Border Agent's Death Would Spark Impeachment Talks, Republican Says

CNS NEWS ^ | February 07, 2007 | Kevin Mooney and Fred Lucas

[Paul Ross]

Since that 2002 listing of facts, there have been far more, and deeper indications that cannot be laughed off as an over-stretch. The pushing for the Law of the Sea Treaty. The negotiations for the SPP without any salient authority whatsoever...with "fast track" pretextual authority being cavalierly asserted...despite that Congress never envisioned an Open Border...particularly as it demands a FENCE be deployed.

GWB is a globalist of the more dangerous stripe. You can hear the histrionic fanaticism every time he talks about "protectionism" and "isolationism" and "retreat", calling "cowards" those who disagree with his policies. He is not just a globalist, he actually is a bigotted one. Time to shut down this travelling road show.

My allegience to the USA as well.

And just what does allegiance mean to you?

[pissant]

Not to deny that he has any. But asides from the marginal tax cut, and the hopefully strict constructionist judges, I am forced to ask: Such as?

First and foremost. Bush's tax cuts (plural) were not marginal. They were enormous, when combined together, from a historical perspective. From the Tax foundation:

Tax Legislation Tax Cut in Billions of Current Dollars (a) Tax Cut in Billions of Constant 2003 Dollars Tax Cut as a Percent of National Income (b) Surplus or Deficit (-) as a Percentage of National Income (b)

The Kennedy Tax Cut (Revenue Act of 1964) ($11.50) ($54.90) -1.90% -1.00%

The Reagan Tax Cut (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) ($38.30) ($68.70) -1.40% -2.80%

Bush Tax Cuts:

Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 ($73.80) ($75.80) -0.80% 1.50%

Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 ($51.20) ($52.00) -0.60% -1.70%

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 ($60.80) ($60.80) -0.60% -3.20%

2001, 2002 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts if Combined in 2003 NA ($188.10) -2.00%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

This is WHY the economy has reacted the way it has.

the running roughshod over a balanced budget with his deficits

The FY2006 Budget Deficit Was $248 Billion/1.9 Percent Of GDP, Down From An Original February Projection Of $423 Billion/3.2 Percent Of GDP. At this level, the deficit is 0.4 percent below the 40-year average of 2.3 percent of GDP.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061011-6.html

This, despite fighting two hot wars on the other side of the world, and spending billions more on homeland security and building up the military.

and his trampling of fiscal sanity with the prescription meds, and his misconcieved increased federalizing of education

Bush ran on both of those issues in 2000. And on those I can agree they are liberal. However, Bush has supported school vouchers, charter schools, metric and testing, school choice and non discrimination against religious schools--which are all conservative positions. In addition, all the libs keep screaming that "no child left behind" is severely underfunded. So he obviously ain't follwoing the dems party line. He did what he said he would do.

not to mention the McCain/Feingold constitutional travesty

Yes McCain Feingold is an unconstitutional POS, and needs to be axed. The President had deep reservations about it and should not ahve signed it, instead hoping the court would expunge the unconstituional parts. Bush signing was a crappy deal he made with McCain to get McCain's campaign support in 2000. A faustian bargain, but one that resulted in GWB and not Algore being CIC. And for all of MFs sound and fury it did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to reduce money flowing to campaigns. It did not reduce ad money, it did not stop Moveon.org or the the Swiftboatvets or the NRA, it did not silence talk radio, it did not stop editorials, it did not limit campaign stops, rallies doorbelling, billboards, debates, TV appearnaces, etc, etc. So the effect that McCain Feingold had was the exact same effect, as all smart people knew it would be, that all the other dozens of unconstitutional campaign finance laws have done over the decades; namely nothing.

His multiculturalism is clearly liberal

What the hell does that mean? Did Bush create a dept of Multiculturalism. Did he start hiring diversity advisers? It's a nonsensical statement.

His Feminist rights stance in the military is clearly liberal

What are you smoking? Did Bush put a bunch of nags in charge of the Pentagon? Hire nags for the joint Chiefs? Order women into combat positions? Hire sensitivity coaches for the Military?

Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief...

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Bush caught a ton of flack for that, but he stood his ground.

His endorsement and continued pushing for totalization with Mexico is clearly liberal.

