OldLineGOP's blog

Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events

OldLineGOP's blog

Posted at 10:04pm on Jun. 21, 2007 Stopping Amnesty: The Search For The Magnificent 20!

By OldLineGOP

*** “#” INDICATES THAT THEY ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2008***

***CONTACT THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD AT (202) 224-3121***

As it stands now, count on us needing 41 votes to oppose cloture on the Amnesty Bill. Luckily, we may not need that many, as the burden of getting the votes is on those who want to end debate (go forward with Amnesty)…If all the members of the Senate vote on cloture, then we would need 41 votes to deny them their required 60…But…If not everybody votes, then as long as we have a combined total of 41 Senators either voting “NO”, or not voting, then WE WIN!!! But just to be on the safe side, lets shoot for 41 “NO” votes. The first group of Senators consists of those who are solidly against cloture. The second group consists of those who will more than likely oppose cloture. So, the combined total of those either already opposed to cloture, or very likely to oppose cloture is 21 Senators to reliably oppose Amnesty! That leaves us with 20 Senators who need to be convinced to oppose Amnesty! On another note, I don’t know how things will work with the person who will replace the late Senator Thomas (R-WY), and also Senator Johnson (D-SD) who has health problems. As much as I feel like a jerk for bringing this up, it is possible that there will be no votes cast for either seat, leaving us with only 18 Senators who need to be convinced to oppose amnesty. Get on the phone, and start sending some faxes and e-mails. Contact every Senator if you can, but make sure that you contact those 22 Senators who could possibly join our side

Posted in Archived — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:58pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Skewed Priorities: Iraq and The Border

By OldLineGOP

Erick had a great post up about armed Mexicans, probably drug smugglers, running off a National Guard unit along the border. In the comments section, someone wrote that there was fault with spending the amount of resources that we do on Iraq, while allowing our border to become an international joke. Someone else responded that border security has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Well, in my humble opinion, you are both a little bit right, and a little bit wrong.

Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:59pm on Nov. 9, 2006 Tancredo To Back Pence.

By OldLineGOP

I just read RightWingNews.com and John Hawkins says "I have gotten confirmation from a highly trusted source inside Tom Tancredo's office that Tancredo will be endorsing Pence." Hawkins believes that this means Pence, who as much as I like him HAD previously proposed an AMNESTY, has given some sort of assurance to Tancredo that he will be a friend of border security, and give up his privatized amnesty pipe dream. I don't know whether or not Tom Tancredo will endorse Mike Pence, but if he does, then I agree with Hawkins' analysis.

Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:15am on Nov. 9, 2006 My Letter To Mehlman: Resign Immediately!

By OldLineGOP

To RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman,

It's my opinion that the Republican Party, as an organization, should not involve itself in primary fights. The purpose of the Party is to support the candidate that the primary voters decide that they want to represent them, not to choose one candidate over another. Yet you decided to interfere in one local race after another, always on the side of the less conservative candidate, always opposite the wishes of the local GOP voters.

Posted in Archived — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:09pm on Nov. 8, 2006 A New Day, A New Leadership!

By OldLineGOP

From the ashes of our defeat yesterday, I think that one thing is absolutely clear. IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP! Here are my humble suggestions:

RNC CHAIR: Ken Mehlman, he of the Bush/Chafee/RINO ilk, must go. For starters, he is nowhere near being a conservative. Secondly, he presided over the worst Republican defeat in recent history. Although just about every political force was aligned against the GOP this year, there is still enough blame to go around, and Mehlman needs to stake his claim. Although we would have loved to have picked up the Senate races in New Jersey and Maryland, they were long shots even in a good year for the GOP. These are blue states, that in this terrible environment for Republicans, were going to go Democrat no matter what. Yet we blew millions of dollars, and countless hours of effort pursuing these pipe dreams. I personally like Steele and Kean, but when the Senate is at stake, I'm sorry guys, it just wasn't your year. Had we spent these resources on the "firewall," Virginia, Montana, and with them the Senate would have been saved. And Allen and Burns are a heck of a lot more conservative than Kean and Steele. Also, Mehlman decided that it was absolutely essential that we win symbolic victories in the old seats of DeLay and Foley. Despite the obvious stupidity of wasting millions of dollars trying to get people to write in "Sekula-Gibbs," and vote for Foley, we did it anyway! If these resources had been spent elsewhere, we would have picked up GA-8(we are down by less than 1,000 votes), and GA-12(we lost by about 2%), hands down. So here's my plan. Let's replace the person who presided over our worst defeat, with the person who presided over our most impressive victory. Newt definitely wants to run for President. I just don't think he can win. But he is the best organizer, policy writer, fund-raiser, and campaigner our party has. We should put his skills to good use, and draft Newt to run for RNC chair. He is the most qualified person for the position, and would do an amazing job.

Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:30am on Jul. 9, 2006 What Is The Future Of The Nation-State?

By OldLineGOP

I think that this is a very interesting discussion to bring up. First of all, let me get my views on the "North American Union" out of the way. Don't worry, no crazy conspiracy theories to be found here. I don't think that any black helicopters with "NAU" spray painted on the side are going to be swooping into my back yard to whisk me away to an indoctrination camp anytime soon.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:29am on May 24, 2006 Targeted Donations: The Conservative Escrow Service

By OldLineGOP

Alot of attention has been drawn to a very logical idea as of late. We, as conservatives, are experiencing a problem. We are being taken for granted by the Republicans in Washington. They have proven time and time again that campaign donations mean more to them than the support of their base. Yet we keep donating money to the RNC, the NRSCC, the NRCCC, and to individual Republican candidates. Of course this stems from our desire to have a conservative majority, but it isn't working, and there is a better way.

You see, I like to compare most of our members of Congress to dogs (Yes, I'm aware that this statement is very offensive to canines everywhere...so I apologize to our four-legged friends). Let's say that your dog is doing something you disapprove of, like scratching your furniture. The first time your dog scratches your favorite recliner, you calmly tell him "no"....and then you give him a treat. The second time he does it, you tell him "no" again....and then you give him another treat. The third time....well, you get the point. That dog is never going to stop scratching your chair, because no matter how many times you told him "no", you gave him a treat right after. He now associates his bad behavior with getting treats. Essentially, you have positively reinforced his bad behavior. As for our politicians, there is really no difference. They stray from conservative principles, we right letters, and make phone calls, and tell them "no"....and then we turn around and donate money to their campaigns, or to the Republican Party. As with the dog, these politicians look at the situation and say to themselves, "Hey, I thought they were going to be mad at my failure to make the tax cuts permanent, or my plan for amnesty, but they keep giving me money....I must be doing something right."

Unfortunately, just about everything in Washington is bought and sold, that's just a fact. And when we donate money to politicians, we, like the sleaziest of lobbyists, are essentially buying votes. We don't donate money to candidates because we like them, we do it because we expect to get something in return, mainly, votes in favor of our issues. Somewhere along the line, the system broke. Our contributions keep rolling in, but the results just aren't coming back to us. That is because donating money to the Republican Party, or to individual candidates is like buying a "too good to be true" product, through the mail, from a shady foreign company. Let's say you received the following advertisement in the mail:

"BRAND NEW BMW....ONLY $1,000"

"JUST MAIL IN YOUR CHECK TO:

P.O. BOX 2234

WEST SCAM ST.

RIPOFFVILLE, NIGERIA

AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR CAR IN 3-5 BUSINESS DAYS!!!"

Would you honestly fall for that? I hope not. Anyway, let's pretend that it's a little bit more of a credible offer than that, but you still just aren't sure. What do you do? You turn to an escrow service. You find a trustworthy independent third party, and you make an arrangement. You give the escrow service your money to hold. Then, the other party gives the escrow service the product that they promised to deliver. Then, when everything matches up as agreed, the escrow service gives you your goods, and the other party your money. That's what we, as conservatives, need. An independent, conservative, holding organization. We give them our money, and then, only after the politicians deliver the votes, our money is released to the politicians. What's wrong with having some strings attached to our donations? Nothing. Fortunately, such organizations already exist in the form of issue advocacy political action committees. I'll use the NRA for example. We want pro-second ammendment legislation. The politicians want money. Only after the politician has voted in favor of gun rights, and been has endorsed by the NRA, will he get one dime of that money. So, instead of giving our money directly to that Nigerian fraud company (the GOP), we need to give it to holding companies (individual PAC's). Let's just say that all of us donated all of our contributions to these organizations. The only way for politicians to access that money would be to vote in favor of our issues. This is a much better idea than staying home in November, and we should start doing it right now. Not one more dime to the GOP, give our money to independent organizations, and make Republican politicians earn it!!!

The following is a partial list of some PAC's I found at http://www.opensecrets.org. I am aware that there are many more great organizations out there, but many organizations don't give money to candidates. I also tried to limit it to some of the larger PAC's:

Gun Rights:

National Rifle Association-Political Victory Fund: http://www.nrapvf.org

Gun Owners Of America: http://www.gunowners.org

Immigration Reform:

Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC: http://www.teamamericapac.org

US Immigration Reform PAC: http://www.usirp.com

Tax Reform:

The Club For Growth: http://www.clubforgrowth.org

Pro-Life:

National Pro-Life Alliance: http://www.prolifealliance.com

Pro-Life Campaign Committee: http://www.prolifecommittee.org

Republican National Coalition For Life: http://www.rnclife.org

Susan B. Anthony List: http://www.sba-list.org

General Conservative PAC's:

Right March PAC: http://www.rightmarch.com/pac/

Eagle Forum PAC: http://www.eagleforum.org/order/donate.html

National Conservative Campaign Fund: http://www.nccfpac.com

Campaign For Working Families: http://www.cwfpac.com/

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:34am on May 19, 2006 The Alamo Of The Conservative Movement.

By OldLineGOP

To me 1976 was the defining moment of the Conservative Revolution. It wasn't until 1980 that Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination for President, and transformed the American political landscape forever. It wasn't until 1994 that Newt Gingrich and The Contract With America brought conservatives into power on a large scale, and proved that the success of Reagan wasn't due only to his personal popularity, but also to the popularity of his ideas. Yet even compared with these two major milestones, 1976 will always be the year to remember, not because Reagan won, but because he lost. And it was out of the ashes of that narrow primary defeat that the conservative movement came to life.

Following the end of the Nixon Presidency and the Watergate scandal, the Republican Party was in trouble. Quite frankly, because it stood for nothing. The small minorities we had in both houses of Congress refused to put up a fight against the growing liberalism and big government ideology of the Democratic majority, and Ford himself did little or nothing to stop the excessive growth of government, and government regulation. Rather than take on the Democrats, he simply refused to follow an aggressive foreign policy which would have been met with their disapproval. The Republican Party couldn't attract voters to save its life. It wasn't that the American public was liberal, they weren't then, and they aren't now. It was simply that we offered no clear alternative. While the Democrats stood on their philosophy of the Nanny State, and espoused its virtues, the GOP simply went along with everything they introduced. Republicans weren't opposed to the Democrat's ideas, they just didn't think they should go quite as far as they did...but if they did, that was okay. We were the party of the Chamber of Commerce. We didn't like government regulation of business, we wanted the capital gains tax rate cut, and we wanted to end the growing influence of unions. But what did we offer the voters. What did we offer the rank and file American who saw what the Democrats brought to the table, and didn't like it. Simply put...nothing. We would stand our ground to ensure that corporate profits didn't take a hit, but when it came to the radical social agenda of the Democrats we were nowhere to be found. And we couldn't win elections. The reason for this is very simple....there were not then, nor are there now, millions of CEO's to turn out in droves on election day.

Ford, and the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party ran the show. Finally, after Ford cut off aid to South Vietnam, and abandoned the principles of Barry Goldwater for the last time, Ronald Reagan had had enough. He ran for the nomination, and lost in one of the closest primaries in history. He ran as a Republican, and he ran as a conservative. Eventually Ford won the primary, and Republicans learned a valuable lesson that November....people will pick Jimmy Carter over Jimmy Carter Lite every time. If Ronald Reagan had not taken a stand that year, Ford would have cruised to the nomination, and still lost. But then in 1980, instead of getting the Gipper, we would have gotten Nelson Rockefeller, or some other RINO, and would have had the pleasure of enjoying a second term of the Carter Presidency.

Now let me take you to the present day. As it stands now, we are watching everything that conservatives fought so hard for over the last 30 years slowly waste away. It started off small. We somehow became the party of the federal domination of education via "No Child Left Behind." Then we became the party of massive taxpayer funded entitlement programs through "Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits." The we became the party of pork, earmarks, government waste, and uncontrolled federal spending, thanks to just about every bill Congress has passed this century. And now, most recently, we have become the party of uncontrolled borders, and ultra-amnesty.

I've heard talk about the Senate tacking on enforcement provisions to the Hagel-Martinez amnesty, and how they're moving closer to the House bill. Yes, the fence ammendment (which was only half of what the House passed) passed, and Senator Sessions deserves our unwavering support for making that happen. But let's take a look at what else happened, and who is responsible for it:

-Bush and the open borders lobby have told us that this is a temporary guest worker program, and that all workers would have to return to their home country after their permits expired. Yet the Kyl ammendment, which would have ensured just that, by prohibiting guest workers from becoming citizens was defeated 58-35. How are they going to be temporary workers if all of them can apply for permanent legal residency the second they get here.

Let's take a look at who helped to kill this vital ammendment: Alexander, Brownback, Chafee, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, DeWine, Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Murkowski, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Voinovich, Warner.

Even Ben Nelson and Byron Dorgan did the right thing here.

-We all know that Social Security is going to go bankrupt soon. And we've all heard time and time again about how illegal immigrants don't use taxpayer services, and how they are here just to work, and will be a net benefit to our economy. Well, let's just say that's the case. Then they really wouldn't need Social Security then would they. The Ensign ammendment would have denied Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. I say "would have" because it was defeated 50-49.

Let's take a look at who helped to kill this one: Brownback, Chafee, DeWine, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, Specter, Stevens, Voinovich.

I love knowing that I'll never be able to receive Social Security benefits (it will be bankrupt by then), but that any elderly illegal who can sneak across the border is welcome to my hard earned tax dollars. Also, any one of the 100 million+ new immigrants we'll add in the next 20 years through family reunification visas (a large number of which are bound to be parents and grandparents) will only hasten the fall of Social Security. ONE VOTE.....that's all this crucial ammendment lost by......ONE VOTE....and I see ELEVEN REPUBLICANS who voted AGAINST it.

Let's take a look at the usual suspects, aside from DeWine and Chafee, who I'll get to later. We have 2008 Presidential hopeful John McCain, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens, and Senate "rising star" Mel Martinez. Noticing a pattern here? I hope so. The RINO's are running the asylum.

So, as conservatives we have only two options here. Either we stand up to the Republican establishment as Ronald Reagan did in 1976, and let them know that they won't be receiving our blind loyalty this year. Or we silently voice our disapproval, yet still go all out for the GOP this year. This is the pinnacle moment of the Conservative Movement. If we just say "all is well", and let the Senate RINO's and Bush pass this amnesty, then we will have proven that we, as a movement, mean nothing. We've just proven every RINO correct...that they can vote against what we want without a care in the world, knowing that we'll come crawling back on election day. If we just roll over and die on this one for the sake of party unity, then the GOP won't be our party anymore. The RINO's will completely take it over (they almost have already), and once again, there will be no REAL difference between us and the Democrats. We can't afford to do that. We need to make sure that this is the year that we show them once and for all that they need us alot more than we need them. The only thing that spineless politicians understand is the threat of being voted out of office. We need to make ourselves and our actions very clear on this.

-It's already started: So far, I'm starting to see some good news that conservatives aren't going to let themselves be taken for granted anymore. The Town of Herndon, Virginia swept pro-illegal immigrant politicians from office. In Utah, pro-amnesty incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon is being forced into a primary runoff because voters there want border security. And recently, popular congressman Rep. Tom Osborne lost the Nebraska Gubernatorial primary race to Dave Heineman because Osborne supported in-state tuition for illegals. And most importantly, a ton of tax and spend "Republican" incumbents went down in defeat thanks to conservative challengers in Pennsylvania (Good work "PAConservative" and friends). These are great signs.

-It's starting to have an effect: Yes, right now all were getting from the Senate are a bunch of tokens, but do you think we would even be getting that if it weren't for all of the hell we've been raising. Of course not. Spineless politicians are starting to realize that they'd better take us seriously, or who knows, we might not be there when they need us in November.

-Keep making your voice heard: Follow this link, and send a free fax through the internet to your government officials letting them know that amnesty won't be tolerated:

https://secure2.convio.net/fair/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr012=duypqr2mq1
.app2a&pagename=homepage&id=167

-Not one more dime to the GOP: We all want to give money to help conservative candidates get elected. Well giving money to the GOP won't accomplish your goal, as evidenced by the fact that they're still wasting money supporting Lincoln Chafee, even attacking primary opponent Steve Laffey. So, instead give your donations to issue advocacy PACS. This way your money will get to conservative candidates, but only after they've earned it by voting in favor of your issue. Try the NRA, or the Christian Coalition, or for those of us concerned about amnesty:

US Immigration Reform PAC: http://www.usirp.com

Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC: http://www.teamamericapac.org

-Support the House: As of yet, the House of Representatives has not waivered on amnesty. We need to ensure that they don't, by promising to turn out in record numbers to support them. So, give some money to individual conservative House candidates (not the Republican National Committee), and let them no that as long as they support securing the borders, they can count on your votes in November. The same can't be said for the Senate.

-We need to make an example: Chafee and DeWine have to go. Chafee is nowhere close to being a Republican or a conservative. He's in yet another close race for the Senate this year. We need to cut him loose. He votes against everything we believe in, and is one of the biggest amnesty cheerleaders there is. Same with DeWine. They are both in close races this year. So, conservatives in Rhode Island and Ohio need to show up in record numbers this year, vote for Blackwell, and any other worthy candidates, and then vote for whoever the Constitution Party has running for the Senate. That way, when election night is over, and both of these RINO's have been retired, all of the others will be able to look at the results, do the math, and realize that if they had only acted more conservative, they would have won.

-Judicial Hostages: I know, I know, we need Chafee and DeWine, because if we didn't have them we wouldn't have the Senate. Well, what good is having the Senate the way it is now? We have a huge majority, and still, all we get is amnesty, spending, and failure. But what about the judges? Simply put, the "moderates" of the party are holding judicial nominees hostage to get what they want. Yes, Alito and Roberts are great, but how many other judges are still wasting away, waiting for confirmation, while we hold 55 seats. If we cave to the RINO's just to get the judges through (which I'm sure we could do anyway, if we would just put up a fight), then all we will ever get are judges. No tax cuts, no spending cuts, no border security, nothing. It's not a fair trade.

