Posted on 02/05/2004 3:32:34 PM PST by VU4G10
|
President Bush’s proposed immigration reform package is a shocking betrayal of our nation’s sovereignty, culture and economy. It must not be allowed to pass. |
|
|
Bill Clinton uttered countless deceptive words during his eight-year occupancy of the White House, but perhaps none captured the essence of his slippery dishonesty better than these: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In defending his proposed amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, George W. Bush is striving to set a new record for brazen presidential dishonesty.
“This plan is not amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path of citizenship,” insisted Mr. Bush at a January 12 press conference in Monterrey, Mexico, as he stood alongside Mexican President Vicente Fox. “I oppose amnesty because it encourages the violation of our laws and perpetuates illegal immigration.”
As has often been said, crime unpunished is crime rewarded. In his January 7 White House address calling for a “new temporary worker program,” the president outlined a plan that would reward those who violated our immigration laws by jumping the queue and taking up residence here illegally:
The president proposed “legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States, and to those in foreign countries who seek to participate in the program and have been offered employment here”;
That temporary legal status, the president said, “will last three years and will be renewable”;
Mr. Bush claimed that “our current limits on legal immigration are too low.” He added that his administration will work with Congress to “increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship” for illegal aliens currently residing here, as well as others arriving every day in anticipation of being legalized once the proposal goes into effect.
It’s vitally important to recognize that the Bush plan would not be limited to the current illegal alien population, which is commonly estimated to be 6-12 million (but may be 20 million or more). As the president’s own words demonstrate, it would also extend to “those in foreign countries who seek to participate in the program.”
Supposedly, those coming from foreign countries would need a job offer in advance of their arrival. But the president’s invitation had an immediate, and quite predictable, effect. “The U.S. Border Patrol marks January 7 as the day illegal crossing numbers surge,” reported a January 10 Arizona Star dispatch from the Mexican border town of Hermosillo. “We’re starting to see an increase already,” commented Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame. It’s reasonable to expect that a similar “amnesty rush” is underway elsewhere as millions — or tens of millions — of others race to take advantage of the Bush plan.
Ah, but that plan isn’t an amnesty, insists the president, clinging to his official fiction with Clintonian tenacity. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) has no use for such evasions. “Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa,” comments Rep. Paul. “This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.”
More disturbing still is the fact that the Bush plan represents merely the first installment. The Mexican regime has already broadcast demands for further concessions. Mexican President Fox offered honeyed words of support for the Bush plan during his January 12 joint press conference with Bush. But prior to Bush’s trip to Monterrey, Fox had told the Mexican press that the Bush plan “es más pequeñito de lo que buscamos” (“it’s much smaller than what we’re looking for”). And Mexico’s El Universal had reported, “The secretary of Foreign Relations, Luis Ernesto Derbez, affirmed that [Fox] cannot be satisfied with George W. Bush’s proposal to grant temporary employment to immigrants.... [T]he goal is a total and complete program that protects those [Mexicans] in the United States and those who aspire to go there.” (Emphasis added.)
The Mexican regime will be satisfied with nothing less than the abolition of our southern border, and our absorption of as many people as that government sees fit to send north. Eventually, the process begun by the Bush plan would “solve” the illegal immigration problem by simply removing our borders altogether — and by effectively destroying the concept of U.S. citizenship as well.
Supposedly, the newly legalized “temporary workers” would return to their home countries after the permits expire.
“My proposal expects that most temporary workers will eventually return permanently to their home countries when the period of work that I will be negotiating with Congress has expired,” explained the president in Monterrey. Toward that end, he continued, “I’ll work with [Mexican] President Fox and other leaders on a plan to give temporary workers credit in their home countries’ retirement systems for the time they work in the United States.”
The administration’s proposal would also “reduce the cost of sending money home to families and local communities,” continued the president. Such remittances from Mexican workers in America are that nation’s second-largest source of foreign income. Additionally, as the president pointed out, through the Inter-American Development Bank “we” — meaning American taxpayers — “are expanding access to credit for small business entrepreneurs” in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America.
