Thread: Hoffman says NO TO AMNESTY I say YES to vote.

[quote="93camaro"]Judy if you feel Glenn spewed out lies about Dede then call him up on the show and point it out to him on air and he will fix it. He begs people every night to do it!! Blow up his blogs on 9.12 project and his website and call his show and prove him wrong then. I Guess you should call out Michelle Malkin for this one too,

An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing
By Michelle Malkin • October 16, 2009 10:09 AM

Here’s the dirty little secret about political candidates and officeholders labeled by the mainstream media as “moderate Republicansâ€

Originally Posted by USPatriot

I researched Owens and he is actually an independent who thought he would not have a chance if he did not run as a Dem.

The Progressives are not happy with him,they say he is a Blue Dog.

I could not find any statements he has made about immigration.He seems to be a honest moderate who cares about those he will represents.

At least he is not a far left liberal.

Right. That's my impression is that he's a Blue Dog Democrat, hopefully one like Health Shuler. If Owens wins, Shuler should snare him right away to co-sponsor the Save Act.

Judy-

I see all the work you have done studying the candidates. For me it is moot because I cannot vote in that district. However, after overnight reflection I came to an important conclusion. I watched the Atlanta Falcons play the New Orleans Saints and I was reminded of an important factor in life.

Certain actions in life have the ability to change the momentum of a game, a personal event or even a business success in life. The resignation of Scozzofava was that telling moment in this election which, I believe posts the direction of conservative voters in the national scene. Conservatives stood up and said--"No party line we want to elect the best person for the job". They believe that Hoffman is that man. This is a pivotal moment. To side with Owens will take the steam out of the drive. Hoffman's failure will be the missed field goal, the interception that will cause the other team to become inspired and turn the game around in their favor. I am a Falcons fan. Voting for Owens would be like me rooting for New Orleans. It defies my conservative stance.
I have come to the decision that I hope Hoffman wins , not just wins, but posts a resounding victory over Owens. I think it will have a domino effect around the country. I am a conservative. My hot button is illegal immigration. Nonetheless, I believe Hoffman's victory to be mandatory to keep the conservative movement alive. The quiet folks have come out of their shells. They are standing and saying--"No more, we have had enough". I would not want to be among those that stifle this wonderful thing that is happening in America.

There are other very important issues in life and among them is abortion. Through God's gifts we have advanced in medicine and science and so, for some reason, this seems to say to some people that we can kill unwanted people whenever we want. I cannot nor will not consider the endorsement of an anti life candidate to be worthy of consideration.

I lost a lot of sleep last night wrestling with this election. Just imagine how tough it would be if I were able to vote in it.

God bless America. Keep her strong and straight. Help us support our Constitution and keep our children on the track that our founding fathers intended.

I hope Hoffman wins and the conservative voters take back America before Pelosi and Reid ruin it.

Originally Posted by misterbill

Judy-

I see all the work you have done studying the candidates. For me it is moot because I cannot vote in that district. However, after overnight reflection I came to an important conclusion. I watched the Atlanta Falcons play the New Orleans Saints and I was reminded of an important factor in life.

Certain actions in life have the ability to change the momentum of a game, a personal event or even a business success in life. The resignation of Scozzofava was that telling moment in this election which, I believe posts the direction of conservative voters in the national scene. Conservatives stood up and said--"No party line we want to elect the best person for the job". They believe that Hoffman is that man. This is a pivotal moment. To side with Owens will take the steam out of the drive. Hoffman's failure will be the missed field goal, the interception that will cause the other team to become inspired and turn the game around in their favor. I am a Falcons fan. Voting for Owens would be like me rooting for New Orleans. It defies my conservative stance.
I have come to the decision that I hope Hoffman wins , not just wins, but posts a resounding victory over Owens. I think it will have a domino effect around the country. I am a conservative. My hot button is illegal immigration. Nonetheless, I believe Hoffman's victory to be mandatory to keep the conservative movement alive. The quiet folks have come out of their shells. They are standing and saying--"No more, we have had enough". I would not want to be among those that stifle this wonderful thing that is happening in America.

There are other very important issues in life and among them is abortion. Through God's gifts we have advanced in medicine and science and so, for some reason, this seems to say to some people that we can kill unwanted people whenever we want. I cannot nor will not consider the endorsement of an anti life candidate to be worthy of consideration.

I lost a lot of sleep last night wrestling with this election. Just imagine how tough it would be if I were able to vote in it.

God bless America. Keep her strong and straight. Help us support our Constitution and keep our children on the track that our founding fathers intended.

I hope Hoffman wins and the conservative voters take back America before Pelosi and Reid ruin it.

You're entitled to your view on abortion, misterbill. I on the other-hand am Pro-Choice and believe the decision to reproduce or not was endowed in the woman by God who even gave her natural plants to terminate unwanted and untimely pregnancies at her discretion, long before there were governments, laws, doctors or political parties. All around us we see the checks and balances of our world instilled in nature. If God had wanted us to reproduce like rabbits he would have created a predator to eat us. But he didn't. Instead he gave us minds, logic, reason and the ability to count so we know how many children a woman can feed and raise successfully so she can act accordingly for the benefit of her own family and society-at-large.

We have 62 million people on government welfare programs today and probably another 40 million who need help who aren't getting it, because our population has exceeded sustainable levels because of over-reproduction and immigration.

As a personal matter, the government has no role in forcing women to reproduce against their will. That defies every possible concept of liberty. As an economic matter, society has no reasonable purpose whatsoever to want to force or even encourage women under pressure of being called names or denied business or political opportunities or going to jail or worse, because they believe correctly in my view that the decision to reproduce, when or if, is the woman's and no one else's least of all government's.

If Roe V Wade hadn't made abortion legal in all 50 states, there would have still been abortions and if government tries again to force women into childbirth against their will, there will still be abortions. The notion that society, government or religions can force women into reproducing every time they get pregnant has already been tried and failed. The consequences were unsafe abortions and women and young girls died from infections and bleeding to death.

If abortions had been banned and enforced in 1972 instead of legalized by Roe V Wade, our population would have swelled another 100 million people by this year. When you have a moment, I'd be interested in hearing from the conservatives just exactly how they plan to employ and sustain the additional 200 million people there will be in the United States in another 40 years from now if you succeed in banning abortions.

I have no problem with anyone who gets pregnant wanting to have their baby and reproduce as many times as she wants. That's her choice, and I will defend that choice with my life. What I have a problem with is someone who wants to reproduce every time they get pregnant wanting to use the force of law and a police state to force other women to do so against their will in a free nation of free people. Similarly, I will defend that woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with my life, because that's her choice.

I am very respectful of people's personal views on this personal matter, even the welfare mother who chooses to have 10 kids she can't support. But when that personal view crosses the fence into forcing someone else to subscribe to your view using a police state to enforce it, that is where I draw my line. I've even been tolerant of politicians who held these views and never voted against someone because they were Pro-Life. I supported Sarah Palin as vehemently as anyone could even though I totally disagree with her view on this topic and her view on gay marriage. But she crossed the line in her endorsement of Bill Hoffman, because I believe her issue was abortion and not Dede Scozzafava's voting or track record of accomplishments, which were very similar to Sarah Palin's. Dede Scozzfava is an outstanding public servant, a great Republican, who has been a successful Mayor, elected to the State Assembly by her district 6 times as a Republican, and was chosen out of 8 candidates who put their name in the pot for this Special Election by the Republican County Chairmen of the 11 counties in this Congressional District. She is honest, she ran a clean campaign, she is an MBA, an experience public servant with over 15 years of elected experience, and the conservative opponent and his supporters having no way to win otherwise, chose to use the national media to lie about her, to distort her voting record and misrepresent who she is and what she stands for ... and did so with the support of other conservatives, primarily because she is Pro-Choice like me and supports gay marriage as I do. So when you attack Dede, you attack me and the millions of other men and women in our party and throughout our country. That will not do.

