Savage: Impeach Bush over immigration plan

WND ^ | 1-12-04 | N/A

[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."

[Poohbah]

Your comment is simply outrageous. The declaration laid out the principles by which this nation fought and won its independence, as well as the earth-shaking declaration that rights come from God not men. relic huh? Then why is it organic law in the U.S. Code?

You have made this claim numerous times. Kindly provide a US Code citation to back your claim. I shan't hold my breath waiting for the cite, though--I hear asphyxiation is not a pleasant way to die, and you've never come through before.

[T.Smith]

"Won't we all be so comforted to know that your precious conscience was indulged, while we're all singing Heil Hitlery. Shall we eliminate the supreme court before, or after the next democRAT is elected?"

If we all voted our conscience then your Democrat boogeymen/women wouldn't be a threat. But, because everybody insists that they have to vote R or D we're all headed to a ruined US. The only difference between R and D is who controls the throttle.

[jim35]

"...I didn't say I wanted a war - I said wars are justified sometimes to preserve life and liberty. Cannot be denied. You have a knack for hyperbole..."

No, I have a knack for using the type of logic that you are only able to respond to by escalating your attacks on Bush, the supreme court, and finally moving up to talk of war. You offer only criticism, but no solutions. So, if war isn't what you advocate, just what is your solution? By logical inference, your solutions so far would lead to: 1) elimination of the supreme court as constitutional interpreter. 2) loss of office by GW Bush. 3) attainment of office by one of the democrats. And finally, 4) a government run by a democrat, who can overrule the court. This is not hyperbole, this is simply where your rhetoric is leading. The dots connect quite nicely. So, if you see a hole in this, just what is it? The only possible hole I see, is that instead you propose civil war. Where am I going wrong here?

[m1-lightning]

That's what I was thinking but I'm just assuming that poster jumped in the middle of it without thinking first.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"I don't buy the argument that it will be a detriment to this country economically even if all 25 million sent their paychecks back to Mexico, that still leaves 250 million legalized Americans to stimulate the economy. "


READ MY DAMN POSTS AND UNDERSTAND!!!!!
HERE I WILL MAKE IT IN ALL CAPS SO YOU SEE THIS!!!

WITH 25 MILLION MAKING UNDER 24,000$ A YEAR AND PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES THEN THE REMAINING 250 MILLION TAKE CARE OF THESE IMMIGRANTS!!!!

Cripes I swear how much more simpiliar can one make this argument?

Here

i-m-m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n l-e-g-a-l- a-n-d- i-l-l-e-g-a-l i-s- b-a-n-k--r-u-p-t-i-n-g t-h-i-s- c-o-u-n-t-r-y

[jim35]

"...It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error..."


I've asked it before, now I ask again: what exactly is your solution? Not in fantasy land, but right here, in the real world. Allow a democRAT to win? Throw out the court system? Have a civil war? All of the above? Well? Hmmmm????

[Texas_Dawg]

Since you cannot refute or even intelligently debate the points I've made

What points did you make?

[Modernman]

I will wait for you to show me the right to sodomy or privacy in the Constitution. Waiting...waiting...waiting....

Sigh, okay:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

On another topic- you seem very obsessed with sodomy. Something we should know about from your Marine days?

[exmarine]

Not really. It's just that whatever school you went to defined democracy as "mob-rule." It's a common failing of Bob Jones-type schools. But I digress.

Here are some differences: Direct Democracies of history have no constitution to speak of, no protection for rights, do not give equal rights to all citizens (no rights for minorities, women had no rights in Greece), do not have full representation, no checks and balances (people were judge, leglislature and executive all in one), and they had no basis for right and wrong other than the whim of the majority who vote themselves all of the favors and rights. No princple of self governance. No differences huh? History begs to differ with you. Our Christian founding fathers recognized that men are evil, whether they be kings or the people. Separation of powers was devised to protect against the corrupting rule of power-hungry leaders (read Montesquieu - that is where they got this idea); Electoral college, Bill of Rights, federalism were all devised to protect against the corrupt rule of the majority. No differences huh? It seems there are major differences and many of them. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

[m18436572]

George Washington was a RACIST SLAVE OWNER!!!

And nobody cares about that anymore but the race baiters and revisionist.

[Capitalist Eric]

A few people don't make the artificially propped-up wages that they used to, due to free competition. Everyone else makes more money though due to their real income being increased.

It's not often, that I chat with someone who is so clueless, that they have no idea of how clueless they really are...

But you seem to be of those people. Simply put, you aren't sufficiently educated to intelligently discuss- much less debate- this subject. As has been demonstrated by your responses to a variety of posters, not just myself...

Your posts are rife with errors, and short on logic. Maybe you should return to the University, and take a course beyond Econ-1A... You might learn something.

[m1-lightning]

You obviously have no regard for history or truth.

I have a regard for the Constitution and it's laws before I hold oath to any speech. And by the way, the US Code is merely laws written under the authority of the Constitution, not part of the Constitution. Only an Amendment can be legally recognized as part of the Constitution.

[exmarine]

hahaha. I didn't see any right to privacy in there. Where is it? Yes, you digress....people who are misinformed often do that.

[Howlin]

If we all voted our conscience then your Democrat boogeymen/women wouldn't be a threat. But, because everybody insists that they have to vote R or D we're all headed to a ruined US.

Care to explain why you think a person who votes R or D isn't voting their conscience?

[Capitalist Eric]

A few people don't make the artificially propped-up wages that they used to, due to free competition. Everyone else makes more money though due to their real income being increased.

It's not often, that I chat with someone who is so clueless, that they have no idea of how clueless they really are...

But you seem to be of those people. Simply put, you aren't sufficiently educated to intelligently discuss- much less debate- this subject. As has been demonstrated by your responses to a variety of posters, not just myself...

Your posts are rife with errors, and short on logic. Maybe you should return to the University, and take a course beyond Econ-1A... You might learn something.

[T.Smith]

"You see an elected official violating his oath of office so you decide not to vote for him. That is being a person of principle. We can never have people of principle elected to public office if we do not have prinicples ourselves."

I wish I had said that.

[hedgetrimmer]

Although George Washington was born into a world where slavery was accepted, his attitude changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, Washington seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery as president, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the southern states. Washington seems to have feared that if he, as president, took such a public stand, those southern states would withdraw from the United States (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, Washington could lead by example. In his will, George Washington made arrangements for all the slaves he owned to be freed after his death (123 of the 316 slaves living at Mount Vernon belonged to George Washington). He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, provided support and training for young people until they came of age, and supported the elderly.

http://www.mountvernon.org/education/slavery/attitude.asp

[Howlin]

U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification

Amendment Text | Annotations  

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[exmarine]

No, I have a knack for using the type of logic that you are only able to respond to by escalating your attacks on Bush, the supreme court, and finally moving up to talk of war.

LOL! You are the one who brought up the topic of war! I never advocated war - you said my position could lead to war. You said it. What I said about Bush was the Truth and you even agreed! Is teling the truth an attack? Apparently, you value loyalty to Bush more than loyalty to truth. Just go away, I am tired of your exaggerations and mischaracterization of my position.

[hedgetrimmer]

The self-proclaimed communist that teaches history at our high school pulls the same argument.