By the way, if you think that Bush is really going to build the fence, think again, we're being scammed:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50267

And for all your border security needs, please check out America's leading organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), at: http://www.fairus.org

Friends, this is it, this is the last stand of the conservative movement. If we give up our fight, and go with the flow on amnesty, and spending, and government, then we go to the backburner of the Republican Party. We will no longer be a force to be reckoned with, just like the pre-1976 days, before Ronald Reagan led us out of the wilderness. Yes, things may get messy this year, but we just don't have a choice. We worked so hard to gain control of the party, and we need to maintain it. So let's not vote for Chafee or DeWine. Let's give our money to conservative interest groups instead of to the RNC. Let's keep the e-mails, faxes, phone calls, and letters rolling in, letting our elected officials know how displeased we are with their conduct. And whenever we get the chance, let's keep knocking off RINO's in the primaries like we've been doing lately. BASICALLY, LET'S SHOW LINCOLN CHAFEE WHO'S REALLY RUNNING THIS SHOW!!!

Note: I'm well aware that this post was insanely long, and moved from topic to topic without alot of coherence. Please forgive me, and thank you for bearing with me anyway.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:18pm on May 14, 2006 Monday's Immigration Speech: Don't Get Your Hopes Up.

By OldLineGOP

I'm sure that by now most of us are aware that on Monday, the President plans to give a speech on many issues, with immigration being the most prominent among them. I've already heard some speculate about how they think Bush may have "seen the light," and how he'll come out and tell the American people how he understands their desire for border security, and that in addition to his much loved amnesty, he's now willing to ensure that the border finally gets secured (even after doing nothing about it for 5 years). I'm also sure that many of us may have heard those two magical words that would seem to support this by now...."National Guard."

Has Bush really turned into a pro-enforcement President, or is this just yet another smoke and mirrors attempt to calm criticism of our border fiasco, in order to push his amnesty forward.

As much as I hate quoting the Associated Press, I think they hit it dead on when they said:

"President Bush plans to address the nation Monday night on the immigration debate, trying to build momentum for legislation that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens."

You see, that's the sole purpose of this speech. It's not about getting tough on border enforcement, the end goal of this, and any other action Bush takes towards the border, is, and always has been, amnesty and open borders.

If he was serious about securing the border, and he's willing to go so far as to deploy National Guard troops, then why not start building some serious fencing?

The answer is simple, fencing is permanent. The National Guard is only temporary, which is exactly what he wants. I don't like to make predictions, and I could very well be wrong, but this is what I see happening. Bush is going to send a very small number of National Guard troops down to the border (I've heard the number 5,000 floated around). Regardless of the exact number, it will be a small token force, that won't be large enough to make a difference. I also heard that they may be placed under the command of the border state governors. And since Schwarzenegger, Richardson, and Napolitano are so serious about border security, they will gladly use them. I doubt it, more than likely they'll be kept away from the actual border, and assigned some meaningless role other than actual enforcement. They'll go down there and be put in charge of setting up communications equipment or something of that nature. Then Bush, and all of them can go tell their constituents how they had the courage to put troops on the border, all the while turning around to the pro-amnesty crowd and saying "don't worry, look, they're really not doing anything down there."

And then the Senate Amnesty Act of 2006 will be brought to the floor again. And we'll hear how there's no reason not to pass an amnesty/unlimited guest worker bill, since now that we have troops on the border, the situation is under control. Then when the bill goes to conference committe with the House. "We don't need those ridiculous fencing and increased enforcement provisions, we've got troops on the border." And finally, should this terrible Amnesty Act of 2006 be passed, the day after it is signed into law, that small showpiece force of National Guardsmen is going to be taken away from the border, and it will be back to business as usual.

Don't listen to the words, look at the actions. Yes, putting the Guard on the border will help. But the main, important things we have always needed to do to control this situation are:

1)Fencing.

2)At the very least doubling the size of the border patrol (not adding a token number of 1,000 agents).

3)Ending the ridiculous catch and release policy.

4)Having more stringent asylum laws, and going after people who overstay their visas.

Is Bush going to do any of this? No. So why even waste our time with deploying the Guard? Simply put, he doesn't want this problem to get solved, and he sees this little false display as the only way to get his massive amnesty passed.

-Bush called Americans who try to assist law enforcement on the border "vigilantes."

-Bush administration officials told the Mexican government where the Minutemen were located. I'm sure drug smugglers and coyotes were happy for that tip. That also had the potential to endanger the lives of those American citizens who are brave enough to stand watch down there.

-Bush claims that the National Anthem should be sung only in English, despite the fact that he's attended events where it's been sung in Spanish before. Funny how he didn't have a problem with it until his amnesty bill hit a brick wall of resistance.

-The Bush administration has enforced federal immigration law less than the Clinton administration.

And one final question for anyone who may be reading this. Why, in an Administration which claims to be tough on Homeland Security, and which has caused the federal government to grow to levels that would make LBJ blush, have the two slowest growing federal agencies been the Border Patrol and I.C.E?

This latest attempt to fool the American public isn't going to work anymore than those token enforcement raids a couple of weeks back, after which, almost all of the people detained were released.

Bush could care less what conservatives think, he's only doing this because he considers it a necessary step to getting an amnesty passed. His poll numbers are around 29-31%. They might see some small temporary bounces, but overall, they're not going anywhere but down. The reason for that is conservatives have had enough, and we're not going to take it anymore. So go ahead and pass your amnesty Mr. President....I'll see you at the 20% approval mark soon buddy.

http://www.fairus.org

http://www.minutemanproject.com

http://www.americanpatrol.com

http://www.usbc.org

http://www.teamamericapac.org (Tom Tancredo's political action committee which only supports pro-border security candidates.)

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org (A great American who is running in the primary for an open congressional seat in Idaho. This Vietnam veteran is a border security hawk, and deserves our support.)

http://www.electjohnjacob.com (This real conservative from Utah supports getting tough on illegal immigration. He's also trying to knock of R.I.N.O Rep. Chris Cannon. If he wins the primary, which it looks like he will, it will be because Cannon is pro-amnesty. Let's help him out so we can send Washington a message...."Vote For Amnesty.....And We'll Vote For Your Primary Opponent!"

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:25pm on Apr. 24, 2006 Robert Vasquez Deserves Our Support!

By OldLineGOP

Congressman Butch Otter is vacating his seat in Idaho's 1st congressional district this year in order to run for Governor. This is Idaho, so whatever Republican gets nominated is going to win in the general election. Since we don't need to worry about electability during the primaries, the focus of Idaho GOP voters should be on getting the most conservative candidate possible. Enter Robert Vasquez.

Last night I was listening to the Lars Larson radio show (I highly recommend it... http://www.larslarson.com), and amnesty was being discussed. The caller that Mr. Larson was talking to was none other than Canyon County Commissioner, and Congressional candidate Robert Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez was discussing how there was a Reconquista rally in Boise of about 2,000 illegals, and how he and a handful of others went to counter protest (there are pictures on his website). Anyway, he said that the angry crowd surrounded them and started threatening them. He responded by holding up a sign consisting of a Mexican Flag (which he describes as a chicken holding a worm :) ) crossed out. He then went into great detail about his passion for securing the borders. I liked what I heard, so I decided to check out his website:

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org

I liked what I saw...

Vasquez is a Vietnam veteran who has two purple hearts. He is also a former investigator for the Department of Corrections.

In April 2004, he billed the Mexican Government $2,009,315.07 for illegal immigration related costs.

In March 2005 he met with attorneys to see about using RICO laws against employers who hire illegal aliens.

He is pro-life, a supporter of our 2nd Ammendment rights, against wasteful spending, and a border security hawk.

From his Website:

As an elected official, there are many challenges to be faced. None, however, are more important than a secure state. If America does not secure her national borders, then there will be no government to deal with. Loss of national soverignty is quickly followed by the loss of national identity, culture and values. America's very existence hangs in the balance of illegal immigration overwhelming our social and economic resources.

If we are proud to be American, we must be willing to take a stand and demand the defense of America.

Sincerely,

Robert Vasquez

One of his opponents in the primary is Sheila Sorensen, who attended a fundraiser hosted by Al Franken. What does Vasquez have to say about that?

"Perhaps Sorensen will bring Sen. John Kerry to host a fund raiser for her

in Idaho. Or she might schedule Al Franken to do a meet-and-greet in

Nampa, and expect Idaho's 1st Congressional District Republicans to bring

their RINO checks for Sorensen."

"While the Idaho Statesman tries to put a positive spin on this campaign

note, every Republican in Idaho has just learned that the Democrats

already have a candidate in this race, and her name is Sheila Sorensen."

Amazing, how many Republican officials do we have that will actually pull the RINO card? Not enough. My fellow Red Staters, this man clearly deserves our support. Like I said earlier, this is Idaho, Vasquez will beat whoever the Democrat nominee is, any Republican will. This isn't New York, or Washington state, or some other area where we have to settle for a lesser candidate just to win the seat. This is blood red Idaho. And since, for once, we can actually have whoever we want, why settle for less....let's get the best!

Go support Robert Vasquez:

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org

Let's get those donations rolling in, so we can get this man on his way to Washington:

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org/contribute.html

This is a great opportunity for us. Don't let a RINO take one of the most conservative seats in the country!