I'm a life-time Republican who is from a family of Republicans who have been Republicans since there were Republicans. Republicans are not conservative, we are liberal progressive and have always been. We are pragmatic fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives, which is possibly where the messages have become twisted over the years without a proper distinction, which needs to be corrected so people understand that Republicans are not social conservatives, we are liberal-progressive, fiscal-conservatives and only then conservative in moderation. Republicans are the big ideas people and yes from time to time believe in massive spending to undertake a sound public agenda, a war for example, right out fhe gate of our party formation, the bloodiest war ever fought on US soil, and one of the most costly. The national parks system under Teddy Roosevelt is another example. The interstate highway system under Eisenhower yet another. Expansion of social security and medicare under 2 other Republican administrations. Expansion of our defense system under Reagan. Republicans are only moderate fiscal conservatives and have never been social conservatives.

The reason for that is we respect individual freedom and personal privacy above all else, and want to defend both from the power of intrusion by the state. It is in fact the very reason our party was formed, to end slavery, establish civil rights for all, protect our trade and advance the wages and working conditions of the American People. Republicans have never had any interest whatsoever in regulating the private lives of US citizens, and everyone should pray, we never do.

I've called them all out already, 93Camaro, not just Glenn Beck. I called out Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.

The Tea Party Express also endorsed Hoffman.

Here's their 2 sentences on "Secure Borders":

"# SECURE BORDERS

"We believe America must have secure borders and that those who come to this country must have respect for the rule of law. At a time when many national security experts fear the ability of terrorists to sneak weapons and personnel through our porous southern border it is inexcusable that we would not once and for all ensure that we know who is coming into this country and ensure that they have proper permission to."

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/about/

http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com ... us/issues/

Under Shamnesty, you'd know who is coming into this country and you'd sell them a permit to do so.

Besides your assumptions on ALIPAC, you have called Glenn Beck while he is on Air and told his producer that you need to correct Glenn on air right now, and called out the tea party and Palin and the rest....beause Ill tune right in today, if you do that and put Glenn to admit your right then ill believe it!! I don't want to go on and on forever because like I said I choose to believe Hoffman on what he said not the website, I agree that you are doing a good job of finding any minute chance that all of these people are not as hardline on amnesty as you are but I believe in the cause of the 9.12 project and believe that this will be a turning point in our curren govt. if hoff wins.

Originally Posted by 93camaro

I've called them all out already, 93Camaro, not just Glenn Beck. I called out Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.

The Tea Party Express also endorsed Hoffman.

Here's their 2 sentences on "Secure Borders":

"# SECURE BORDERS

"We believe America must have secure borders and that those who come to this country must have respect for the rule of law. At a time when many national security experts fear the ability of terrorists to sneak weapons and personnel through our porous southern border it is inexcusable that we would not once and for all ensure that we know who is coming into this country and ensure that they have proper permission to."

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/about/

http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com ... us/issues/

Under Shamnesty, you'd know who is coming into this country and you'd sell them a permit to do so.

Besides your assumptions on ALIPAC, you have called Glenn Beck while he is on Air and told his producer that you need to correct Glenn on air right now, and called out the tea party and Palin and the rest....beause Ill tune right in today, if you do that and put Glenn to admit your right then ill believe it!! I don't want to go on and on forever because like I said I choose to believe Hoffman on what he said not the website, I agree that you are doing a good job of finding any minute chance that all of these people are not as hardline on amnesty as you are but I believe in the cause of the 9.12 project and believe that this will be a turning point in our curren govt. if hoff wins.

What's the telephone number?