This is that globalist nonsense again. He's pushing no such thing, despite what the Jerome Corsi's & Savages of the world think. This ntion that he is a puppet of the Mexicans is absurd. He has allowed executions of mexicans by state governments DESPITE the howls of protest from Vincente and the boys. And despite the big brouhaha over the two recently sentenced BP agents, there have been MANY BP agent shootings of mezcans that were not prosecuted, much less reprimanded. Does Bush get credit for that? Nope, only if something bad happens, then the Birchers come out and protest.

His use of the liberal Harriet Meiers for his General Counsel for 6 years has severely damaged countless conservative causes, from sabotaging the reversing of affirmative action, to creating a climate where the Kelo decision could even happen.

Bush has had a VERY strong record on judge nominees, and obviously, Harriet Meiers was leading the screening process. Whether or not she herself was qualified, is certainly debatable (I certainly think he should not have selected her), but the federal bench has moved in the best direction under Bush than under any POTUS in recent history. And blaming Bush for Kelo is such a stretch that its not worth refuting.

[pissant]

Using the New American as a source is the equivalent for a liberal using the Nation as a source. I knew I saw some bircher fingerprints.

[pissant]

My Allegiance is to this country, its founding principles, and to its survival. And my goal is to see the federal government devolve itself back to the constraints of the constitution. There is no one here more conservative than I. I take the Constitution at its word, and the best decipehring of its intent is from those such as Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, Franklin, and others who participated in the crafting of it.

You would be very happy if I could be benevolent dictator for a year. I would shitcan 60% of the federal bureaucracy, vacate umpteen ridiculous SCOTUS decisions and have us start over with the laws of 1787, minus the slavery. I would also forcefully enforce the laws against sedition and treason so that libs would no longer undermine our wars.

That being said, I'm also a keen observer of politics as THEY ARE. And the constraints and forces that direct and limit what a president can do. And despite my anger at the shortcomings of the President, the politics over the last 50 years, and the nanny-state tendencies of large swaths of the electorate, I also realize that the freedoms we have are still the envy of the world. As our the opportunities. I sense a re-awakening of the ideals that this nation was founded on, and there is hope that the re-awakening will translate into devolution of power at the federal level. States and cities have always been free to be idiotic, as long as they did not directly violate specific constitutionally protected freedoms, so I don't worry or concentrate on them as much. If Idaho wants to ban gay bars, fine. If san fran wants to spend its tax money opening them, fine. I don't care. I care and will continue to fight for constitutionalism and for the ability for us to crush our enemies.

GWB is a globalist of the more dangerous stripe

You are so far off base, its laughable. Try this instead:

Did Bush suspend the abortion $ that was going to foreign aid, reversing a clintoon exec order?

Did Bush unilaterally withdraw from the ABM?

Did Bush reject the Kyoto protocol against world condemnations?

Did Bush give the harshest speech to the UN it ever received in the lead up to the Iraq war?

Did Bush appoint John Bolton over the UN's and the Dems vociferous objections?

Did Bush unilaterally reject the International Criminal Court?

Is Bush the only world leader who gave Israel cover to pound Hezbollah?

Did Bush give in and stop the NSA surveillance program because europe complained?

Did Bush conquer Iraq despite the UN telling him not to invade?

Did Bush allow bombings of a terrorist pow-wow accross the Pakistani border without UN approval?

Did he allow a hellfire missile to take out some terror scum in Yemen w/o UN approval of an attack on yemeni soil?

Did Bush put up steel tarrifs for a year despite the gnashing of teeth from the GATT and our allies?

Did Bush play hardball with the Canadians on soft lumber for the last 5 years? Did Bush play hardball with the canadians on salmon fishing harvests in 2001/2002?

Is Bush pushing for nuclear power plants, more coal plants and drilling in ANWR despite the howls of the global warming cretins and envirowackos?

Do our troops operate anywhere in the world under the UN banner or did Bush sign an executive order prohibiting it?

Is Bush heeding the UN and other world critics about the need to ban the death penalty?

Did Bush close down Guantanamo or any other prison despite the international condemnation?

Did Bush send Rummy to NATO to get along with the status quo or to pull it out of its stupor?

Did Bush sit down for one on one talks with NoKo because Kofi Annan and the globalists said he must?

Is Bush offering Japan and Israel and Australia and Britain our missile defense systems because Russia and China approve?

