percent or more, which means that only 70 percent of every dollar spent for health insurance is available for actual health care. With a Single-Payer system, these costs could actually be used for health care. The savings amount to $630 billion per year, which is way more than enough to provide comprehensive health care for the 54 million uninsured and underinsured.

Q: Well, aren’t these overhead costs just the cost of doing business?
A: No. Medicare’s overhead is in the 1 to 2 percent range. This means that 98 cents on the dollar goes to health care.

Last week, I sent a copy of that factsheet to legislators, BPOU chairmen & women, & numerous bloggers. When I talked with King about the factsheet, he was forced to laughter over the part about Medicare’s overhead being only 1-2 percent. He said that that’s just one of the canards the universal health care lobbyists use. The way they get away with it is because they don’t factor in the overhead of operating a hospital or health care clinic.

Most importantly, conservatives need to jump aboard the Romney express if they object to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants or if you care about keeping taxes low and government spending under control.

Remember this: A vote for McCain is a vote for the Democrats’ agenda.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Health Care, Constitution, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog