Comments on: ASA HUTCHINSON MEETS HOT TALK

By: youtube

youtube — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:09:25 +0000

youtube

http://digg.com/users/meever/news/dugg youtube.

By: housewives in pantyhose black pantyhose pantyhose girls pantyhose pictures free pantyhose gallery girls in pantyhose pantyhose fetish men in pantyhose

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:49:47 +0000

housewives in pantyhose black pantyhose pantyhose girls pantyhose pictures free pantyhose gallery girls in pantyhose pantyhose fetish men in pantyhose

000delaydva

By: school girls girls in thongs pretty girls hot young girls girls girls gone wild

school girls girls in thongs pretty girls hot young girls girls girls gone wild — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:35:26 +0000

school girls girls in thongs pretty girls hot young girls girls girls gone wild

000delaydva

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:03:04 +0000

Amen Peachy.

By: Peachy Carnahan

Peachy Carnahan — Mon, 12 Jul 2004 06:12:30 +0000

Marc:

I agree with you. Dump Bush. Then rebuild the Republican party. Lets clean out the RINOs and send a conservative to Washington in 2008.

1964 produced Reagan 1980.

No More Bush!

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 12 Jul 2004 05:47:50 +0000

All of you “unabashed Bush supporters” who are defending his administration’s rotten record on immigration really need to get a grip. Bush has been pushing for amnesty since he came into office. He only shut up about it after 9/11 for obvious reasons, and now he has brought the issue back up again against the will of most members of his party. Face it, Bush WANTS amnesty. He WANTS America to blend demographically with Mexico as his own family has done through intermarriage (consequences be damned) because he wants to remake this country in his own family’s image. Just because he is a Republican doesn’t mean that he cares about you, or your safety, or our great nation. We need to dump this bum a.s.a.p.

By: eww1

eww1 — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 05:03:55 +0000

Oooops, I put my wrong email in the last message. This one is the correct one.

By: eww

eww — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 05:03:04 +0000

I’d like to come at this from another point of view. I have worked for the INS for eight years. Now I work for DHS under the same leadership as Border Patrol, we are called Customs and Border Protection. Besiders Border Patrol, we have a group called BICE, or the shortened version is ICE. They are our special agents that typically work with FBI, DEA, local police departments and other federal authorities to apprehend criminal aliens. They could really care less about the non-criminal aliens because they only have about 2000 agents nation wide and are much too busy with the criminals to worry themselves over the non-criminal illegal types (Ha! sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it?)

What typically happens in these cases with Border Patrol is that they step on the toes of the special agents. In other words, CBP officers are stepping on the toes of ICE officers. If Border Patrol starts getting all the credit/publicity for rounding up illegals it makes the big wigs in Washington start asking the ICE supervisors, “Hey, what are your guys doing? Why is Border Patrol doing your job?” Then everyone starts to fear for their job and their funding. It’s all statistically driven, as you might already know.

So then some upper level management types from ICE get together with some upper level management levels from CBP and they all agree to let ICE do ICE’s job and CBP should do their job.

At this point you might be asking yourself, “Isn’t it CBP’s job to round up illegals?” and you’d be right, it is. It is also CBP’s job to stop people from coming into the country in the first place. It’s like the stupid argument you always hear that we shouldn’t be spending money on Iraq when we have children not getting education in our own country. This is called a non-sequitor.

It doesn’t matter though, the point gets across to the upper level management folks that they should be concentrating on their specific task, keeping the illegals out in the first place.

So when I hear Asa Hutchinson saying to John over and over again that it is all about coordination between the agencies, my heart kinda, sorta goes out to the guy. Maybe i’m just putting the best spin possible on this for the sake of the administration, i’m an unashamed Bush supporter. But it seems to me that the red tape and beauracracy is so thick that even Asa Hutchinson has a hard time chewing through it.

For John, on the John and Ken show its pretty simple. Do the job and get it done. But for the politicians and the beaurocrats its much more complicated than that. I can only hope that our President is as dedicated to changing things as he has said that he is. I for one think that Bush is for legal immigration on a larger scale than we have now but not without more forceful enforcement of our current immigration laws.

I hope i’m right about that.

By: kb

kb — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:05:34 +0000

CHARMING. Yet again, immigration/Border Patrol has a wildly successful oepration – which means the ICE/BP HQ’s panicked, first reaction is “Kill it!”

