Bill Maher Calls Herman Cain An Ape

Where are all the CRIES of Racism?

Hey folks,

I think we may have found our Idiot of the Week already. But then again, this guy IS an Idiot. He lives in Idiotville. Hell, he may even be the Mayor. But this is a bit over the top, even for him. When is someone going to ask that this guy go back into the obscure shadows of which he came? He is not even funny any more.

Of course I'm talking about Bill Maher. We are use to his blindly repeating completely false, and at times, insane, Liberal Talking Points. But this? Imagine if a Conservative said this about Obama. Seriously. Imagine a Conservative talking about Obama, then say he is hoping for Clinton to pull it out because she is the only thing standing in the way of the Rise of the Apes. Can you imagine?

Well, that IS what he did say about Cain. According to MRC - After Mentioning Cain, Bill Maher Says Romney Only Thing Stopping 'The Rise of the Apes' By: Tim Graham Monday, November 14, 2011 11:29 AM EST

Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America, Monday, to shill for his latest book, Bill Maher told George Stephanopoulos he's rooting for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination. "At least he eats with a knife and fork. I mean, he is all that stands between us and the rise of the apes."

Yup. Here is the Exchange.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, what's got you irritated this morning?

MAHER: Being up in the morning. I'm not irritated. I'm a comedian. So, I'm living high on the hog on this presidential campaign.

Maher offered an endorsement that Mitt Romney probably doesn't want, exclaiming, "I'm rooting for him." He added, "You have got to feel bad for Mitt Romney. I mean, he's been led, so far, by Trump, then Bachmann. Then Perry. Then Cain." This led to Maher's very questionable "ape" comment, as captured by MRC's Scott Whitlock:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have got- And- I saw you and you have got either, very, very rich, or very very certain of your opinions. Because on, what, Friday night, you offered a million to one bet, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera put up a dollar. You put up a million saying Herman Cain will not be president.

MAHER: Yeah. Yeah, that was a couple years ago. That was even before the sex scandal. You know? Yes. I think I would bet a million dollars against Herman Cain. Wouldn't you take that bet? Is not going to be the candidate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Only reason I wouldn't. I agree with your bottom line. I just don't feel like putting up a million dollars to one.

MAHER: No. And I don't really have that kind of money to lose on a bet either. But, I mean, this is a guy wearing a pimp hat through a scandal, a sex scandal. So, I feel like that pretty much sealed my thing. This is a guy who has a tax plan that we found out was written pretty much by his branch manager at Wells Fargo. You know?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Out in Cleveland.

MAHER: He went into cash some checks and the teller said, "Can I do anything else for you?" And he said, "Yeah, could you rewrite the tax code for the United States of America?"

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, he's, he's still leading the field. Still is. I mean, he's starting to fall just a little, but still leading the field.

MAHER: But, that's just because they hate Mitt Romney.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They do.

MAHER: You have got to feel bad for Mitt Romney. I mean, he's been led, so far, by Trump, then Bachmann. Then Perry. Then Cain.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, he kinda hangs in there. He's everyone's second choice.

MAHER: I'm rooting for him. You know? Because, look, in a country with only two parties, the Republican can always win. I mean, at least he eats with a knife and fork. I mean, he is all that stands between us and the rise of the apes.

So according to Bill Maher, Mitt is the only thing blocking Cain from "Pimping" his way to power. So he calls him a Pimp. Then says if not for Romney, the Apes would Rise. SERIOUSLY? Where are all the CRIES of Racism? Where are all the calls for Billy Boy to step down? Don't hold your Breath. This is another CLEAR Example of the Left being who they are.

Now if Stephanopoulos were a REAL Reporter, he would have called him out on this. But of course, he's NOT. He is just a talking head for the Liberal Loons. So he just continued on. But it's time that people starting making a big deal out of things like this. It's time to show who the REAL Racists are. They LIVE on the Left. And it IS, just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
MRC - After Mentioning Cain, Bill Maher Says Romney Only Thing Stopping 'The Rise of the Apes'

WAY Over Played Race Card. Not Working Anymore

Use to be people trembled in fear. Now? They sigh. Even Laugh.