All of this taxpayer-funded largesse is necessary, insists the president, in order to “reduce the pressures that create illegal immigration” by expanding economic opportunity south of our border. But the amnesty itself creates a powerful incentive for newly legalized immigrants to establish themselves here and begin the process of chain immigration, through which untold millions of new immigrants would be brought in. This is what happened with the most recent immigration amnesty in 1986.
In anticipation of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” rhetoric, former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, the chief sponsor of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), insisted that the earlier amnesty was “a humane approach to immigration reform.” Simpson also admitted at the time, “I don’t know what the impact will be.” Eighteen years later, we now know the impact: 6-12 million, and possibly 20 million or more, illegal aliens. If amnesty is granted to that population, and it begins the process of chain immigration of relatives from abroad, and it is supplemented by millions of others who come here based on job offers extended through Bush’s temporary worker program, we might as well disband the border patrol and discontinue the fiction of having immigration controls at all.
President Bush’s concern for the economic plight of illegal aliens in our midst is as puzzling as his indifference to the economic circumstances of American workers.
“Over the past 10 years, more than 2 million low-skilled American workers have been displaced from their jobs,” writes CNN financial analyst Lou Dobbs. “And each 10 percent increase in the immigrant workforce decreases U.S. wages by 3.5 percent.” Mr. Bush and his political allies blithely assure the public that illegal immigrants are doing jobs nobody wants. However, points out Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, “what they really mean is that they are doing jobs that they as middle- and upper-class people don’t want.”
“Massive immigration is vastly more popular among the elites than among the public,” Steve Sailer, president of the Human Biodiversity Institute, told THE NEW AMERICAN. “Lawyers, politicians, and business executives won’t find their pay driven down much by increased competition. On the other hand, if I was, say, a carpenter, I’d be horrified by what the President of the United States is planning to do to me and my family. What’s the global average wage made by carpenters? I’d be surprised if it were more than 33 percent of the average American carpenter’s wage, and I wouldn’t be shocked if it were only 10 percent as much.”
“It’s all a matter of supply and demand,” explains Sailer. “As they teach you during the first week of Econ 101, when the supply of labor goes up its price [wage] goes down.... The only restriction the Bush people are talking about is that the job offers to foreigners must meet the minimum wage. That’s $5.15 per hour, or $10,712 for a full-time worker.”
Sailer describes the Bush plan as “a globalist libertarian’s fantasy. It’s essentially identical to the Wall Street Journal editorial page’s long campaign for a constitutional amendment reading ‘There shall be open borders.’” This would mean not only a deluge of low-skilled, low-paid labor from Mexico, but from across the globe. According to Dobbs, “for all the world the president’s [immigration proposal] … sounds like a national job fair for those businesses and farms that don’t want to pay a living wage and for those foreigners who correctly think U.S. border security is a joke and are willing to break our laws to live here.”
The immediate beneficiaries would be illegal workers from Mexico, and a Mexican government that uses illegal immigration to the U.S. as (in the words of former foreign minister Jorge Castañeda) a “safety valve.” But there are literally billions of people willing to work for even less than Mexicans are. “In this age of cheap jet travel, poor Mexican immigrant job hunters might find themselves undercut by even poorer temporary workers from, say, Bangladesh who may be willing to work for even less,” Sailer predicts. “According to UN figures, there are several billion people poorer than the average Mexican.”
With hi-tech and manufacturing jobs fleeing the country, and millions of low-skill workers flooding in, what will America look like just a few years from now if Bush’s amnesty proposal is enacted?
The January 8 New York Times editorially praised the Bush amnesty as a prelude to a larger effort to reform our immigration system: “For simply reopening what has always been a torturous debate in this country, the president deserves applause. He has recognized that the nation’s immigration system is, as he put it, ‘broken.’” But the unspoken purpose of the process the Bush plan would inaugurate is to demolish, rather than repair, what remains of our immigration system.