Massive morale boosters, those guys in DC. Ignore what the community wants, and wholeheartedly approves of in favor of a shrill vocal minority of professional ethnics.

The question to be asked is not how Hutchinson feels when we learn that the next terrorist came through the Mexican border, but how that terrorist easily and comfortably lived in the community without so much as a questionable glance, and most importantly, without fear because interior enforcement affects “sensitivities.”

By: Peachy Carnahan

Peachy Carnahan — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:30:07 +0000

Listen here:

YOU CAN’T MISS THIS!

http://www.johnandkenshow.com/audio/files/asahutchinson.wmx

http://americanpatrol.com/WMV/AsaHutchisonJohnKJuly82004.wmv

http://www.americanpatrol.com/04-FEATURES/040709-HUTCH-FIBS-JON-KEN/HutchJohn-Ken040708-KFI.ram

or
http://www.johnandken.com

By: James Kotthoff

James Kotthoff — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:40:42 +0000

I remember the figures and Marshall is correct. But the bigger issues is not rather Bush and Kerry differ on illegal imigration…unless I remember wrong is not the sworn oath of the president to defend the constitution of the United States and the laws of this country?
Afyer 8 years of Clinton haven’t we learned the lesson that we have to start holding our leaders accountable for doing their jobs? I am by no means a Kerry fan but if Bush can not or will not perform his duties to the American people then why vote for him. Bush needs to prove himself to the American public or else he will not see a second term.

By: Marshall

Marshall — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:43:17 +0000

ExRat – all good points. We can only pray that MichelleMalkin.com is a site viewed daily by the President.

Michelle must have removed the blog entry from last week that had the number. It was 5.4% of the 105 million votes cast, but now I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

By: ExRat

ExRat — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 19:01:55 +0000

Marshall – Sorry, I missed the discussion last week. 5% intuitively seems low to me but I have no information to argue with. Where did that number come from? Notwithstanding, because of the Electoral College system, a relatively small number of votes in the right place can make the difference in a Presidential election — viz. Florida, 2000. And there are undoubtedly non-Hispanic swing voters who might be put off by what would be described in our allegedly unbiased media as a heavy-handed crackdown on poor Mexicans who are just trying to feed their families.

As to sitting out the vote, it seems to me to be counterproductive for people who think Bush isn’t doing enough unless they think John-John will do better. “None of the above” is a valid choice, but if the effect of that choice is to put into office the candidate who least represents the abstainer’s opinion, it doesn’t make sense to me. Better to hold one’s nose and vote for the candidate who most closely fits the voter’s ideal.

You’re right about Gov. Ah-nold, but I don’t think too many of those who voted for him did so solely on the driver’s license issue. California had, and still has, a myriad of difficult problems, and an election-proof Democratic majority in the legislative branch (thanks to gerrymandered safe districts). As dumb as I think issuing driver’s licenses to illegals is, I can see that it might be useful to cede the point for the time being in order to make headway on such issues as financial stability and breaking (or at least loosening) the stranglehold that the unions have on California politicians.

By: Marshall

Marshall — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 18:04:49 +0000

Ex Rat – but as we noted in a discussion last week, Hispanic voters in 2000 only made up of 5% of the vote, and many of those were in three states that were not really up for grabs (California, Texas, and New York). Even if you figure that the majority of the Hispanic vote went for the Democrats, Bush would still be wise to ignore this block and do the right thing. The result, I feel, would be a much higher level of support from his base and independents who may be thinking of withholding their vote for Bush because of this very issue. It’s not good enough just to be “not as bad” as the Democrats.

Plus from what I have read, one block of people that are really opposed to illegal immigration are legal residents of Hispanic descent. Schwarzenegger won a landslide election (over a Hispanic candidate) by promising to not issue driver’s licenses to illegals. A position I believe he has wavered on, but I could be wrong.

By: ExRat

ExRat — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:32:19 +0000

I agree that the Bush administration is doing a lousy job of differentiating itself from John-John on the immigration issue, but I strongly suspect that if John-John win(s?) in November, things will get much worse on the ground beginning in January. The unpleasant reality is that Bush is trying hard not to alienate any voters, so nothing controversial will be tried by the administration until after the election. Then, win or lose, Bush will suddenly reacquire his backbone.