Hey folks,

Can't win an Intellectual Debate? Call the person a Racist. Can't convince someone to see something your way? Call them a Racist. Can't get a Job. Racist. Can't get a Loan, Racist. Get stuck in traffic. Racist. Fast food forget your Fries? RACIST!!!! You were late getting to work because your RACIST Alarm Clock didn't WANT you to be there. Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist.

There USE to be a time when this ACTUALLY meant something. When someone was accused of being Racist, well, a lot of times they WERE. Use to be reserved for only those that actually showed SIGNS of being one, that one would be called one. But the Left have over played it. The Liberals have worn it out. There is nothing left of it. Well, for the most part. Use to be people trembled in fear. Now? They sigh. Even Laugh. The ONLY ones that seem to still fear this is some in the Republican Leadership. But they had better get over it fast, or THEY will be looking for a new Job as well.

I've said this before. I'll say it again. I will no longer argue with someone who plays the Race Card. I will no longer respond to any allegations of me being a Racist. I will no longer entertain little minds that think that I will bow to their stupidity.

Seriously, think about this. The Black "Leaders" have been fighting for equality for YEARS. However, when true Equality is accomplished, they denounce it. In other words, Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas, and of course Herman Cain. These are just three examples of Blacks who have "Broke Through" or became equal to the "Whites." They are attacked. They are called Sell Outs, Tokens, Uncle Tom, even House "Ns." {Sounds like Triggers} So they can't even win with their own? Stay down? Because the Whitey is keeping you down. Rise up? You are nothing more that a House N.

Then if you are White, YOU are the Racist. Lets see if I can follow this. Don't like Obama? Racist. Object to his Policies? Racist. Tea Party Racist. Blacks in the Tea Party? Sell Outs, Tokens, Uncle Tom, even House "Ns." {Sounds like Triggers} They will never Vote for a Black guy. Along comes Herman Cain? According to The Weekly Standard - MSNBC Analyst: GOP Sees Herman Cain as a 'Black Man Who Knows His Place' 5:01 PM, Oct 28, 2011 • By MICHAEL WARREN

On Martin Bashir's television program this afternoon, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said that Republicans are supporting Herman Cain because of his race:

What? No wait. We will NEVER Vote for a Black Man, but we are supporting a Black Man because he is Black? Yup. Oh it gets better folks. {Laughing}

"One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy," Finney said. "I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me."

"Thank you for spelling that out," Bashir responded.

{Laughing, banging hand on desk} He KNOWS his PLACE? He is RUNNING for the most important Job in the Free World. If he wins, he will BE the most Powerful person in the Free World. It doesn't bother me that he is Black. I support him and if he gets the Nomination, I will VOTE for him. I OPPOSE Obama because of his POLICIES. Stupid, FAILED, Liberal Policies. It has NOTHING to do with HIS Race.

This isn't the first time liberals have made this kind of charge about Cain and his supporters. During an online production of NBC's Meet the Press this week, Democratic congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland said white voters support Cain to show they aren't racist. “I think when [members of the Tea Party] can vote for a Herman Cain and hear him say the things that he says they feel like, ‘Well, you know, I can, I support this guy and...so it shows that I’m not racist and I’m supportive,'" Cummings told host David Gregory.

Liberal comedienne Janeane Garafalo told Current TV host Keith Olbermann earlier this month that Cain is popular with Republicans because it "hides the racist element" of the party. Watch that video here.

So don't Vote for a Black Guy because you are Racist. Vote FOR a Black Guy, because you are Racist and trying to hide it. What a bunch of BRAIN DEAD, Liberal Mumbo Jumbo.

I've got news for you. I do not like Obama. I would NEVER Vote FOR Obama. I would not do it to feel better about myself. I would not do it to prove a point. I would not do it on the Plain. I would not do it in the Rain. I would not do it in my head. I would not do it in my Bed. I would not Vote for him Today. I would not Vote for him ANY day. I do not like Obama and his plans, I do not like him says Pete I am.