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:18pm on Apr. 22, 2006 Robert Vasquez Deserves Our Support!

By OldLineGOP

Last night I was listening to the Lars Larson radio show (I highly recommend it... http://www.larslarson.com), and amnesty was being discussed. The caller that Mr. Larson was talking to was none other than Canyon County Commissioner, and Congressional candidate Robert Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez was discussing how there was a Reconquista rally in Boise of about 2,000 illegals, and how he and a handful of others went to counter protest (there are pictures on his website). Anyway, he said that the angry crowd surrounded them and started threatening them. He responded by holding up a sign consisting of a Mexican Flag (which he describes as a chicken holding a worm :) ) crossed out. He then went into great detail about his passion for securing the borders. I liked what I heard, so I decided to check out his website:

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org

I liked what I saw...

Vasquez is a Vietnam veteran who has two purple hearts. He is also a former investigator for the Department of Corrections.

In April 2004, he billed the Mexican Government $2,009,315.07 for illegal immigration related costs.

In March 2005 he met with attorneys to see about using RICO laws against employers who hire illegal aliens.

He is pro-life, a supporter of our 2nd Ammendment rights, against wasteful spending, and a border security hawk.

If we are proud to be American, we must be willing to take a stand and demand the defense of America.

Sincerely,

Robert Vasquez

Go support Robert Vasquez:

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org

Let's get those donations rolling in, so we can get this man on his way to Washington:

http://www.vasquezforidaho.org/contribute.html

This is a great opportunity for us. Don't let a RINO take one of the most conservative seats in the country!

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:30pm on Apr. 15, 2006 Amnesty: We Can't Afford To Let Our Guard Down!

By OldLineGOP

First of all, congratulations to those of us who contacted Congress to voice our displeasure over the recent amnesty scheme. We made our point, and turned what was supposed to be a sure Senate passage, into a dead bill. But make no mistake about it, during the Easter break, our elected officials will be scheming behind closed doors to get any kind of amnesty passed as soon as possible. Rather than fight for something we want, like making the tax cuts permanent, Republicans in Washington have made passage of this unpopular sellout their top agenda.

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/009117.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/10/70326.shtml

We'll hear from McCain, Hagel, and all the other usual suspects about how voting in favor of enforcement, and against amnesty will kill our party, and alienate us from Hispanic voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. Like the 79% of Americans who view controlling the border as extremely or very important.

http://www.steinreport.com/archives/009115.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/10/144315.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/9/224821.shtml

This same gaggle of spineless pols will tell us that there is no point in building a fence, since it will stop nothing, even though the Border Patrol thinks it will halt illegal immigration by 95%.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/132658.shtml

We'll once again hear how passing amnesty will cause illegal immigration to lower, and how the mention of amnesty does not increase illegal immigration. This, being the complete opposite of what has actually happened. This talk of amnesty has already increased illegal immigration. A conservative group called Judicial Watch sued the Bush Administration, and got a hold of a Border Patrol report, which Bush had suppressed, which shows that a large number of illegal immigrants were crossing for the expected amnesty.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/12/144424.shtml

http://www.judicialwatch.org/borderpatrolreport.shtml

Don't worry, we'll get to hear the same tired line about how family values don't stop at the Rio Grande. Neither do drugs for that matter.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/11/225424.shtml

And finally we'll be told that if we out amnesty the Democrats, we'll win a majority of the illegal immigrant vote. So, who do you think that all of those Mexican flag waving, "Go Back To Europe, Honky" sign holding, newly minted voters will cast their ballots for? Us? No way, they're voting Dem. The Democrats already know that, and that's why they've had voter registration drives at all of the illegal immigrant rallies.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/13/224737.shtml

We can't think that this is over. The open borders lobby is hoping that during the break 'tempers will cool.' And with all of the pro illegal rallies going on in the mean time, by the time Congress comes back into session, Conservatives will be begging for an amnesty. That is why now more than ever, we must let them know that we want enforcement, and no amnesty. We must let them know that our tempers have not cooled, and that we will not accept a sell out. I urge everyone to go to FAIR's site, and follow this link to send a free fax via computer to Congress, letting them know we're serious.

https://secure2.convio.net/fair/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=Us
erAction&id=123

http://www.fairus.org

And be sure to let 'W' know that his priorities need to be tax cuts and judges, and that only after they have been accomplished, will we even think about a guest worker program.

(202)456-1111

president@whitehouse.gov

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:47pm on Apr. 15, 2006 I Have Seen The Definition Of Funny

By OldLineGOP

Hat tip to right wing news for this one:

Everyone must go to http://www.dognooz.com

There is this crazy white haired middle aged white moonbat liberal rapping about how evil republicans are. He keeps beeting a tambourine on his chest and failing to rhyme. This is bad and great at the same time.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:59pm on Apr. 7, 2006 Did Bush Just Say "No Fence"?