The invited audience for President Bush’s January 7 White House announcement included representatives from various “citizen groups,” such as the Hispanic Alliance for Progress, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans, the Latino Coalition, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. The address itself served as an overture for a hastily called “Summit of the Americas” in Monterrey, Mexico, the following week. These two facts underscore the real purpose of the amnesty proposal: It is a significant step toward the amalgamation of the U.S. with Mexico — as well as Canada, and eventually every other country in this hemisphere — into a regional political bloc.
Shortly after taking office, Mr. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox signed a document called the “Guanajuato Proposal,” pledging that their governments would “strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most vulnerable social groups in our countries.”
Within a few months of that declaration, the Mexican government had composed a five-point program to hasten “consolidation” with the U.S.:
Legalization of “undocumented” workers (that is, illegal aliens from Mexico);
An expanded permanent visas program;
An enhanced guest workers visas program;
Border control cooperation;
Economic development in immigrant-sending regions of Mexico.
This list of demands, according to then-Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda, were essentially non-negotiable: He insisted that the U.S. had to accept “the whole enchilada, or nothing.” The Bush administration has dutifully worked to meet that nation’s demands — without exacting anything from Mexico in return.
During Fox’s 2001 visit to the U.S., the groundwork was laid for the so-called “Partnership for Prosperity” (PfP) — an initiative designed to use American tax dollars to build Mexico’s manufacturing sector. According to the U.S. State Department, PfP’s action plan calls for U.S. assistance — meaning taxpayer subsidies — to Mexico to boost investment in housing and commercial infrastructure to boost Mexican productivity. This has the unavoidable effect of drawing manufacturing jobs south of the border — even as low-wage jobs are increasingly snapped up by illegal immigrants (pardon me — future temporary workers) surging northward.
The Bush administration’s indecent eagerness to eradicate our southern border and consolidate our nation with Mexico was noted by Newsweek political analyst Howard Fineman. “Whatever else George W. Bush does, or doesn’t do, he has earned a place in history as the first American president to place Hispanic voters at the center of politics, and the first to view the land between Canada and Guatemala as one,” noted Fineman. “It makes sense, if you think about it: Texas, long ago and far away, was part of Mexico. Now a Texan is trying to reassemble the Old Country, and then some.”
“The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union,” opined an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial on September 7, 2001. “Unlike the varied landscapes and cultures of European Union members, the United States, Canada and Mexico already share a great deal in common, and language is not as great a barrier. President Bush, for example, is quite comfortable with the blended Mexican-Anglo culture forged in the border states of Texas, California and Arizona.”
President Bush has only offered oblique hints of the agenda that Fineman correctly described. Mexican President Fox has been more candid.
During a May 16, 2002 speech in Madrid, Fox boasted: “In the last few months we have managed to achieve an improvement in the situation of many Mexicans in [the United States], regardless of their migratory status, through schemes that have permitted them access to health and education systems, identity documents, as well as the full respect for their human rights.” Here Fox referred to the incremental legalization illegal Mexican immigrants achieved when various state and local governments began to accept matricula consular cards as official ID. Those cards are issued by Mexican consulates without regard to the recipient’s legal status. Easily counterfeited, the matricula cards give illegal aliens access to employment, health benefits, banking services and — in some states — driver’s licenses.
In the Madrid speech, Fox explained that demolishing the distinction between legal and illegal Mexican immigrants is necessary in order to advance the merger of the U.S. and Mexico: “Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons.” Such movement of persons would no longer be “immigration” or “emigration” — terms referring to the crossing of international borders — but merely “migration” within one vast political entity. In other words: goodbye to U.S. citizenship.
Significantly, in his remarks at the January 12 press conference in Monterrey, Fox pointedly, and repeatedly, used the term “migration” to refer to the Bush plan, referring variously to “that migration topic,” “the migration matters,” “this migration proposal,” the “migration flow,” and so on. Tellingly, he also referred to “the leaders of the countries of America” — rather than to national leaders of separate and independent nations.
Amnesty for illegal aliens, a central piece in the agenda for hemispheric consolidation, would almost certainly have been announced long ago were it not for 9-11 — an event that demonstrated, in a tragic and lethal fashion, the mortal danger resulting from the failure to secure our borders.