If someone was a True Racist out there. They would not Vote for Obama. They would not Vote for Cain. They would not Vote for Micky Mouse. They would NEVER Vote for ANY Black person. It would not matter who's team they are on. It really is not hard to understand. We will not Vote for Obama because of WHO he is, and his POLICIES. Not the Color of his Skin. We WILL Vote for Cain, because of WHO he is and his POLICIES. Not the Color of his Skin. I understand, the Race Card is all you got. But it is worn out and over played. And it IS just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
The Weekly Standard - MSNBC Analyst: GOP Sees Herman Cain as a 'Black Man Who Knows His Place'

IWA For Sunday 073111

In Violation of her own Ethics Policy.

Hey folks,

Time to wrap things up with the Idiot of the Week. Do you remember when Journalists were True Journalists? Where they beat the Street to uncover the FACTS and TRUTH and Report them to you for you to make up your own mind on what to believe? Yeah, I know. Let me rephrase the question. Do you remember when they at least PRETENDED to be Neutral? Unbiased?

Now I have been telling you for years that they have even stopped trying to hide it now. They are nothing more than the Corporate Media and they simply report whatever they are told to. Gone are the days of independent, hard hitting, real Journalism. What we have left is nothing more than an extension of the Liberals in Washington. An Attack Organization and Cheerleaders for the Liberal Agenda.

A while back, I talked about how the New York Times Violates their own Ethics Policy Daily. Now we have another clear case of this. Her name? Jennifer Preston. Preston is a Fake Journalist, Book Author, Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, and long-time New York Times Employee.

According to the NYT's Ethic Policy:

Steering Clear of Advice Roles

40. It is an inherent conflict for a journalist to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid. Staff members may not counsel individuals or organizations on how to deal successfully with the news media. They may not, for example, advise candidates for public office, write or edit annual reports, or contribute to the programs of sports teams.

41. They may, of course, explain the newsroom's normal workings and steer outsiders to the appropriate editor or reporter. They may offer basic advice to community or neighborhood institutions such as their child's school, a small museum, a local charity or their house of worship.

42. They should not take part in public relations workshops that charge admission or imply privileged access to the press, or participate in surveys asking their opinion of an organization's media relations or public image. But on occasion they may describe our procedures to public relations groups with the goal of improving the flow of pertinent information.

43. Staff members may not serve as ghostwriters or co-authors for people or groups who figure in coverage they are likely to provide, prepare or supervise. They may not undertake such assignments for organizations that espouse a cause.

Actually, I could highlight A LOT of the Ethics Policy here that would highlight Ms. Preston's naughty behaviour, but I think you get the point. They are suppose to be NEUTRAL. UNBAIS. They are not suppose to be in bed with ANY Politician, or Political Party. I know, I know. But they are at least not suppose to ADVERTISE that they ARE.

So what does Preston do at the NYTs? She is the Paper’s first Social Media Editor. She is in charge of Tweets. SO what does she do? She tries to TEACH Obama and Crew how to Flood Twitter with their Propaganda about the Evil Republicans and the Debt Ceiling Debate. {Laughing} I kid you not. According to The Daily Caller - New York Times reporter prompts White House media staff on Twitter

Minutes after President Obama urged Americans this morning to tweet their support for a Democratic debt-ceiling bill, a New York Times reporter prompted the White House to organize the effort with a special Twitter hashtag.

Hashtags use the “#” symbol to mark keywords or topics on Twitter. They often help drive messages by linking similar messages together in a common theme.

At 10:55 a.m. the Times’s Jennifer Preston suggested that administration officials might create a hashtag, so tweeting Democrats could jointly target Republicans who are now trying to pass their own debt ceiling plan.

Preston tweeted to a White House rep, saying “@macon44 Hi there. I heard the President ask the people to tweet re: debt ceiling. Are you guys using specific hashtag?”

A minute later, she tweeted a followup to White House staffer Jesse Lee, saying, “Hi Jesse, what’s the hashtag that you guys are urging people to use in their tweets to Congress re: debtceiling.” Lee is the White House’s s director of progressive media & online response. (RELATED: New WH talking point: Boehner is the Grinch, and he’ll steal your Christmas)

Eight minutes later, at 11:04, the White House’s press shop announced a new hashtag for Democrats to use when targeting GOP members of Congress: “@NYT_JenPreston People responding to POTUS shld use #compromise. As he said, it is ‘time for #compromise on behalf of the American people.’”