Is Bush pushing for NATO expansion despite Russia foaming at the mouth and the euroweenies cowering about it?

Did Bush and Cheney call Putin on the carpet because it would smooth international relations?

Who, besides Bush and the Pope, call on China to open up to political and religious freedom?

Who was the ONLY president to EXPLICITLY say we will defend Taiwan against a chinese aggression?

Which world leader told the UN to pound sand and caused it's gun grabbing conference on small arms control to flop?

Who said that we will treat any regime that sponsors terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves?

Who is the only world leader pushing hard to isloate Iran over the nuclear program?

Did Bush allow the execution of Mexican criminals over the screeching objections of the Mexican gov't?

Who is pushing for massive UN reform?

Who has been insisting on a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Who spearheaded the arms shipment interception policy with a handful of other countries that did not ask the UN for approval, and which led to busting Kaddafi?

Which country is putting the kabash on UN talks regarding international taxation?

Who is having troops operate in the horn of Africa w/o UN approval?

Which leader has called the islamo fascists islamo fascists?

Is Bush content with the status quo in the ME or is he ramrodding changes down their throats?

Has Bush lifted the sanctions on Cuba due to international pressure, or did he up the fines to Americans that travel there?

Did Bush cave into the euroweenies who complained about the size of the corporate tax cuts he signed into law?

Who just lined his birdcage with the worldwide heavily touted Iraq Survey Group report?

Is Bush sitting down with the Mullahs and boy Assad since all the other Arab nations and Europeans are begging us to?

Is Bush buying into the French and leftist and paleocon arguments that Iraq is creating more terrorists or is he sticking to his guns and snuffing them?

Did Bush wait for UN and Arab league approval to send in AC-130 gunships and exterminate Somali jihadis last week?

Is Bush seeking world approval for helping the Ethiopians and patrolling the Somali Coast.

Does Bush really care that the rest of the world thinks sending warships to the Persian Gulf "inflames tensions"?

Did Bush authorize the snatching of Iranian "envoys" in Iraq the last few weeks against all worldly protocols?

Did Bush hand over Saddam and his henchmen to the Iraq gov't for execution, or did he listen to the counsel of Kofi, Tony Blair, Chirac, etc?

Has Bush veto'd all the hugely lopsided condemnation votes of Israel in the UN over the last 6 years, or is he going along to get along?

[Paul Ross]

First and foremost. Bush's tax cuts (plural) were not marginal. They were enormous, when combined together, from a historical perspective.

First you show no real appreciation for the economics term of art, "marginal" we're talking marginal tax rates. And by your own admission, the rates of cuts were marginal...you quantified them.

I.e.,

The Reagan Tax Cut (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) ($38.30) ($68.70) -1.40% -2.80%

Bush Tax Cuts:
2001, 2002 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts if Combined in 2003 NA ($188.10) -2.00%

I certainly believe Bush's tax policies started in the right direction. He is getting some of the benefits that Reagan got, as shown here at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

[nitzy]

I expect that there are plenty of like minded people visiting this site.

present

[Paul Ross]

... my observations yield the conclusion that we have an overwhelming pack of thugs, liars, and crooks in Washington who disdain law and worship money and power above all things...

Bump! This is the real danger for all representative governments.

Corruption from within.

By chance did you happen to see on C-SPAN, Brian Lamb's Q&A interview with U.S. Senator Thomas Coburn from Oklahoma?

I hadn't had a chance to see this fresham Republican Senator until now. I was impressed...at least from the issue of governmental integrity, accountability and transparency. Perhaps one of the most passionate and serious of Capitol Hill culture-reformers we may have.

[B4Ranch]

April 12, 1952 – John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, that "treaty laws can override the Constitution." He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights. A Senate amendment, proposed by GOP Senator John Bricker, would have provided that no treaty could supersede the Constitution, but it fails to pass by one vote.

Take time to read the source page and you'll get really ticked off.

source

[ViLaLuz]

"Who the hell is running this country? Third world dictators and monsters?"

Global elitists. You ready for the North American Union?

[freekitty]

I think I am going to throw up.

[murdoog]

battletank's original point was that immigration has reached "critical mass" and he provided evidence.

I personally don't find it a horrible inconvenience to hit an extra button on the ATM, but I don't think that's the point. The point is that all these changes are evidence that we have lost control of our borders.