What does Glenn Beck's 9/12 project have to do with immigration issues? And Hoffman only signed up as a 9/12 member 2 days ago. Honesty is one of the 9/12 agendas and he's just spent 2 months lying about an opponent. He even agreed when he put his name in the pot of 8 to be a candidate through the Republican Party that whoever isn't chosen, wouldn't run on another ticket. He couldn't even keep that promise. He even said he was a member of the 9/12 project weeks before he was. But wait, the 9/12 deal is "I will always try to be a more honest person than i was yesterday." Oh, okay, so lie your ass off for 2 months, and turn honest to win a seat in the Congress having used dishonesty to run a decent opponent you promised not to run against out of the race. Oh yeah ... we need US some more of that in the US Congress, oh yeah, "you betcha"!

1888727beck and go to the 9.12 project and also look at the in or our 2010 pledge for any canidate that wants to run as a 9.12 member.
http://www.glennbeck.com/downloads/09/in_or_out.pdf

Glenn does NOT endorse any candidate! He is talking about it now.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showth ... ?p=1039636

Yesterday, 10:25 PM
Chosen's Avatar
Chosen Chosen is offline
Junior Member

Is Doug Hoffman pro-Amnesty?

Vigilance is a necessary trait if we are to survive. The GOP/DNC are really the same party marketing their brand to different people, but in the end they support the very same interests. We have seen leftpublican zealots like Jeb Bush and recent Lindsey Graham style convert Newt Gingrich, come out for Democrat ideas. Jeb Bush going as far as stating that Reagan is irrelevant and that the party (meaning Republicans) has to pick up Democrat tactics and beliefs, like amnesty.

The GOP is and will continue to be beholden to special interests, like the National Council of La Raza (the race), and because of this there will be many pretenders trying to ascend to power. But we have to be careful because there are even more powerful and quiet sub-supporters in the shadows, like the US Chamber of Commerce which as one objective, amnesty, and they swill stop at nothing to get these type of candidates into office.

There is a very simple litmus test real Conservatives can apply to determine if a candidate is Conservative, ask them about illegal immigration. If they regurgitate George Bush/McCain style talking points on immigration, which are really no different than B Hussein Obama's, then it is safe to say they are NOT Conservatives. If you support amnesty, you do not support the rule of law, can't break it down any further than that.

In the case of Doug Hoffman, former Conservative Newt Gingrich publicly attacked the Conservative party choice for the New York special election, [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28730.html]stating:[/quote]

Quote:
“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,â€

Originally Posted by 93camaro

1888727beck and go to the 9.12 project and also look at the in or our 2010 pledge for any canidate that wants to run as a 9.12 member.
http://www.glennbeck.com/downloads/09/in_or_out.pdf

Glenn does NOT endorse any candidate! He is talking about it now.

Glenn does "NOT" endorse any candidate?!!! Well, I'm sure glad he cleared that up before the polls close TODAY.

Here's the 9 principles of a 9/12 member:

9 Principles, 12 Values

The 9 Principles

1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.â€

From the "Lonewacko Blog"

DOUG HOFFMAN'S IMMIGRATION POSITION, PART II:

On October 21, Glenn Beck interviewed Doug Hoffman on his radio show, and the transcript and audio are here, relevant portion excerpted at [1]. I previously discussed Hoffman's immigration position based on the three sentences he has on his site (questions for him are here); my review wasn't positive. While there's a slight glimmer of hope in what he said on Beck's show in regards to amnesty, the rest reveals him to be a bit worse than what I assumed based on the three-sentence blurb.

Discussion of Hoffman's Immigration Position, Part I, "Doug Hoffman May Be Weak on Immigration"
http://24ahead.com/doug-hoffman-might-b ... orters-kno

1. Based on the fact that he seems a bit malleable in the interview, he doesn't appear to be an ideologue on this issue or have been completely paid off; it might be possible to improve his position, if not for the fact that most of his ardent supporters either support massive immigration or concentrate on less important topics and thus won't ask him about this issue in an attempt to make him stronger; their mental and emotional issues also play into that (see tea parties).