At 11:31, The Washington Post reported out the new hashtag, and at 12.32, staffers at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget re-tweeted the same message. “RT @postpolitics: The @whitehouse new media team has said people responding to the President on Twitter should use #compromise.”

Preston, whose own tweet ID is @NYT_JenPreston, covers social media in politics and government. Reached by TheDC for comment, she insisted that she wasn’t trying to aid the White House in any way.

What? OF COURSE YOU WERE. You know that she KNOWS what she was doing was against her own Ethics Policy by her quick denial of her doing, well, what she was doing. It ends with this statement by Preston.

“I wasn’t doing it to help the White House,” she added. “I was doing it to help myself.”

Of course you were helping yourself. You need to keep having the Paycheck coming in. So, like a good little Drone, you simply do whatever they tell you. I know your Paper lost ALL Credibility a while ago but JEEZ Ms. Preston. At least PRETEND to be Neutral. It would be like me, saying to someone trying to figure out a Math Problem, "Hey, why do you not use a Calculator? Here is one." Of course you were HELPING them. It didn't work though. Did you catch this? NY Daily News - President Barack Obama takes debt battle to Twitter, loses more than 40,000 followers in one day

Not everyone is a fan of the presidential spam. By Friday evening, the President had lost more than 40,000 Twitter followers - and counting.

Better be careful Ms. Preston. They will throw YOU under the Bus. It was YOUR fault that their little Twitter Spam thing didn't work. They were following bad advice from YOU. Do not doubt that. They NEVER take credit for Failures.

Congratulations Jennifer Preston, for openly and outwardly violating your own companies Ethics Rules and Regulations, YOU are the Idiot of the Week. For that completely pointless denial, maybe it is YOU that needs some help in Covertness and Denial. But then again, it IS the NYTs. We have come to expect none the less.
Peter

Sources:
The Daily Caller - New York Times reporter prompts White House media staff on Twitter
NY Daily News - President Barack Obama takes debt battle to Twitter, loses more than 40,000 followers in one day

Cars 2 Propaganda

They'll do just fine without me.

Hey folks,

Ever see "Cars?" Fun little kids movie. My boy Josh and I just watched it again last week when it popped on the Tele. I enjoyed the movie and so did Josh. While it was on, there was a preview for Cars 2. I didn't really pay it much attention, just another cute fun kids movie with talking Cars. "Daddy, Daddy. Can we go see that?" I do not know why not.

NOW I do. Here I am minding my,,,oh I know, It's Tuesday. What does any of this have to do with "From the Energy Front?" Just wait. So here I am minding my own business, checking out out Facebook, when I see this from a News and Radio guy friend of mine, Spencer Hughes :

"SHAME on the Hollywood LEFTISTS and their anti Big Oil agenda in CARS 2. They are like spoiled, whiney kids pouting and throwing a tantrum."

Wait. HUH? So I dropped him a line and said, hey, my kid really wants to see this. Was it really this bad. I think I asked was it worth it. He responded:

"TOTAL LIBERAL-ENVIROMENTAL FASCIST AEGENDA. Lasseter should be ashamed for making such crap this time around. I considered him a GENIUS in animation and filmmaking. Why would someone who is so blessed with unbridled creativity have to resort to Big Oil sabotaging green fuels as the plot of a kids movie?!?!" OK folks, now I LOVE Spencer. I really do. But this is a kids movie. I was thinking, ok, he must be off base a bit here. It a KIDS movie with talking Cars.

Then just yesterday, I hear Tom Sullivan on his Radio Show, talk about this very thing. He played an Interview with Cars 2 Director John Lasseter. And uh, YUP! Spence was right on the money. It was also done intentionally. So that there is no misunderstandings, here is an Interview as it appeared in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure if it's Ethan Smith giving the Interview or not, but here is the question and answer that got my attention.

Question: When you stepped in from executive producer to director what were some of the changes you made?

Lasseter: We revamped the whole story, the whole bad-guy arc. To me, there always needs to be a logic to our movies. No matter what subject matter it is, they have to be logical for the world we’re creating. I kept thinking about, “OK. A spy movie in the world where cars are alive. What would be a really good kind of über bad guy? Who is an über bad guy?” I kept going to big oil. This is before what happened in the Gulf of Mexico.

