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."
The Roman Republic. They had separate judicial, legislative and executive branches.
The roman republic did not resemble our republic. First, it treated women like dirt (every man had a mistress for pleasure - a wife was used only for procreation to give the man an heir). The senate was all patricians. They did not have full representation, and these patricians were not elected -they inherited their positions or were appointed. In addition, they had no constitution, and did not hold to principles of basic rights for all men (life, liberty, property). In addition, there were no checks and balances and the republic deteriorated into dictatorship in 44 BC. Then, Caesar became arbitary ruler over everybody and everything and no one had any rights that Caeser did not give them. There are other differences, but our founders studied Rome very carefully and did not want to make the same mistakes as Rome did (or Greece).
I might add that, ironically, homosexual marriage was not allowed even in depraved rome. Modern France, Netherlands and the State of Massachusetts should be proud - they are plunged to moral depths not before realized in recorded history!
You aren't able to refute them so they stand. Just because I oppose Bush - that means I am not a grown up? hahaha. Let your headstone read: Loyalty to Party over moral principle.
I'm quite suprized this hasn't made the smokey backroom with all of the personal attacks, let alone the anti-Bush liberal rhetoric flying around.
It is interesting- I think a lot of the anti-Bush posters would get zotted if they were newbies.
You are correct, voting R or D does not in itself mean that a person is not voting their conscience. But, there are many here who are voting R simply because they believe Republicans to be better than the alternative, not because they believe in the Republicans.
If you disagree with the majority of what the party has done, as I do, and vote that party anyway, you might not be voting your conscience.
If you cast your vote for R and then think, "I hope they don't screw it up too bad, but, at least I'm not voting D.", then you might not be voting your conscience.
If you are mad at the Rs, but vote for them because you believe voting I or L will be "throwing your vote away", you might not be voting your conscience.
The full text of the Declaration is right there in the U.S. Code. It's in the US Code. Why? Why is it there? Could it be that it is important to our laws in some way? Duh. You tell me. You stand refuted. I don't think I need to go any further. I provided the exact location in a url. Want me to cut and paste the text of the Declaration right from the website and post it here?
It resembled it, but it wasn't the same. Every political system in the world is different. You asked for examples of other republics/democracies with certain characteristics, and I provided them. If you want to argue that the US system is unique in human history, I have to agree. However, the same argument could be made about the British system, or the Japanese system, or the Venetian Republic.
LOL!
That, of course, is solely your opinion. Based on what, I have no idea, unless you mean that you're judging people who don't agree with you as not voting their principles.
LOL!
Watch it now, you can get called some pretty bad things for wanting to uphold the Constitution ;) BTW, I'm with you. The policies you suggested would not be hard to implement
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.