Nope... it's not incompetent buffoon Ziglar. He's a yes man... he does what the boss tells him to do.
A dead fish rots from the head. Enough.
Posted on 10/31/2002 9:15:37 AM PST by madfly
| INDIANAPOLIS TV journalist Bill O’Reilly blasted federal immigration officials for releasing juvenile sniper suspect John Lee Malvo last year instead of deporting him back to Jamaica. In a speech Wednesday, O’Reilly reiterated allegations he aired on his FOX News program this week: that an Immigration and Naturalization Service agent altered an arrest report, allowing Malvo to be released after the Border Patrol had arrested him last year as an illegal alien. Malvo, 17, is the alleged accomplice of D.C. sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad. The pair has been arrested and charged with 13 shootings and 10 deaths in Maryland and Virginia earlier this month. Last year, Malvo and his mother fled Jamaica and illegally slipped into Washington state as stowaways on a ship. They were arrested by Border Patrol agents. But the INS bureau chief in Seattle took the Border Patrol arrest report and changed the charges against Malvo, O’Reilly alleged. The result was that Malvo was not deported — and then joined up with Muhammad on their alleged killing spree. The INS agent’s actions “allowed John Malvo to get out of detention and run around this country — and you know what he did,” O’Reilly asserted. O’Reilly is the blunt and outspoken host of “The O’Reilly Factor” on FOX News Channel. He’s known for his confrontational interview style and for tackling topics other media outlets won’t touch. Although usually described as a conservative, O’Reilly denounced U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft — a Republican — for refusing to comment or to announce an investigation. Both the INS and the Border Patrol are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Justice Department, which the attorney general heads. “The reason is, he’s arrogant,” O’Reilly fumed. “They (politicians) don’t want anybody — you or me — telling them what to do. They lose sight of the fact that we are their bosses. They work for us; we don’t work for them. Their duty is to protect us.” Speaking to a packed house Wednesday at Hilbert Circle Theatre in Indianapolis, O’Reilly argued that the INS needs a complete reorganization. He suggested the U.S. military be deployed to secure America’s borders with Canada and Mexico. “We have (U.S.) troops guarding South Korea from North Korea on the border. We have troops in Bosnia keeping the Croats from the Serbs. We’ve got troops in Kosovo keeping the Albanians from the Serbs. Why can’t we guard our borders?” Such measures would stop illegal immigration and greatly diminish narcotics trafficking, he contended. O’Reilly — who often hearkens back to his Irish-Catholic roots in New York — was quick to add that the vast majority of undocumented aliens “are the nicest people on earth, who you’d love to have living next door to you.” But a small portion is criminal, he said. “What if the sniper had been in Indiana instead of Maryland, Virginia and D.C.? What if your family — what if you — had gone out to work that day or gone to Ponderosa and – bang – you got a bullet in the head from a guy who should have been deported — who (the INS) had?” O’Reilly said. “And then you find out that the INS agent on his own falsified this (Border Patrol arrest) report — and then you find out the attorney general won’t even investigate it. How would you feel?” A Border Patrol agent appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday and leveled the allegations about the INS agent setting Malvo free last year. Having criticized Attorney General Ashcroft on the air, O’Reilly expected harsh reaction from his viewers. But of 10,000 e-mails sent to FOX News Channel since the show, only about 100 chided O’Reilly for blasting Ashcroft, O’Reilly said. O’Reilly defended his program as a watchdog on government. “On ‘The Factor,’ we have to keep these people in line — and embarrass them sometimes,” he explained. O’Reilly’s speech was sponsored by American United Life Insurance Co. and the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library Foundation. |
I agree completely. O'Reilly is an equal opportunity basher....if someone deserves it, I don't care what party they're associated.
What O'Reilly doesn't mention, is that Muhammed is suspected of trafficking in illegal aliens, using fake &/or stolen documents, in order to fund his terror campaign. This can also be attributed to INS ineptness.
Having criticized Attorney General Ashcroft on the air, O’Reilly expected harsh reaction from his viewers.
I’m not sure why he would think this when almost 70% of Americans agree immigration policy & the INS needs to be fixed.
Might be a good idea to start checking whether or not this Bureau Chief has outside income as well, e.g. like maybe from Malvo's sugar-daddy, Mr. Muhammad!
How is that possible? Democrats are too busy signing up voters and Republicans are too busy recruiting cheap labor.
On the INS: Doris Meissner was head of the INS during the Clinton Administration, when Bill Clinton tasked Al Gore with "Re-Inventing Government". The cornerstone of that much ballyhooed achievement was Al Gore boasting how he had "Streamlined the INS". We found out later that was code for allowing illegal aliens to flood into the country so they could vote in the 1996 presidential election.