Why isn’t alternative fuel more… Why isn’t everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There’s ethanol. There’s all this stuff you could be doing. And so I thought, well, that could be really cool in that you could have big oil versus alternative fuel. That’s when we kind of crafted the bad guy’s story.

The greatest bad guys, you understand where they’re coming from. They believe they’re doing the right thing. Sometimes it’s for greed, sometimes it’s for other reasons, but they are what they call the center of good. They always believe they’re doing the right thing.

Yup. All those Cars RUN on Oil, yet, Big Oil is the Enemy? That's like saying Oxygen is Enemy to Life. Right? When Lasseter said this, "Why isn’t alternative fuel more… Why isn’t everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There’s ethanol. There’s all this stuff you could be doing." That TOTALLY HIS opinion on the matter. But the REALITY is that there is NOT all this other stuff you could be doing. I bet you almost ANYTHING that the vehicle he used to go back and forth, the Jet he flies on to get around the country, the Electric he uses to heat, cool, power, his home, and those little Plastic CARS that he sells that he makes MORE money on, ALL RUN ON, COME FROM, and WOULD NOT BE HERE, if not for Oil.

I'm sorry folks, I will not be dropping another Penny on this Franchise. Not another toy, not the Movie, nothing. Oh if it comes on the Pay Channels like next year or whatever, I'll let Josh watch it if he wants to. But I'll explain the TRUTH and REALITY of the situation to him at the same time.

To try to indoctrinate kids, who will be Driving in a few years, you know, when Obama wants Cars to go 51 miles a gallon, they will be ready. Big Oil is the Enemy that is killing the Planet. Oxygen is the Enemy of Life. And you little ones, YOU will be charged with Saving the Earth. {Sigh}

Ruin a kids movie for Left Wing, INCORRECT, Liberal Propaganda. Truly sad. Even though I will not drop another Dime into the Cars Hat, I'm sure that they'll do just fine without me.

Sources:
The WallStreet Journal - In ‘Cars 2,’ John Lasseter Says Big Oil is the ‘Uber Bad Guy’

NOTE: The Picture is that of John Lasseter, Director of Cars 2

Myth Busted: Less Guns, Less Crime

Another Liberal Ideal debunked

Hey folks,

HAPPY FRIDAY!! Yes it's finally Friday. Hope all is well with you and yours. Looking forward to another Family Day Trip this weekend. Going to the Martin County Nautical Flea Market and Seafood Festival. Josh is going to have a great time. So am I.

So what have we heard for YEARS from the Anti-Gun Left? Less Guns equal less crime. Now as I have discussed in the past, this is simply not true. Look, I personally HATE Guns. I do not like them at all. Too many accidents, and too many people have them without a clue how to use them. There was a statistic a while back that I saw said most people would have their own Gun taken away from them, and most likely they would be shot with it, in a situation. However, I also understand simple Logic. Less LEGAL Guns equal LESS protection for law-abiding Citizens. It does NOTHING to prevent or reduce crime.

First, if I was planing on committing a crime, I'm NOT going to go to Wal-Mart, or any other Legal place to buy my Gun. I'm not going to go and get finger printed, wait for a background check, nor am I going to TELL the Government what kind of Gun, give them the serial number, and register with the State. I'm going to go down to South and Landers, the corner where all the Crack Hoes and Pimps are, and buy one from a Dealer for say $200.00. All the Gun regulations in the world did not stop me from doing THAT.

Second, Criminals look for "Soft" or easy targets. If I think there is a chance you may have a Gun, I'm less likely to attack you. If I KNOW there is no way you have one, you are easy pickings for me.

Yet, we always hear, less guns equal less crime. Well, now REALITY proves this to be a hundred percent wrong. According to CNS - Violent Crime Declined As Gun Sales Climbed in 2009 Thursday, September 16, 2010 By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) - Violent crime continued to fall in 2009, even as gun sales reached an all-time high, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This is “proof positive that gun prohibitionists have been consistently and undeniably wrong,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a statement.

