Posted on 06/16/2006 10:41:38 AM PDT by Small-L
President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.
In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.
Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.
"The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport," Poe said. "We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States."
Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.
"The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them," Poe said. "We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them."
In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.
Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.
"The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs," said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. "Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time."
Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.
"It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues," Glancey said. "He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes."
The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.
Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.
"We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late," Poe said. "We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction."
Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.
"The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security," Ramirez said. "It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border."
I agree. I doubt that either Gore or Kerry would have done much to stop the influx. The Democrats have a vested interest in promoting the mass immigration by irregular migrants (to use the politically correct UN term).
I also believe George Bush has no desire to make a serious effort to stem the flow of "irregular migrants" because of his social upbringing and relationship with business interests (Chamber of Commerce, etc.).
Julie Myers was on F&F this morning. She's really cute. Just as cute as a bug. Just as cute as her pictures. Did I say she's cute?
it is for real.
Thanks for your description of the video. In light of what you said, I think some of the claims previously made about that video were grossly misleading.
"If you would allow our sovereignty to be surrendered you are no patriot."
No? If the United States of America, through its constitutional system, forms an alliance with other nations, then nothing is surrendered. There's nothing in the Constitution regarding the extent of the USA. The USA could easily be comprised of the current states, plus the states of Mexico and the provinces of Canada, and the Constitution would still be in place.
The USA has changed a great deal since 1776. A great deal. It's much larger now, and may well grow larger still. If it happens according to the Constitution, then patriots will be those who continue to defend the Constitution.
We already have a couple of states that were once part of Mexico. We may, one day, have more. Baja California could be the 51st state, perhaps. So it goes.
The USA has never been static in its makeup. Hawaii and Alaska were added as states within my memory, and perhaps yours.
Again, so it goes.
The Constitution does not prohibit adding additional states to the USA. If it is done according to the Constitution, then I must defend that, having sworn an oath to do so.
Well said dirtboy, great comments as usual.
And the United States of America loses while you cheer him on. Amazing.
No, you don't get it. I'm one of a group of volunteers who post one of the daily threads here. I research the President's schedule for that reason -- to inform other FReepers who are interested in the info.
"And the United States of America loses while you cheer him on. Amazing."
Who's cheering him on? I'm just saying what is going on. The progress of globalism has been going on for a long time, now. Are you surprised? Why?
Again, the American people will speak in November, then again in 2008. My expectation is that they will, as they have done for a long, long time, vote for moderates. They have done it again and again, for a long time.
I'm not cheering. I'm telling you how it is. If you see any evidence that it's about to change, please let me know. Just look at who is being proposed for the 2008 election from both parties. More of the same.
Don't mistake my cynicism about realpolitik as it is in the USA with praise.
And if the formation of a North American superstate would mean the abandonment of the Constitution?
Canada and Mexcio would never allow their governments to be dissolved and their provinces to become states of the Republic. Nor would they allow their sovereign countries to be considered only states.
Assuming that's the case our Constitution (or at the very least significant parts of it) would have to be abandoned in order to create a superstate.
That is something that no patriot could allow so I'm glad to hear that you would defend to Constitution.
I think Bush is an economic globalist who also happens to believe in American POLITICAL sovereignty. I admit that at times there are conflicts between these two positions, as when provisions of NAFTA or the WTO agreements seem to impinge upon our sovereingty. But Bush has stood against Kyoto, the World Criminal Court, the U.N., and other aspects of political globalism. Moreover, he doesn't give a rip about world opinion of the European elites. So, on the whole, he is preferable to any Democrat I can think of. But he is most definity not a Patrick Buchanan.
They are already pi$$ing and moaning, one said "Well it is only a small Mexican flag President Bush is waving"
I have a feeling the next election is going to be very hard to predict. Both parties are on the verge of splitting, both are beset with weak leadership, and both are ignoring key concerns in this country along with looming problems - heck, they're making them worse.
We're going to reach a tipping point eventually that will probably toss the Dems into a junk heap. What might emerge would probably be hard to classify as either liberal or conservative by today's labels - a lot of folks across the board are getting concerned about labor and security issues and don't share the globalist vision any longer.
Who on the Left is spouting anti-immigration rhetoric?
"And if the formation of a North American superstate would mean the abandonment of the Constitution?
Canada and Mexcio would never allow their governments to be dissolved and their provinces to become states of the Republic. Nor would they allow their sovereign countries to be considered only states.
"
Nonsense. Canada and Mexico would as easily do so as the USA would. However, an alliance does not mean a loss of sovereignty. My expectation is that the three countries will retain their political independence, but form economic alliances that include free travel and work for citizens of all three. That's not unconstitutional by any definition. Indeed, our Constitution has provisions for treaties of all sorts.
We are headed, unstoppably, I think, toward a EU-type of an alliance, with at least Canada and Mexico, and probably with more nations to the south. The stage has been slowly set for decades, now. I do not see any way it will not happen at some point, given the momentum already established.
I'm an old man of 60, but I expect to see this in my lifetime. It will be very interesting, to be sure. In my lifetime, I have seen enormous changes in the geo-political spectrum. Europe is a very different place than it was when I was born. Asia is even more different than it was. I expect North America to follow. It seems to be the direction things are going.
You want to fight this change. OK. Go for it. I'm just telling you that your battle will be a losing one. Momentum is on the other side.
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.