Al Gore totally corrupted the INS, he did it to benefit Clinton/Gore's re-election. Only now is it becoming known how broken INS really is. Explaining how it got that way, to the American people, so that the Bush Administration can fix it, is imperative.
When the Bush Administration attempts to clean up INS, (and he better do it way before the 2004 election heats up, we know Democrats will play the race card, accusing the Bush administration of unfairly treating black and brown immigrants.
I'm glad that Bill O'Reilly has taken up the illegal alien issue. He has made excellent points.
but Bill O’Reilly does'n want the Truth
Nope... it's not incompetent buffoon Ziglar. He's a yes man... he does what the boss tells him to do.
A dead fish rots from the head. Enough.
| Clinton's Power Grab Through Executive Orders |
|
|
|
January 20, 1999
Faced with a Republican Congress unwilling to grant him all the powers he wants, Bill Clinton has unleashed a blizzard of Executive Orders to grab new authority for the executive branch, make broad public policy changes, and even restructure our governmental system. Executive Orders have a proper place in federal rulemaking and in implementing the routine business of the executive departments. But Clinton has discovered that Presidential Executive Orders function in a Never Never Land of almost unlimited power, and he is pressing the envelope to move his agenda, both domestic and foreign. Clinton advanced three of his favorite goals when he issued Executive Order (EO) 13107 on December 10. He increased executive branch authority, he moved America closer into the "web" of treaties, which he promised in his address to the United Nations on September 22, 1997, and he rewarded the feminists who are standing by him in his impeachment trial. EO 13107, entitled Implementation of Human Rights Treaties, sets up an Interagency Working Group, with representatives from major federal departments, to implement our alleged "obligations" under the many United Nations treaties on human rights "to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future." Clinton's impudence in presuming to implement treaties that the Senate has refused to ratify is becoming characteristic. Congress had to pass legislation last year to forbid him from using funds to implement the Global Warming Treaty, which the Senate won't ratify. The first treaty listed in EO 13107 is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the UN in 1966, signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977, and ratified by the Senate during George Bush's Administration in 1992. Aggressive implementation of this treaty can open up a can of worms in regard to our First Amendment rights, criminal law, and unique system of federalism. The treaty's repeated references to the elimination of sex discrimination are just what the radical feminists want in order to "implement" their exotic judicial interpretations of sex. The treaty's Article 23 even binds governments "to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses during marriage," one of the UN "rights" to be monitored by the Article 28 "Human Rights Committee" on which the United States may have only one out of 18 members. Among the unratified UN human rights treaties that could be "implemented" under EO 13107 is the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Administrations all rejected this treaty because it refuses to recognize one of the most fundamental American economic rights, the right to own property. This UN treaty would bind us "to take steps," including "legislative measures," to the "maximum" of our resources in order to achieve "full realization" of "adequate food, clothing and housing" of everyone in the world. It would bind us "to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need." The unratified UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would bring about massive UN interference in family life, education, daycare, health care, and standard of living. Article 43 sets up a committee of ten UN "experts" to monitor the raising of children and our "progress" in complying with the treaty's "obligations." The UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) would require us to follow UN/feminist dictates about "customs and practices," "social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," "family education," and even revision of textbooks. The Clinton Administration has already started implementing this unratified treaty through the project launched after the 1995 UN Conference on Women called "Bring Beijing Home." The term Executive Order does not appear in the Constitution, but the President's authority derives from his Article II, Section 3 power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The validity of particular Executive Orders has often been questioned, but neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has defined the extent of their power, and courts have rarely invalidated or even reviewed EOs. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed a national emergency and issued wide-reaching Executive Orders, notably his 1933 bank holiday and prohibition on private possession of gold, but those orders were subsequently ratified by Congress. The notorious EO 9066, under which some Japanese-Americans were interned during World War II, was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court under FDR's war powers. In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Harry Truman's EO 10340 to seize the nation's steel mills. In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated Clinton's EO 12954, which attempted to prohibit federal agencies from doing business with companies that had permanently replaced strikers. Clinton attempts to insulate his Executive Orders against judicial review. He included a clause in EO 13107 declaring that it "does not impose any justiciable obligations on the executive branch." It's time to stop Clinton's unprecedented use of Executive Orders to implement ratified and unratified treaties. Our freedom and independence are at stake.  Phyllis Schlafly column 1-20-99
Call your Congressmen and tell them to repeal this Executive Order.
CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD: (202) 224-3121
|
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.