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."
If you insist on abandoning English for Spanish, more power to you.
WERE ALL GONNA DIE !!!
without illegals to do the jobs Americans wol'nt do.
This is quite a revealing statement. You don't care about right or wrong, just want to make sure that politicians help your cause. This mindset is what got Clinton elected twice. It's moral relativism, pure and simple.
The problem is that this republic was founded on the prerepquisite that our leaders be moral. As John Adams said, the Constitution was "written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." In a nutshell, without morality, you end up with tyranny, corruption and no freedom. So, all we need is about 10 million more who think like you and we can kiss the Constitution as our founders knew it good-bye for good. And that is where we are headed at light speed.
Other than lip service during campaigns, when was the last time you heard GW express any regret for the tens of millions of unborn killed because of Roe v. Wade? Talk about Jesus weeping. I'll vote my conscience, thank you.
Friend, I hate to tell you this. But you have no clue about the foundations of this country and the significance of the Constitution. It was written so that men could not rule arbitrarily, yet that is precisely what you support. Words have meaning! That is how it works. You read the words and follow them. Again, our founders said over and over that we are a nation of laws not men (Lex Rex not Rex Lex) and the Constitution represents those laws. Judges are required to follow it whether or not they disagree with it. They are not allowed to change it on their own illegal arbitary authority.
Precedents? Hahahaha. What is the precedent for Roe v. Wade? For Lawrence vs. Texas? Huh? Answer.
The 9th Amendment
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''
It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.
Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
Source: FindLaw
No there isn't. It is a sense of true Morality that is required. A recognition that there is a univeral right and wrong. That right and wrong are not cultural -they are objective and universal. Our founding fathers said this over and over. Morality is the key to survival of the Constitution and to its interpretation. At least 5 of the judges on the Supreme Court have a warped morality - that is clear.
Again, I ask you show me the right to privacy or right to sodomy in the Constitution! There is nothing to interpret - it's not there!
Sheer volume, for starters. We're looking at AMNESTY for somewhere around 25 million ILLEGAL Aliens!
Next, is the long-term, intentional dismantling of national sovereignty- something NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DARED TO PROPOSE.
Reagan never proposed anything even close to this, in long-term damage. And that damage will be on several fronts- the economic one, the one of National Security, the area of national sovereignty and national CULTURE...
W. proposes to turn the USA into a nation-wide barrio.
A democracy/republic as we know it today (I know you're one of those who believes that there is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy) arose in England from the middle classes, who were primarily merchants, traders and industrialists. They were bargainers and negotiators- that's what our government is about. It's a clash of interests, involving a lot of horse-trading and haggling.
Government is nothing more than a service industry. All this talk of moral leaders is nice, I suppose, but I'm looking for leaders who represent my interests. You should do the same, as should everyone else. Then we send our hired gun representatives into the arena and let them fight it out and we come up with some type of compromise we can all sort of live with.
It ain't pretty, but that's how our system works best.
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.