However, merger-minded elites in both the U.S. and Mexico regrouped and continued their campaign for amnesty. Last fall, a coalition of radical groups — including the Communist Party — organized the “Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride.” In that campaign, busloads of illegal aliens were brought to Washington to lobby on behalf of amnesty.
Vicente Fox did his part by visiting three southwestern states — Texas, Arizona and New Mexico — to lobby state legislatures to support the amnesty drive. “We share nation and language,” Fox told the New Mexico legislature. “In addition to our geographical vicinity, we are united by inseparable bonds, history, values and interests.... We must join together.... You need Mexico and Mexicans, and we need you.”
Acting as the supposed leader of “Mexicans living abroad” (a group that, according to the Mexican government, includes Americans of Mexican ancestry born in this country), Fox demanded that lawmakers in this country “facilitate access to health care and education services for all those who share our border.... Without this, it is impossible to think about the path to greater integration and shared prosperity.”
Open borders, amnesty for illegals, subsidies for Mexico’s economy, exporting manufacturing capacity south of the border, expanded welfare benefits for foreigners who entered our nation illegally — these are all part of the same seamless design. As Fox himself put it, that design is the “integration” of the U.S. and Mexico into a hemisphere-wide political unit.
Many observers believe that the Bush amnesty plan is part of a political strategy aimed at courting the Hispanic vote — which would be a shockingly cynical and opportunistic venture. But the truth is even worse: President Bush is consciously betraying our nation by undermining our borders, our sovereignty, and the integrity of our laws. And he is doing this as part of a campaign that will — if successful — result in an end to our national independence and our constitutional order.
Every American worthy of the name must not accept this incredible betrayal — and must not allow it to be consummated.
As I said, Dubya and the weasels in Washington have decided that the 60,000 Americans who live in the Naco Corridor are irrelevant....My vote may as well be irrelevant, too."
And who can blame you?
Why must the President insist the rights of criminal invaders supercede the rights of American citizens? And the icing on the cake -- the doubling of those Mexicans, and God-only-knows how many Islamic moles emboldened to further crash the border and thus trash U.S. sovereign law.
There is NO defense for the President's refusal to address this "security" problem crisis. NONE WHATSOEVER.
Too bad, too. For months I was hoping he had something for us conservatives up his sleeve.
This cannot be true, because President Bush is a Republican. That is the simple and solid answer you will get from 99.9% of the FReepers. John Birch was a liar and attempting to replace or defeat Republicans in office is a sin. All Republicans now in office, or running for office are better than any other choice of person or party.
President Bush's support of UNESCO is for the benefit of America. President Bush's support of a loan for the new UN Headquarters building is for the benefit of America. Anyone who speaks against the United Nations is not a patriot, but a traitor to America, myself included.
The Utah legislative bill asking that the United States withdraw from the United Nations was written, supported and passed by a bunch of ignorant hicks who couldn't find their way out of a barn.
69 WHEREAS, the United States Constitution, which provides America with the greatest
70 form of government known to humankind, and which was made possible and protected by
71 much sacrifice and bloodshed throughout the nation's history, is not recognized as a governing
72 document by the United Nations;
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2004/bills/hbillamd/hjr003.htm
UNESCO promotes a global tax on the Internet, among other global taxes.
UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member countries and continues to attempt to construct a global school curriculum for American schools, including radical notions of the family and bizarre sex education programs.
UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program, which includes forced abortions.
UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without congressional approval. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands and restrictions on the use of public land.
UNESCO bypasses congressional authority to manage federal lands, including places like the Everglades, by establishing management policies without congressional consultation or approval.
The UNESCO “World Heritage Convention” has allowed UNESCO to designate some of the most treasured American public monuments to be “world heritage” sites, such as Independence Hall, the Statute of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, Jefferson’s Monticello. It is UNESCO, not the United States government, that develop policies and regulations that control these sites.
Would you like to see some censorship here in the US of A by the World Heritage Organization?
