Posted on 01/13/2004 5:54:13 AM PST by JustPiper
Conservative talk-radio star, author says amnesty is betrayal of country
In the latest indication President Bush is having problems with his conservative core political constituency, Michael Savage, one of talk radio's biggest stars, tonight called for the impeachment of President Bush over his plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens.
"This is the worst betrayal of our country in my lifetime," said Savage, whose program is heard on more than 350 stations with an audience reaching some 6 million. His book, "The Savage Nation," last year was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller's list for five weeks. His follow-up, "The Enemy Within," out just one week, is already No. 8 on the list. Both were published by WND Books.
President Bush
Tonight Savage called Bush a liberal and described him as part of the "enemy within" that is destroying the nation.
Savage created the phrase "compassionate conservative" in 1994, a term picked up by Bush during his presidential campaign – a campaign supported by Savage.
"This is much more serious than dropping your pants for an intern," said Savage. "This is a policy that represents a danger to national security."
Savage is hardly alone in his strong feelings of opposition to Bush's proposal to offer legal status to illegal immigrants. A new ABC News poll finds 52 percent of the nation opposes an amnesty program for illegal immigrants from Mexico, while 57 percent oppose one for illegal immigrants from other countries. Both results are roughly the same as when the administration floated the idea two-and-a-half years ago.
But today in Monterrey, Mexico, Bush reaffirmed his support of the proposal, despite its unpopularity at home. He said it could help illegal immigrants "leave the shadows and have an identity."
At a joint press conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox, Bush warned that his government will not allow the existence in the United States of an underclass of illegal immigrants, but claimed again his proposal is not an amnesty. Amnesty, he said, would only promote the violation of the law and perpetuate illegal immigration.
Bush said his immigration proposal would benefit both the United States and Mexico as it recognizes the contribution of thousands of honest Mexicans who work in the United States.
For his part, Fox embraced Bush's proposal.
"What else can we wish?" Fox said at the news conference with the president.
In the U.S., the latest poll on the controversy shows at least twice as many Americans "strongly" oppose the proposal as strongly support it.
Opposition peaks in Bush's own party: Fifty-eight percent of Republicans oppose his immigration proposal for Mexicans, compared with 50 percent of Democrats. For illegal immigrants other than Mexicans, 63 percent of Republicans are opposed.
Bush reportedly will disclose more details of the plan in his State of the Union address Jan. 20.
Meanwhile, the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 9,000 of the Border Patrol's non-supervisory agents, has told its members to challenge President Bush´s proposed guest-worker program, calling it a "slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the United States," the Washington Times reported today.
The agents were told in a letter from Vice President John Frecker that the proposal offered last week during a White House press conference "implies that the country really wasn't serious about" immigration enforcement in the first place.
"Hey, you know all those illegal aliens you risked 'life and limb' to apprehend? FAH-GED-ABOWD-IT," said Frecker, a veteran Border Patrol agent. "President Bush has solved the problem. Don't be confused and call this an 'amnesty,' even though those who are here illegally will suddenly become legal and will be allowed to stay here. The president assures us that it's not an amnesty," he said.
Last week Bush proposed the sweeping immigration changes that would allow the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens thought to be in the United States to remain in the country if they have a job and apply for a guest-worker card. The immigrants could stay for renewable three-year periods, after which they could apply for permanent legal residence.
Savage cited a new report published in the City Journal by the Manhattan Institute suggesting there is a major crime wave in the U.S. caused by illegal immigration.
"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens," the report charges. "Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gang-banger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law."
The situation is similar, the report says in New York, Chicago, San Diego, Austin and Houston. These "sanctuary policies" generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities, says the report.
"These people are destroying America," said Savage. "That's all I have to say on the subject. But you can talk about it. Talk about it while you can – while America is still a free country, because it's not going to last."
Hahaha. It is written so that a layman can understand it. Do you think some lame darwinist in a black robe is the only one who can correctly interpret what it says? How can the President or a Congressman to honor his oath if he can't interpret what it says? huh? Clearly, they are mandated to "defend and protect" it against all foreign and DOMESTIC enemies....domestic enemy like the cultural marxists on the federal courts!!
I've heard the mason thing several times, and I've heard it from somebody who I know is a mason. Like I said, take it for what it's worth. Apparently, every president except Kennedy and Clinton were masons.
The Stonecutter thing was a joke, though.
The Constitution is very general. To be applicable to a new set of facts, it needs to be interpreted.
But that is PRECISELY what the courts do! Define it according to their own personal agenda! The Constitution says what it says. Clearly it doesn't say that privacy is a right, it doesn't say that sodomy is a right. Show me where it does! If you can't show me, then these rulings are ILLEGAL!
You mean they haven't already?
You're inability to correctly address my argument notwithstanding, I'll go ahead and answer your post.
To vote for a person who does not accurately represent your interests, or in whom you place no trust, is immoral. To do so is to be dishonest, even if you believe him to be "the lesser of two evils". It has been said so often that it is cliche, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Voting is not betting. I am not trying to pick the guy I think will win. I will be telling the government that a particular candidate is the one who best represents how I want the government run. If my guy does not win, so be it. If the Democrat wins, then that's just how the electorate crumbles, so to speak. But, the country will come to ruin no matter whether led by a Democrat or a Republican. When that happens, at least I will be able to say "I voted my conscience".
But the oath of the president to uphold the Constitution is very specific . .
Oath
Executive Oath of Office
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8
What happens when laymen disagree as to what the Constitution means? You and I clearly disagree as to the meaning in the Constitution. Without the judiciary, how do we settle that dispute?
That is just how I feel.
I feel like they are two trains headed to the same station. One is direct, one makes a few pit stops. I used to think one could be turned around and put on a different track.
I don't think so anymore.
Let's just get to the destination. No matter how ugly.
Will you agree to this then: if you don't vote for Bush and your guy doesn't win, will you agree not to return to this forum and bitch about Bush for another four years, being that he wasn't your choice and all that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.