http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/27/tancredo-sends-head-of-lettuce-to-chertoff/
June 27, 2007
Tancredo sends head of lettuce to Chertoff
Tancredo has found an interesting way to show his disagreement with Chertoff.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — It’s not every day a presidential hopeful sends Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff a head of lettuce, but that’s what Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, is doing Wednesday to show his disagreement with Chertoff’s recent comments on how failure of passing immigration reform might affect the agricultural industry.
Tancredo says he disagrees with recent comments Chertoff made that suggested if the immigration bill fails, the agricultural industry will suffer. To prove his point he is sending Chertoff a head of lettuce, a fruit basket, and a card saying, “much, much more where this comes from.”
“The administration has taken hyperbole to a whole new level this time,” Tancredo said in a statement. “They are now trying to convince the public that without amnesty, the American people are going to starve?”
“The agriculture industry and the free market has managed to keep producing through floods, droughts, and $3.00 per gallon gas,” Tancredo added, “I doubt very seriously that a nominal increase in labor costs is going to be the end of lettuce as we know it.”
In a July 14 speech before the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Chertoff said, “Without reform that brings workers in legitimately, that makes it efficient for businesses, including agricultural businesses, to hire those workers efficiently, and without some kind of a mechanism to promote agriculture and to deal with the current illegal work force, we’re going to put people like you and those you represent in a terrible bind — they’re either going to have to break the law, which is a bad thing to do, or they’re going to have to shut down their farms, which is a bad thing to do, or what’s going to wind up happening is those farms are going to Mexico and Canada.”
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Capital Punishment: The Real Deal
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/06/27/common_sense_on_capital_punishment
Common Sense on Capital Punishment
By Fred ThompsonWednesday, June 27, 2007
Our country seems to be able to come to the right conclusions over time, even when we’re being told over and over again that we're wrong. When I say the right conclusions, by the way, I mean conclusions supported by honest research and real evidence. I've got a good example -- capital punishment.
For decades, the self-proclaimed smart kids have been telling us that the death penalty just doesn't work. The people with the top jobs in academia and the news business have scoffed at the American people's insistence that executions prevent murder.
On the very surface of the issue, it would seem pretty obvious that an executed murderer can't murder anybody else -- but we’ve been told that we were wrong even about that. You've undoubtedly heard the old saw about executions actually motivating murderers to kill, presumably because what murderers really want is attention. The argument is a stretch, demanding that we believe that killers aren’t deterred by the consequences of being caught and executed. Without evidence, though, it's hard to rebut.
In the last few years, however, serious researchers have applied themselves to finding the evidence. Criminologists and economists have gathered and analyzed a mountain of data, and many of them were surprised by what they found. Now, they’ve published papers in respected academic journals that are establishing an unexpected consensus.
The reliable two-thirds of Americans who have always supported the death penalty probably wouldn't be surprised to find out that study after study has shown that the death penalty deters murders. Some studies show really dramatic effects, with each execution of a murderer deterring as many as 18 or more murders. That’s according to Emory University professors, who found as well that delaying execution also leads to further murders. Most studies have concluded that some number of murders between three and 18 are prevented for every application of capital punishment.
I guess the most surprising thing to me was seeing an article about these findings just a few weeks ago by the Associated Press. The most interesting quote was from a well-known opponent of capital punishment who looked at the evidence and said, "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
Certainly, the use of DNA evidence to clear long-held prisoners from murder charges proves that we need to be more careful about handing out death sentences; and science must be used even more and earlier in the criminal process to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. However, these studies are important in properly analyzing the effect of the death penalty.
Fred Thompson is an actor and former Senator. His radio commentary airs on the ABC Radio Network and be blogs on The Fred Thompson Report.
Common Sense on Capital Punishment
By Fred ThompsonWednesday, June 27, 2007
Our country seems to be able to come to the right conclusions over time, even when we’re being told over and over again that we're wrong. When I say the right conclusions, by the way, I mean conclusions supported by honest research and real evidence. I've got a good example -- capital punishment.