Look at Mexico 1st, then look at CANADA and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Notice under this heading there is only TWO locations marked. Hmmm, large country, long history, yet only TWO locations are selected. Canada alone has ELEVEN locations selected.
Then come over to the unofficial (thesalmons.org) World Heritage website and look under the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", here at the unofficial website we have EIGHTEEN locations selected. No need to alarm the Americans about a small takeover is there? Naw, the don't worry about sovereignty anyway.
Remain loyal Republicans who refuse to question our Presidents actions and you will be responsible for not having a sovereign country to give to your kids. Stay proud and ignorant, after all what are the choices? Aware of the UGLY truth or hiding from the UGLY truth. Hiding is much easier, I agree.
The idea of John Kerry making several SCOTUS picks just sickens me, and I know his attacks on sovereignty, language and culture will be as treacherous as Bush's. The only consolation is that we'll be dodging knives from the front instead of also pulling them from our back.
He had the United Nations and all the different organizations within it pinned down EXACTLY CORRECT. How in the hell can a simple man do this stuff. He said he would be hated for it, go that one correct too.
New American ^ | May 5, 2003 | John F. McManus
Posted on 05/23/2003 6:54:38 PM CDT by Rennes Templar
As a presidential hopeful, Senator John Kerry touts his military experience. But 30 years ago he led anti-war protests and marched alongside revolutionary Communists.
Senator John Kerry wants to be president. His membership in the Council on Foreign Relations guarantees that the world government crowd will accept him. He can tap into his wife’s millions to overcome any fundraising shortfall. And his connection to Yale’s eerily secretive Skull & Bones Society opens doors to many of its movers and shakers — though veteran Bones critic Ron Rosenbaum notes the possibility of a "Bones versus Bones smackdown" should Bonesmen Bush and Kerry face off in 2004.
Kerry does not want the voting public made aware of his CFR and Bones credentials. Nor does he want to be likened to Ted Kennedy and Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts archliberals out of step with the nation at large. So when he presents himself to voters, he or his handlers insist that he is a foreign policy expert who benefits from past military service.
After an appearance at a New Hampshire campaign stop on April 2nd, an exceptional need for Kerry to trot out his military service occurred. He told a small group of future primary voters that "regime change" was needed not just in Iraq but "in the United States." Reacting to Kerry’s statement, Republicans pounced on him like wolves on a wounded lamb, claiming that by using the term "regime" he had likened the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. So the senator and his aides played their military card. "I don’t need any lessons in patriotism or in caring about America from the likes of the right wing," Kerry told a Georgia audience. And he speedily supplied each of his campaign spokesmen with a statement that said in part: "Unlike many of his Republican critics, Senator Kerry has worn the uniform, served his country, seen combat, so he’d just as soon skip their lectures about supporting our troops."
Kerry did serve as an officer in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War. And he did win a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. So far, so good. But when he returned home, he became a war protester. In America, of course, everybody is free to agree or disagree with a government policy. But Kerry did not just disagree; he became a leader of groups that championed our nation’s foes while our forces were still fighting and dying.
In 1971, the Communist Daily World delightedly published photos of him speaking to demonstrators as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). The April 23, 1971 Daily World boasted that the marchers displayed a banner depicting a portrait of Communist Party leader Angela Davis, who was on record stating: "I am dedicated to the overthrow of your system of government and your society."
By frequently participating in VVAW’s demonstrations, Kerry found himself marching alongside what the Boston Herald Traveler identified as "revolutionary Communists." While noting that known Reds had openly organized these events, the December 12, 1971 Herald Traveler reported the presence of an "abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government."
Seeking election to the U.S. House in 1972, Kerry found it necessary to suppress reproduction of the cover picture appearing on his own book, The New Soldier. His political opponent pointed out that it depicted several unkempt youths crudely handling an American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima. Suddenly, copies of the book became unavailable and even disappeared from libraries. But the Lowell (Mass.) Sun said of the type of person shown on its cover: "These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for."