By OldLineGOP

I was just watching Your World With Neil Cavuto on Fox News. I was somewhat distracted, but there was a Fox reporter with a thick British accent discussing his meeting with the President. I heard him saying how Bush repeated his usual lines about "Jobs Americans Won't Do", etc. And then I believe I heard him say that Bush told him that there was no way he would allow a border wall, not even the 700 miles of fence in the House Bill. Like I said though, I was somewhat distracted on the phone, so I may not have heard correctly. That is why I am posting this, if there was anybody else watching, did that reporter say that Bush had ruled out any kind of a fence? If he did, and once more, I don't know for sure, then he can pretty much kiss his amnesty good bye. Many people think amnesty is okay, but if and only if a wall has already been built, and the border has become secure. I oppose amnesty, but if a fence was built, even I might be open to amnesty persuasion. Once more, I don't know if I heard correctly about Bush coming out against allowing a fence, even if there is amnesty. If he did, then that is a first. Anybody who may have been watching, please let me know if I heard right.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:17am on Apr. 6, 2006 Louisiana: Ripe For The Picking

By OldLineGOP

For the record, I'm Maryland born and raised, but I've been living here in Louisiana since August 2005. Come July or August, it's back to the big MD for me. But in the meantime, I think that my current adopted state (which I like)holds great potential for the GOP.

The south made the switch from solid blue to solid red decades ago. And while GOP Presidential nominees do great here, local and Congressional races have not gone as well as they could have. I think that all of that is going to change. First of all, most of the Democrats here are somewhat socially conservative, at a time when the national party moves further and further to the left. Second of all, there were the hurricanes. The main base of support for the Dems in this state came from New Orleans. Unfortunately many Dem voters have been displaced. But this loss of voters puts the Governor's race, a Senate race, and a Congressional race all into play. Third, while the MSM believes that the response to Hurricane Katrina showed inept national GOP leadership, most people down here think it showed inept local Dem leadership. Here are the races we can look forward to:

Governor: Kathleen Blanco (D) Up again in '07

Approval Rating= 34% approve 63% disapprove (SurveyUSA)

2003 Election Results= Blanco 52% Bobby Jindal(R) 48%

It gets better= There was recently an effort to recall Blanco down here. I believe it failed, but it still drew alot of attention. Mike Francis, a Republican running for Secretary of State, has run ads on TV here claiming our elected leaders have made a joke out of us (Chocolate City, Blanco using hurricane relief funds to remodel her office, etc.), and they are having an effect. Blanco is extremely unpopular down here, and even the Dem base and the press have turned on her. Oh, and her Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, who may have been able to salvage some votes for her in '07, won't be on the ticket. He's running for Mayor of the Chocolate City instead.

Predictions= '07 will see a Blanco v. Jindal rematch. Who will win? Drive down Highway 90. Tell me how many "Don't Blame Me I Voted For Jindal", and "Beware Of Hurricane Kathleen" stickers you see on cars. Easy pick up.

US Senate: Mary Landrieu (D) Up again in '08

Approval Rating= 53% approve 42% disapprove (SurveyUSA)

2002 Election Results= Landrieu 52% Terrel(R) 48%

It Gets Better= Landrieu caved in to pressure from the liberal left, and voted against Samuel Alito (luckily he was confirmed anyway). This could be used as an issue against her in a socially conservative state.

Predictions= With the number of Dem voters significantly reduced, statewide dissatisfaction with the Dems, an approval rating barely above 50%, and the fact that she just barely squeaked by in a runoff in '02, we could take this one. We need a top tier candidate though. Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, Lafayette's own Congressman Charles Boustany, or Congressman Bobby Jindal, should he pass on the Gov. race. With the right candidate tying her to the liberal DNC, this is her race to lose.

3rd Congressional District: Charlie Melancon (D) Up again in '06

2004 Election Results= Melancon 50.25% Tauzin III (R) 49.75%

It gets better= Prior to Melancon's 2004 runoff squeaker against political novice Billy Tauzin III, this seat was solidly held by the senior Billy Tauzin (R).

Predictions= State Sen. Craig Romero (R) has an uphill battle, but if he runs a tough race, and constantly links Melancon to Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Blanco, and Nagin, he might pull it off.

Parting thoughts= Louisiana has been trending GOP for some time now. If the RNC would start devoting considerable resources to winning down here, the time is right, and it would bear fruit. Fewer Dem voters, the memory of flooded school buses sitting in a parking lot (Blanco), the mythical Chocolate City (Nagin), the vote against conservative Justices (Landrieu), all of this could pay off, and help the Republicans in the long run.

No Amnesty= www.fairus.org

Redstate