Posted on 03/21/2007 6:00:42 AM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Last night I heard the statement of President Bush in response to the pending inquiry into the attorney firings. The statement was only a few minutes long. As with most busy working Americans, many of whom “do the work that (Bush says) Americans won’t do”, I did not even have a chance to hear Bush’s statement live, but only while driving home late from work while listening to the “Mark Levin” show on the AM “hot talk” dial.
Levin was telling us how “proud he is of our President”, for standing up to the Democrats, that “someone must have been listening to us (e.g. Levin)” in regards to the very complaint from Levin the night previous that the President isn’t standing up in this regards, nor the Republicans, and that the President’s insistence on “comprehensive immigration reform” is going to ruin the Republican Party and hurt this country “immensely”.
Of which I agree, totally.
And so, I was please that it seemed the President was now going to stand up, and focus on these type of issues instead of going around 24x7 with a sombrero on his head yapping about “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty 24x7).
Because each time Bush says “comprehensive immigration reform”, these are just other words for “amnesty” and “Bush is an obstinate idiot”.
So I eagerly awaited the replay of the President’s statement which Mark Levin was to now so proudly air.
And what do I hear?
Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I hear, “how dare my Administration be distracted from the agenda of comprehensive immigration reform with this sort of stuff?” . . .
Don’t tell me about the funding for the troops comment. I don’t care if he made comment that Iran is about to nuke New York City. Why, why, why – why would this idiot bring up “comprehensive immigration reform” in context of this statement on any inquiry or investigation on the attorney firings? Why even bring this up at all, knowing the reaction it might have among Republican base? Why?
Because, it sounds like that is all he thinks about. It’s so important, it’s equivalent to the question of funding for our troops. It’s equivalent to Iran is about to nuke New York City.
What is wrong with this guy?
My God, I couldn’t believe what I just heard. It just flushed everything else he had to say right down the toilet.
“Proud of the President?” – no, I am NOT proud. I am thinking, this guy is really intent on screwing me and my country, and he doesn’t give a damn WHAT the American people think about this issue of illegal immigration. He is going to sign a Democratic sponsored piece of crap legislation that is going to shove this outrage right down all of our thoughts, and to damn what the consequences are to our country what to speak of the Republican Party.
Separation of powers? What if an Executive Branch is using United States Attorneys to devise networks and operations to circumvent our laws? And what if an Executive Branch is firing attorneys because they believe in law enforcement?
That should not be investigated? The question, not that an administration has the right to fire attorneys, not that an administration fired attorneys, but to ask why an administration fired attorneys in regards to such questions?
You see, sometimes the why part does matter.
For example, the question of separation of powers. Suppose attorneys were asked to do something, that wasn’t really a power delegated to the Executive? Meaning, if they did what they were asked, they would be violating the separation of powers. They were asked to violate the separation of powers for the benefit of the Executive, and then when they said “no, we won’t do that, it isn’t our role”, and then they were fired?
Or for example, numerous complaints came in, in regards to voter fraud, and enforcement and delays in immigration proceedings? And, then the U.S. attorneys were told to investigate these complaints about voter fraud and complaints about enforcement and delays in immigration or deportation proceedings. And they discover that illegal aliens are voting, and they discover that immigration laws are not being enforced. And they start to gather information on this.
And the Bush administration fires them, because illegal aliens “do the work that Americans won’t do” and never mind that they are voting and violating existing immigration laws.
What about that?
What if we are told that United States Attorneys were fired because they failed to file immigration cases? But the real reason they were fired is because they had gathered information that establishes lack of enforcement of existing immigration law by the Executive?
You know, there have been several Republicans who have called for Gonzales to step down for not enforcing the law. For example, Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, called for this in regards to Gonzales’ refusal in this matter in regards to immigration law, such leadership failures at the Justice Department, and in regards to the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents who shot a Mexican drug dealer involved in Mexican gang operations who use our open borders so that illegal aliens can do the work that Americans won’t do.
Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if the Bush Administration undergoes an inquiry as to why these attorneys were fired. Perhaps it would be a good idea if a number of Republicans (why bother to be bipartisan, bipartisan is just another word for amnesty fast-track) got together and started an independent investigation.
Perhaps that would be a good idea.
Sure, it would keep Bush busy, and if the question of immigration law and enforcement of such existing law comes into play in this regard, which given the right questions very well can come into play, perhaps it will keep the issue in the minds of the American people, and keep Bush too busy to sign any amnesty law.
Or perhaps, no matter WHAT any Republican or Democrat does to keep Bush busy, it won’t matter.
Because, it seems he has a sombrero on his head twenty-four hours a day. And no matter WHAT is going down, he’s got to yap his “comprehensive immigration reform” blather into every statement he makes, even if it’s out of context.
Even if it's stupid to do so.
Speaking of yapping. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I hope the post doesn't get removed or, worse, you get removed. But some of those thoughts have simmered in a lot of heads (those with brains, anyway) lately, even if we couched our words in less blunt language.
I know this much. I want to support President Bush completely - I worked hard to get him elected & have defended him many times. On a lot of things, he has been a very good President & many times better than Gore or Kerry would have been.
BUT - his stance on illegal immigration has completely soured me on him. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how he can be so stubborn about it - when polls show that not only Republicans are against the current policy, but most dimocrats are too.
It flies in the face of logic.
It was just the opposite. The people fired were fired for NOT enforcing immigration laws and election laws and for generally being democrats.
Too many people seize on a word or two and then tune out or go off on a rant. The author of this post appears to be one. He just makes himself look bad. Obviously, this illegal immigration issue has many facets and the solutions are very much under review and discussion. Reacting to the term comprehensive imigration reform in such a way just seems ignorant and obstructive.
Especially without any evidence that they were out there "enforcing" immigration law, and therefore angering the president.
Just the opposite...where have you been?
Makes one wonder. Bush has been talking about reforming our immigration laws since, oh, 1999.
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.