During the 1972 "Kerry for Congress" campaign, flyers invited voters to "hear Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General, who has just recently returned from a visit in North Vietnam." While in Hanoi, Clark had distinguished himself by roundly condemning the United States, heaping praise on his Communist hosts, and lecturing American prisoners of war.
In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had defiantly given his medals back to the U.S. government during one of his many protests. New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in September 2002 that the senator invited him to view 40 minutes of films Kerry made depicting his war exploits. Keller wrote that anti-war doves would still support the man they remembered for "throwing his war ribbons onto the steps of the Capitol." When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his Senate office. Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that Kerry’s actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public, Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago. Come to think of it, if he continues to posture as a war hero, he’ll lose the friendship of Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, and the Daily World.
It's comfortable knowing that all Americans are part of the "I am irrelevant" group, isn't it. How long it will take the cute cupcakes to realize that they and their children are irrelevant too?
Anti-Elitist Reversals
The history of that period shows that Ronald Reagan exploited this issue very capably. On February 26th, in New Hampshire where the matter had become the deciding issue in the primary, voters gave him a lopsided victory. His strong showing and the correspondingly weak showing by George Bush delighted the nation's conservatives and set a pattern for future victories that carried Mr. Reagan all the way to the White House.
But something else happened on February 26, 1980 that should have raised many more eyebrows than it did. On the very day that Ronald Reagan convincingly won the nation's first primary, he replaced his campaign manager with longtime Council on Foreign Relations member William J. Casey. Mr. Casey served as the Reagan campaign manager for the balance of the campaign, and was later rewarded with an appointment as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The selection of William J. Casey in the strategically important position of campaign manager was highly significant. He is a New York lawyer who served the Nixon Administration in several positions including Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank. In those two posts especially, he gained a reputation as a crusader for U.S. taxpayer-financed aid and trade with communist nations.
During this same period, while serving as an official of the State Department, Casey declared in a public speech given in Garden City, New York, that he favored U.S. policies leading to interdependence among nations and to the sacrificing of our nation's independence. (27) These attitudes are thoroughly in agreement with the long-term objectives of the Insiders, but are not at all consistent with the public positions taken by Mr. Reagan. But very few made note of the Casey appointment because very few knew anything about Mr. Casey.
Snip
Rockefeller Ties In April 1980, Mr. Reagan told an interviewer from the Christian Science Monitor (28) that he would shun the directions of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. But George Bush, who had recently resigned both from the Trilateral Commission and from the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, could not shake the stigma of his Insider connection.
In Florida, understanding about the Trilateral Commission led to widespread use of a political advertisement which claimed, "The same people who gave you Jimmy Carter want now to give you George Bush." (29) An identical ad appeared in Texas. The Reagan bandwagon, propelled in part by its attack on the Insiders, began to score one primary victory after another.
Eventually, Ronald Reagan convincingly won the Republican nomination. Conservatives across the nation were delighted That is, they were delighted until he shocked his supporters by selecting George Bush as his running mate. George Bush was the very epitome of the Insider Establishment type that had made so many of these people strong Reagan backers in the first place. That night, at the Republican convention, the word "betrayal" was in common usage.
Ronald Reagan had repeatedly and publicly promised that he would pick a running mate who shared his well-known conservative views. But, of all the Republicans available, he picked the man who was the darling of the Rockefellers. Nor was the Rockefeller-Bush relationship any secret.
Campaign finance information had already revealed that prior to December 31,1979, the Bush for President campaign had received individual $1,000 contributions (the highest amount allowed by law) from David Rockefeller, Edwin Rockefeller, Helen Rockefeller, Laurance Rockefeller, Mary Rockefeller, Godfrey Rockefeller, and several other Rockefeller relatives and employees.
Staunch Reagan supporters frantically tried to stop the Bush nomination. But political considerations quickly forced them to go along. One after another, they began to state that their man was still at the top of the ticket. "It was Reagan-Bush, not Bush-Reagan," they said. But all had to admit that the issue of Trilateral domination of the Carter Administration could hardly be used with a Trilateralist veteran like Bush on the ticket.