Released Tuesday, the violent crime statistics are part of the FBI’s yearly Uniform Crime Report, which collects crime statistics from localities all across the country and is the most comprehensive report on crime in America.

According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes of all types declined in 2009 by 5.3 percent and property crimes declined 4.6 percent. In fact, the rate of violent crime declined 6.1 percent below 2008 figures.

In total, the FBI estimated that 1.3 million violent crimes were committed in 2009.

“Each of the four violent crime offenses decreased when compared with the 2008 estimates. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter and robbery had the largest decreases: 7.3 percent and 8.0 percent, respectively,” the FBI said in a press release summarizing the report. “In addition, aggravated assault decreased 4.2 percent, and forcible rape declined 2.6 percent.”

In fact, the types of crime most likely to be committed with a firearm, murders and manslaughters, experienced one of the greatest rates of decline in 2009 – 7.3 percent.

While violent crime was going down in 2009, guns sales were experiencing a record year. According to data from the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System (NICS), 2009 was the best year on record for gun sales.

According to the NICS figures, 14 million guns were sold in 2009, the biggest year since the system began recording data in 1998. The NICS figures are considered the most accurate measurement of gun sales because federal law requires that a NICS check be done prior to every firearm sale in America.

In fact, there were nearly 2 million more guns sold in the United States in 2009 than in 2008, the next best year for gun sales, when 12.7 million NICS checks were recorded.

The NCIS data do not capture all gun sales, however, as only federally licensed primary dealers are required to conduct them. Firearms sales between private citizens can still be done freely, without having to let the federal government know about it. This normally occurs at one of the nation’s many public gun shows, meaning that the firearms sales figures provided by NICS are actually lower than the true figures.

This means that gun sales likely exceeded the already record figure of 14 million indicated by the NICS.

Taken together, these two sets of statistics seem to undermine the claims of anti-Second Amendment groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that push for strict federal and state gun control laws, including an outright ban on so-called assault weapons.

Such groups have gone to great lengths to make a connection between gun ownership and violent crime, often pointing out that gun ownership “increases the risk” of injury of death.

“Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3,” the Brady Campaign’s Web site states.

Given that as gun sales have increased, violent crime has decreased seems to indicate that firearm ownership and the commission of violent crime is only incidentally, not causally, linked.

“What the data tell us is exactly the opposite of what the gun-ban lobby has predicted for several years,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in a statement. “Their dire predictions that America’s streets would run red have been shown up as a fraudulent sales pitch for public disarmament.”

“No matter how gun prohibitionists try to spin this,” said Gottlieb, “the bottom line is that they have been consistently and demonstrably wrong, and they know it. On the other hand, gun rights organizations have been consistently right when we argued that increased gun ownership would not lead to higher crime rates, and might even have a deterrent effect.”

So the Myth: Less Guns, Less Crime, busted by the REALITY, MORE Guns, Less Crime. Sorry. Just the facts.

Have a great Weekend. See you soon.
Peter

Note: From The Emails is a weekly Segment every Friday, or occasionally anytime, that appears here at the OPNTalk Blog. Please feel free to Email any Articles, Comments, Thoughts, Whatever, that you may like to share to opntalk@gmail.com As always, you never know what you may see here.

Could This Answer The Question?


Hey folks,

I was just getting ready to share some good news about the war that seemed to slip by the Guru, when I saw this commentary at CNN -Commentary: Border security talk a bluff for bill's critics By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

I discovered right off the bat that this guy is a Liberal. But maybe he can answer the questions that I have been, and just moments ago, asked again. Let’s see shall we?

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- It's baaaack. Comprehensive immigration reform isn't dead after all, and thank goodness for that.

Granted, it did look a bit peaked after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cut off debate a couple of weeks ago on a bipartisan bill in an apparent bid to please organized labor, which opposes any compromise that includes guest workers.

Now Reid plans to bring the legislation back to the floor of the Senate.

And, at least we have a clearer understanding of what's really motivating those who want to kill the proposal -- and what isn't. The critics like to say the Senate has come up with a bad bill. But actually it's the critics who have been acting in bad faith.

Really?

