I tend to agree with you Bill, but I do feel that he has a little bit of the "Bill Clinton" pragmatism about him -- and he's learning quicker than Bill did.

Except for the tiny outburst by crazy Joe Wilson,

During Obama's speech I was waiting to hear something about young families and the cost of having a child. In Canada it's covered. We have two children - both adults now. They almost put us in the poorhouse raising the buggers but it didn't cost anything to bring them into the world. Does anyone know if, under Obama's HCR plan, will child birth be covered? JMO but I thought his speech was very clever. Except for the tiny outburst by crazy Joe Wilson, things went quite wll. A few times throughout the presentation it almost seemed that both parties were on the same side. That was nice to see for a change.

Absolutely Kevin.
Mike D and I were talking about this yesterday at Joanne's Recording session. (At Rick Ott's studio if anybody needs a great place to record).
Clinton was a very smart guy. Still is.

I didn't say what he did was appropriate. What I really said was we have two different standards here. One for judging conservatives and one for judging liberals. How many left leaning media types said anything about the chicks statements made in front of a foriegn audience that doesn't like Americans to begin with? Personally I don't agree with the timing of either act. I would just like to see both sides treated the same.

That is why I believe respect for office is important - it helps to keep discouse at a civil level. Lose that, and nothing will get done.

It is illegal for any emergency room in this country to refuse treatment to anyone.

Immigration is not the issue here.
Whether or not this Health care bill will allow Illegal immigrants access to health care is the issue.

For the "anchor" babies? Simple. Yes, the baby is a citizen of the U.S. but the parent is not.

For the "anchor" babies? Simple. Yes, the baby is a citizen of the U.S. but the parent is not. The baby can stay, the parent must go. If the parent does not want to leave the baby, then the parent should take the baby back to their home country and let the child move to the U.S. when he or she is old enough. That child would then be a legal citizen with rights to work. That would slow down the anchor babies. I can hear the screams now. "You would do that to a BABY?" No, I wouldn't be doing that to a baby...the PARENT would be. And if the parent ever returned, they would be arrested for abandonment, which is already illegal.

In Parkland Memorial Hospital Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the United States, 70% of the women giving birth were illegal aliens. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in 34.5 million dollars to deliver these babies, the feds another 9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in 31.3 million. The average illegal patient is 25 years and giving birth to her second anchor baby.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete.

Unfortunately they forgot to say illegal immigrant anywhere in the law or the amendment.

question: is there any other country in the world that gives automatic citizenship to the baby when it is born on foreign soil other than the mother's homeland? hope this question isn't too confusing

I know some of you bleeding hearts are gonna dispute this but that's to be expected too.I mean those same bleeding hearts don't believe in the death penalty but if it was a member of your family or friend that got mudered you'd be the 1st in line to want to pull the switch on that rascal too that committed the crime .

(1) It costs more to execute people than it does to lock them up without parole for the rest of their lives.

(2) It frequently is applied to people who didn't commit the crime.

(3) It is not a deterrent.