Snip
For the critically important post of White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Reagan named James Baker III. The White House Chief of Staff determines who gets to see the President, what reading material will appear on his desk, and what his policy options might be on any given situation. But James Baker had fought against Ronald Reagan as the campaign manager for George Bush in 1980, and as a campaign staffer for Gerald Ford in 1976. He is a confirmed liberal who was an opponent of the philosophy enunciated by Mr. Reagan during the 1980 campaign. In his White House post, he leads a team of like-minded men who have virtually isolated the President from the many conservatives who supported his election bid.
Snip
Policy Reversals As President, Mr. Reagan has been given the image of a tough anti-communist and a frugal budget-cutter. But the images do not hold up under close scrutiny. Only one year after taking office, he acquiesced in the taxpayer-funded bailout of Poland's indebtedness to large international banks. Even worse, he skirted the law which mandates that any nation in such financial difficulty must be formally declared in default before the U.S. government could assume its debts. What made this action doubly revealing was that it occurred at the very time that thousands of Polish citizens had been incarcerated in a typical communist crackdown against even a slight semblance of freedom.
During 1981 and 1982, Ronald Reagan personally signed authorizations for the U.S. Export-Import Bank to finance nuclear steam turbines for communist Rumania and power generation equipment and a steel plant for communist China. (32) Tens of millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars are being provided for the industrialization of these Red tyrannies.
Also, Reagan Administration officials announced plans to sell arms to Red China; they told anti-communist businessmen in El Salvador that the U.S. would oppose efforts by any anti-communist Salvadorans to gain control of their country; and these same Administration officials refused to honor a pledge to supply Free Chinese on Taiwan with the fighter planes deemed necessary by the Chinese for defense.
Snip
More Reagan Duplicity At the halfway point of the Reagan four-year Presidential term, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office forecast budget deficits in the $150 billion range for the Reagan-directed fiscal years 1982, 1984 and 1985.34 Others insisted that the deficits would be even higher. The largest deficit in the nation's history, prior to the Reagan Administration, was $66 billion during the Ford years. Budget deficits, of course, translate into inflation, high interest rates, business slowdown, higher taxes, and unemployment. If federal spending were no more than federal revenue, if we had the benefit of a balanced budget in other words, some of these problems would be far less severe
. Shortly after he took office, Mr. Reagan twisted the arms of conservative senators and congressmen to get them to raise the ceiling on the national debt. Had he insisted on no further increases, the spiralling growth of government could have been checked. But instead, he used his influence to authorize more debt. Then he did the very same thing again eight months later, and again in 1982. As a result, interest on the debt alone grew to $117 billion for fiscal 1982.
In his State of the Union address on January 26, 1982, President Reagan again appealed to conservative Americans when he stated
: Raising taxes won't balance the budget. It will encourage more government spending and less private investment. Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production and destroy future jobs.... So, I will not ask you to try to balance the budget on the backs of the American taxpayers. I will seek no tax increases this year.
One result of the failure of the Reagan Administration to stand by the philosophy which brought the President to the White House is that conservatives everywhere have been blamed for the nation's woes. The congressional elections of 1982 amounted to a significant setback for the entire conservative movement. It seemed to many voters that the conservative program had been tried and found wanting. The truth is that the conservative program has yet to be tried. And the reason why it has not been tried is that the Insiders who surround Ronald Reagan are still in control.
Snip
Will America continue on a path which amounts to fiscal suicide? Will our government continue to build and support communism everywhere, while it works simultaneously to destroy the few remaining anti-communist nations? The John Birch Society wants to put an end to Insider control of the policies of this nation. If we are to succeed, the active help of many more Americans is needed in a massive educational crusade. Whether or not you decide to help will count heavily toward whether the future for this nation will be enslavement or freedom
. The Insiders are hoping that you will do nothing. But true Americans everywhere are asking for and counting on your help. The best kind of help you can give is active support for and membership in the John Birch Society.
My question was easy, what specifically did you disagree with in this article? Read it again if need be.
Gezzz Tex, why are you dancing around the simple question? Here I'll post it again.
My question was easy, what specifically did you disagree with in this article?
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.