Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
Calls State of the Union speech 'total sellout of the United States of America to Mexico'
Monica Ramos, the wife of one of two U.S. Border Patrol agents imprisoned last week for wounding an escaping drug smuggler, attended the State of the Union speech in person last night – and was sharply critical of President Bush, calling him a hypocrite and worse.
Ramos, wife of Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, attended the event as a guest of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences last week, of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them.
At the conclusion of the speech, Ramos, emotional and in tears, told WND in an exclusive interview, that she considered President Bush's speech compete hypocrisy.
"How could President Bush say that he wanted to secure our borders and that he would double the size of the Border Patrol when my husband is in prison," she asked WND. "Ignacio was trying to secure our border from drug smugglers. And what do we get? I have to show my children their father in prison in chains and I have to explain to them that the president of the United States is a liar."
WND waited nearly an hour after the speech was concluded to be able to speak with a clearly emotionally upset Monica Ramos.
"President Bush can say all he wants that the solution to border security is new infrastructure and technology," Ramos told WND, "but as long as my husband is in jail the American people should know that President Bush doesn't mean a word he says."
"What I sat in the gallery and heard tonight," she said, "was a total sell-out of the United States of America to Mexico. I heard President Bush's message loud and clear. All the president has to offer is electronic gadgets. Meanwhile, our borders are wide open to illegal immigrants, criminals and drug smugglers. God help the honest men and women of the Border Patrol who want to do their duty. It's a losing battle – just ask my husband, he'll tell you the truth."
"The American people only need to ask me," Ramos pleaded to WND. "Tell America that President Bush doesn't mean a word of what he says about border security. My husband is in jail for trying to capture a drug smuggler and President Bush wants electronics? My husband is a hero and President Bush is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. Let him tell my children that he wants new 'infrastructure' or 'comprehensive immigration reform' when their dad who wore the Border Patrol badge for years is shackled and in chains for doing his job."
Rohrabacher agreed with Ramos, emphasizing to WND that "the Bush administration has a hidden agenda with Mexico and that agenda is to keep our border with Mexico wide open, even to drug smugglers."
Asked what message he wanted to send by inviting Ramos' wife to attend the speech in person, Rohrabacher explained: "I wanted to give Mrs. Ramos the opportunity to be in the room and look President Bush right in the face, knowing that this was the man who was destroying her life by his decision to prosecute her husband to the hilt."
Rohrabacher described the injustice he perceived in emotional terms: "By prosecuting these two Border Patrol agents while the drug smuggler is given immunity, President Bush has brutalized the lives of agents Ramos and Compean with a decision that threatens to destroy their families. The wives and the young children of these two Border Patrol agents are now being driven into poverty. The families have no health insurance, they are now losing their homes, and they face a mountain of debt to lawyers. This is a travesty of justice and a personal tragedy that should make President Bush ashamed.
Asked if he had achieved his purpose in inviting Monica Ramos to attend the speech, Rohrabacher told WND:
My purpose after hearing the State of the Union tonight is doubly resolved. President Bush needs to know that we will not rest until Border Patrol [officers] Ramos and Compean are set free.
In history there are cases where heroic people were brutalized and sacrificed by political powers in order to achieve a certain agenda. In this case, I think that's what's happening.
We have an administration that has a hidden agenda with Mexico such that George Bush wants an open border, even though an open border is not in the interests of the American people.
These Border Patrol agents are caught in the middle. They're Americans and they know what their job is supposed to be. They are being persecuted and prosecuted for our sake because they are getting in the way of a power play that has yet been disclosed to the public.
It brutalizes the lives and destroys the families of men who have been willing to sacrifice their lives for us for the last five and 10 years. This is both a tragedy and a travesty.
The continued insistence of the administration to prosecute these Border Patrol agents and to put them in jail and to shackle them and see the families of these men being driven into destitution – this indicates that there has been a decision right at the top that's based on arrogance and cruelty that I think unfortunately reflects our president. It's a side of the president that is now coming out.
We get calls back from the underlings, the assistant congressional liaison officers. This president doesn't return phone calls and he is arrogant and nasty and doesn't treat people very well, not even members of Congress.
The statement we're trying to make is that the president's policy along the border is responsible for murders, drug dealers and terrorists entering the country, millions of illegals. His policy has resulted in the undermining of those law enforcement officers guarding the border, he has totally demoralized the Border Patrol, and in the process of him trying to send a message to the Border Patrol he's destroying the lives of two families. … This person looking right into the face of the president in the same room, this mother of three, her life is being destroyed by President Bush's decision to fully prosecute to the hilt her husband.
American citizens need to rally around these two Border Patrol agents and should call the White House directly to register their protest to this travesty of justice.
President Bush made no reference to the Border Patrol case in a 50-minute speech that focused on domestic issues in the first half and international issues in the second half.
Monica Ramos told WND she was in Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting yesterday afternoon with concerned congressmen.
At least 70 members of the House have signed on to a resolution ordering a congressional pardon that would toss out the convictions and immediately free the former agents.
Monica Ramos described her first meeting with her husband in prison as "heart breaking."
Ramos confirmed the account provided WND by her father, Joe Loya. She acknowledged her husband is being held in solitary confinement in a 6-by-12 foot cell, without windows. Ignacio Ramos is not being allowed any exercise time, and he is shackled every time he leaves his cell.
"This may be for his protection from other inmates," Monica Ramos acknowledged to WND, "but this is abusive. They are treating my husband like the worst hardened criminal imaginable."
She said one of her three young children is so disturbed by the imprisonment that the family has decided to seek counseling for the child.
"My children are planning to visit their father for the first time this Friday," she said, expressing concern. "This will be the first time they see their dad shackled in chains, when they are used to seeing me send him off in his badge and uniform."
The couple's youngest child is 7 years old, the others are aged 9 and 13.
"My youngest child wanted to know if we could order pizza for dad in prison," Monic Ramos said. "No, I told him. Let's wait and have pizza night when daddy gets home."
And I don't have to "weasel" out of anything, merely point out that you do not understand the difference.
Here's another thing, a "red herring" doesn't start by identifying itself as irony. That, much like your speculation that I am "crying" about being insulted, might make you feel like you're a donut, but on closer scrutiny makes you the hole.
Why hold back. Why not critique GWB. If the jury was right GWB will not override the jury out of POLITICAL fears. If the jury was wrong GWB will not override the jury out of political fears.
I am very sorry however I voted for GWB twice. He is an arrogant SOB who is only doing what he wants to do regardless of what the world will think.
His father was a president, Dubya is a loser !
He will sit on his A$$ and ignore this entire thing because he does not want to offend the USA, Mexico, Law Enforcement, those who prefer pardons blah blah blah, Dubya is a loser
I see we're back in Cuba, again. Are you suggesting that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texaqs lied about the testimony of Agents Compean and Ramos? On official letterhead? And no one, not the judge, the jury, the defendants, or their attorneys were able to make each other understand that the U.S. Attorney lied to them?
Can you imagine the howls if some jurors decided to let a terrorist walk because they disagreed with Bush's foreign policy? That's the slope we're on, folks.
It's great when a leader can create a vision that people can 'latch' on to. The problem is, everyone has their own ideas of what he should do, so few listened to his 'vision'.
Bush does not have a sense of the importance of acting ruthlessly in politics.
I don't think being ruthless in politics is the way to get the people to support you. I don't think he tried to pretend to be politically ruthless when he was running for office, so no one should be surprised.
A good war president must be willing to be ruthless both to the enemies abroad and the enemies within.
I agree, we should take the gloves off. But I don't think that would have garnered the support of those who have been against him. More war dead isn't going to get the liberals and RINOS on his side. Spending more money on the war wouldn't get the 'true conservatives' on his side. I think he's just been trying to do what he thinks is best. Doesn't always turn out just the way we'd like, but isn't that true of all human beings?
A leader would have insisted that Berger go to jail for the rest of his life and made it clear that purloining classified documents at a time of war is an act of war.
Bush can express opinions on that, but I don't believe that is within his powers to carry it out.
two border patrol agents who shoot a fleeing drug dealer and potential terrorist in the a$$ get socked with a 12 year sentence.
Just curious. If this had been a drug dealer in one of our cities and two city policemen, would you be as upset? At any rate, I can't debate that issue, because I don't have all the facts.
What kind of leadership is that?
Based on your comments, it sounds as though ramming things through Congress, overstepping Presidential authority, and being politically ruthless are the hallmarks of a leader in your view. I can't say I would share the same view of leadership.