They've claimed that the first priority should be border enforcement and that any discussion of what to do with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States should wait until after the borders are secured. They've called for more fencing, more Border Patrol agents and more prosecutions of those who employ illegal immigrants. Right-wing bloggers, columnists and radio talk-show hosts are stuck on the same tune: enforcement first.

ABSOLUTELY!

For the record, that approach is utter nonsense. You can't have real and honest immigration reform unless you confront the thorny question of what to do with illegal immigrants already here. You can't just ignore them and hope they "self-deport."

That is completely intellectually dis-honest, or just plain ignorant for Mr. Navarrette to say. But you know, he’s a Lib. No one is saying to ignore those criminals that are here. No one. I have given the example of the flood in your house. The water is in there, but more keeps coming in. The FIRST thing you do is deal with the leak. STOP more water from coming in. THEN, you deal with mopping up the water you have in your house. Makes no sense to mop, bail, bucket, or anything else with more and more water coming in.

We are saying SECURE the boarder FIRST. Vote for that, DO that, THEN AFTER that, we will talk about the illegals that are already here.

Besides, whenever we focus exclusively on the border, we reinforce the assumption that the illegal immigration crisis can only be solved there, when the truth is that this battle is being fought every day in every corner of the country -- from the heartland to the hinterland -- and that is where it will be won or lost.

You are really not this stupid, are you? Or maybe Mr. Navarrette is so arrogant to think that YOU are that stupid.

This is Congress we're talking about. If it does enforcement-only, it'll never get to Part II. Look at what happened in 1996, when lawmakers went for the low-hanging fruit of enforcement by passing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The law increased the ranks of the Border Patrol and increased penalties for violations of immigration law.

And what happened? The illegal immigrant population grew from about 8 million then to 12 million now. What a good plan. I can see why some folks want to travel that road again. In fact, the author of that failed bill -- Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, has joined with Rep. Peter King, R-New York, to propose a new enforcement-only bill in the House of the Representatives.

What about 86? What about further back than that? What about the vote and funds they ALREADY have to build the fence and secure the boarder. Still nothing. This is why NO ONE trusts them. This is why it MUST be security first. Prove that they are serious, maybe the American people will get behind them.

Swell. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Yeah we know, Liberals are great for that. They have done NOTHING but attack the President, write, and rewrite, bills they KNOW he will veto, lie to the American people on a daily bases, and continue to treat the American people as if they are idiots. Why else do you think they have a 14 percent approval rating?

Still, the "enforcement first" message apparently got through to President Bush, who helped breathe new life into the compromise bill. Last week, in an attempt to win over the votes of Senate conservatives, Bush pledged support for an additional $4.4 billion for border security and work-site enforcement.

You'd think that would make the critics happy. Nope. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, told CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer" that the new funding amounted to a "terrible trade" because border security "should be a given." And Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he didn't think the funding is "going to satisfy the concerns about whether we are really going to build a workable system."

Wrong, senator. What the critics have really been worried about all along is giving legal status to illegal immigrants and whether it might hasten that which terrifies many Americans: the Latinization of the United States. The talk about border security was just a bluff, and the president called it.

That is completely idiotic. He is right, we do not want legal status given to felons. We do not want those coming here, not giving a damn about this country, except for what they can get from it, and turning it into a hole like the one they came from. We are not terrified of anything. It’s real simple. This is OUR country. The greatest in the world. You want to come here, GREAT. Do it legally, assimilate into our way of life. Obey the laws. Work hard and pay taxes like the rest of us, and you will be welcomed.

Come here illegally, steal SS numbers, lie, cheat, and steal, and not become a productive member of society, then your out. You are not wanted. You do not belong here. Period.

Time to put our cards on the table. Some people will never be happy. So Congress needs to stop wasting time trying to make them happy and start working toward fixing a broken system. The Senate can lead the way by passing this bill and moving the process forward. Then the House needs to do its part by rejecting the enforcement-only approach in favor of something that actually stands a chance of working -- something, uh, comprehensive.

{Laughing} Wrong. We will not accept amnesty. Sorry. Just not going to happen. Anyone that does vote this bill in, will NEVER win another election. Good luck.

Well, I guess he didn’t answer the question either. Oh well, I tried.
Peter