2. As discussed before, he's very business-friendly, openly supporting mass immigration by skilled workers and - as previously discussed - probably supporting a guest workers scheme for low-wage workers.

3. He sounds a bit like George W Bush with his "willing workers" shtick with this: "I do believe, again, in giving better easier regulations and red tape to make workers that want to come into this country, giving them green cards easier so that we know they're in here legally and we know that they go out". The fact that he doesn't appear to be clear on what a green card is isn't that big of a deal; the big deal is that he appears to be supporting guest workers just as Bush did.

4. He was asked where he stood on amnesty and, as with all other politicians he said he was against it. Then, while they brought up the topic of comprehensive immigration reform and Hoffman appeared to come out against it and in favor of attrition. However, he just seemed to assent to Beck's prompting and didn't explicitly say he was for that. Unless he actually says it explicitly, it doesn't count (he's a politician after all).

5. Hoffman is, however, quite gung-ho on skilled immigration at least of the temporary kind ("we need to make it easy for skilled professionals and doctors and scientists and engineers that can come in here and help us out and then go home after they've done the job, we need to make it easier for them to come in.") He doesn't mention it by name, but that means something like the H1B program.

Partial transcript follows:

[1]

PAT: Comprehensive immigration reform. How do you feel about comprehensive immigration reform? Because family values don't stop at the Rio Grande.

HOFFMAN: Exactly, exactly.

PAT: Where do you stand on amnesty?

HOFFMAN: I do not believe on giving amnesty. I do believe, again, in giving better easier regulations and red tape to make workers that want to come into this country, giving them green cards easier so that we know they're in here legally and we know that they go out when they're

PAT: You know what? That's the discussion we should be having.

GLENN: Okay. Now hang on just a second. So you want to make it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door, which I'm totally behind.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Well, Doug, how are you ever going to get everybody who's already here out?

HOFFMAN: Well, that, I don't have an instant solution for but we certainly have to find a way that we don't have people sneaking across our borders.

GLENN: Okay, I got one for you.

HOFFMAN: Coming in.

GLENN: Got one for you. Doug, let me help you out. I'm going to give you a drink. I'm buying a cocktail for you.

HOFFMAN: There it is.

GLENN: Well, they seem to find their way here. I'm guessing they will be able to find themselves going the other direction. It's just reverse the map. However, we need an incentive for doing that and that is why we're going after all of the companies that are hiring these people. They came here for jobs. If the jobs dry up, they will go home. And those jobs are currently being needed by Americans who are here and we know that pay taxes. So let's go after the giant corporations who are living on the 21st century version of the slave trade, huh? Huh?

HOFFMAN: Okay.

GLENN: Now how much do you want to

HOFFMAN: That's a good drink.

PAT: How about these three words: Enforce the law.

HOFFMAN: Absolutely. That will work.

GLENN: That's good. That's good. There you go.

PAT: They self support. And it's worked in every, virtually every city that's tried that.

HOFFMAN: Right. But one thing I was trying to get across, Glenn, is that we need to make it easy for skilled professionals and doctors and scientists and engineers that can come in here and help us out and then go home after they've done the job, we need to make it easier for them to come in.

GLENN: Absolutely. Look, before all of this was in the news, what's his name, gates, Bill Gates was saying Microsoft is going to fall behind because we can't get the green cards, we can't get the Visas for it to come in and work. We're losing all of these big brains that have always gone to colleges here and then wanted to stay here because of the opportunity. And we can't keep them here anymore and our government has been saying, well, we need to send them home, we need 0 send. What? Let's keep the best and the brightest here.

HOFFMAN: That's what I'm saying, that's absolutely what I'm saying is America's the melting pot and we need to get highly skilled people that can help us out to stay here.

http://24ahead.com/doug-hoffmans-immigr ... ion-part-2

There are numerous links contained within the original two blogs which may be accessed at their source links above.

It also may be good to bear in mind that Glenn Beck himself is a strong proponent of legal immigration and the capabilities of foreign workers.