Further Bush should have been on the radio and television and on the stump all over the country asking people to support his efforts in the war on terror and asking people to make their own sacrifices in this cause so that the war is a nationally shared event and not merely Bush's war.
I would have liked to have seen that myself. But again, I don't see that winning over the liberals, RINOS - they'd be complaining about him only being out for photo ops. The 'true conservatives' would be complaining about him spending money.
This is now Bush's war.
It's my war too, and the war of all those who know that we needed to go after Saddam, and that we need to continue to fight the radicals there instead of here. If more don't start supporting his efforts, the liberals and RINOs will be emboldened and WILL yank funding for the war. Not a good result for any of us.
Great leaders do not squander the opportunity to be great, they seize the moment.
Great leaders need willing followers or they cannot be leaders. The things I see said on FR are as hateful as any I've heard from liberals. It's a shame, really.
These fellas are there doing a job....
Going a bit far there arent you.
No, I don't think so. Some people on this thread were speaking of jury nullification.
I believe that police should have the right to shoot a fleeing felon.
Up until 1985 the common law rule was that in order to protect the public safety, any felony suspect who attempted to escape after being told to stop by the police could be shot. The streets of America are less safe today because of the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner.
Today any felony suspect (rape, murder, child kidnapping, whatever), who is attempting to escape and is not directly posing an immediate deadly threat to public or the police cannot be shot. And they know it. So what do they have to lose by running?
What has ever become of the case of Dog the Bounty Hunter? Is there anything we won't do to appease the Mexican government?
That's the only way to shoot.
Wrong.
GREAT leaders create willing followers. If you cannot garner followers, then you are not a leader.
Bush's approval ratings right now are around 22%. You cannot claim that he is a great leader. At this point he is not even a mediocre leader.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the outrage on this case. These two agents may be the most incompetent pair of law enforcement officers in history (and if they're as bad as some of these stories have made them out to be, I believe their hiring was bordering on a negligent act itself). But even if they were - so what? What good has this case accomplished?
If these two gentlemen really did that poor of a job as border agents, take their badges and discharge them. Maybe you could even argue they could be prosecuted. But to give immunity to an illegal alien drug dealer in exchange for testimony? What kind of message is that sending? We've sent the message to a parasite third world nation that we're willing to overlook crimes by their invading citizens if they're willing to perform certain acts in our legal system. Is this really any way to discourage the run on our borders? Where was the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor?
Would you not support jury nullification in a trial on unconstitutional gun laws, for instance?
He was not shot in the back. He was shot in the side of the buttocks and a bullet fragment wound up in his right groin. The Doctor that removed the bullet fragment testified that the smuggler was in a "bladed stance" facing in the general direction of the officer when he was struck. This supports Ramos' contention that Aldrete-Davila turned and pointed what looked to be a gun at him. Ramos had to make a split second decision and drew his gun in self defense.
How incredibly true that is.
In war, generals have made it a point of reading the nature of their opponents. They study their personal, tactical, and strategic weaknesses (and strengths.)
President Bush is no exception. Both his foreign and domestic enemies have noted his tendencies. We can count on that.
But, let's go beyond that. It is time (or incredibly close to it) to move from the cheering section to the analysts booth. We must choose a new leader in 2 years, and it's good to know the weaknesses we want to avoid and the strengths we want to encourage.
It is not disloyalty to Pres. Bush to begin dissecting his performance with withering honesty. In the same way that our system demands that we give a President steadfast backing, it also demands that near the end of that presidency we get brutally honest about good and bad performance; strong and weak characteristics.
That analysis should form some template for determining what we're looking for in the man who will replace the sitting president.
The system forces us to this. We would be grossly negligent not to do it.
The Bush Team has miserably failed at public communication and information warfare. If there's any weakness that stands head and shoulders above the rest, this is the one I would choose.
They have been playing defense for nearly 4 years now, and they absolutely abhor going on the offense. The last truly aggressive behavior on this administration's part was in its first year. The fight for Florida against Gore and the resolve to strike back against Al-Qaeda both showed stiff backbone that must have been the only backbone allowance that had been granted this crew.
The most egregious mistake in the war has been the failure to include the general public in the war effort. It's hard to fight a war when the nation thinks it's bread and circus as usual. And if you tell me that that was the media's fault, then go to my first criticism above about information warfare.
There's more, but these are those that will form part of what I'm looking for in the next republican candidate.
Thank you. Interesting etymology of that phrase.
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.