For decades, the self-proclaimed smart kids have been telling us that the death penalty just doesn't work. The people with the top jobs in academia and the news business have scoffed at the American people's insistence that executions prevent murder.
On the very surface of the issue, it would seem pretty obvious that an executed murderer can't murder anybody else -- but we’ve been told that we were wrong even about that. You've undoubtedly heard the old saw about executions actually motivating murderers to kill, presumably because what murderers really want is attention. The argument is a stretch, demanding that we believe that killers aren’t deterred by the consequences of being caught and executed. Without evidence, though, it's hard to rebut.
In the last few years, however, serious researchers have applied themselves to finding the evidence. Criminologists and economists have gathered and analyzed a mountain of data, and many of them were surprised by what they found. Now, they’ve published papers in respected academic journals that are establishing an unexpected consensus.
The reliable two-thirds of Americans who have always supported the death penalty probably wouldn't be surprised to find out that study after study has shown that the death penalty deters murders. Some studies show really dramatic effects, with each execution of a murderer deterring as many as 18 or more murders. That’s according to Emory University professors, who found as well that delaying execution also leads to further murders. Most studies have concluded that some number of murders between three and 18 are prevented for every application of capital punishment.
I guess the most surprising thing to me was seeing an article about these findings just a few weeks ago by the Associated Press. The most interesting quote was from a well-known opponent of capital punishment who looked at the evidence and said, "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
Certainly, the use of DNA evidence to clear long-held prisoners from murder charges proves that we need to be more careful about handing out death sentences; and science must be used even more and earlier in the criminal process to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. However, these studies are important in properly analyzing the effect of the death penalty.
Fred Thompson is an actor and former Senator. His radio commentary airs on the ABC Radio Network and be blogs on The Fred Thompson Report.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Former LPD Officer Likely to Lose License
Remember when Chief Casady said he was worried about citzens having a concealed handgun permit, maybe he should screen his potental officiers better before he hires them!
From the Lincoln Journal Star Thursday June 21, 2007
"Four officiers likely to lose licenses...
Tankesley, a former Lincoln police officer has not been charged with anything, but he faces an allegation made by his ex-wife that he has anger control and domestic abuse issues. He denied the allegations, made in 2005, but resigned from his position Oct. 18. He was hired by the Lincoln Police Department in December 1992."...
From the Lincoln Journal Star Thursday June 21, 2007
"Four officiers likely to lose licenses...
Tankesley, a former Lincoln police officer has not been charged with anything, but he faces an allegation made by his ex-wife that he has anger control and domestic abuse issues. He denied the allegations, made in 2005, but resigned from his position Oct. 18. He was hired by the Lincoln Police Department in December 1992."...
Monday, June 18, 2007
House passes Tancredo measure to deny emergency funds to sanctuary cities
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/15/shock-house-passes-tancredo-measure-to-deny-emergency-funds-to-sanctuary-cities/?print=1
Shock: House passes Tancredo measure to deny emergency funds to sanctuary citiesposted at 3:41 pm on June 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
He’s offered similar proposals at least seven times in the past three years and they’ve always failed by big margins. Today? 234-189, with no fewer than 49 Democrats voting in favor. The Rocky Mountain News says all sides are “stunned”; his own press release describes him as “exuberant.” Not necessarily because he thinks the Senate’s going to pass this but because of a certain Larger Truth that might just have materialized. From the RMN:
Tancredo said he thinks his amendment is an indicator that the House would crush the reform plan [i.e., amnesty bill] if it passes in the Senate.
“If I were (Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi, I’d be asking if she could pass a vote on amnesty on the House side,” Tancredo said. “If she lost 50 Democrats on this one, and she says she needs 70 Republicans to pass the immigration plan, this is an interesting indicator of things coming down the pike, and that the times, they are a-changing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
