Impeach Bush! (Joseph Farah On Upholding American Sovereignty Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/31/05 | Joseph Farah

[MNJohnnie]

You do realize of course that all the legislation on Illegals has come FROM Republicans? Why are the Cast Iron Republicans so desperate to continually attack Bush instead of actually helping the lobby effort to actually PASS some legislation on this issue? Wonder why you are all so desperate to play ball with the DNC considering the DEMOCRATS DO NOT EVEN HAVE A BILL????? Go ahead, but Like McCain and Hagel, Republicans will remember those who grandstand, like Buchanan and Farah, and those who actually DO something other then whine. So if any "Conservative" is stupid enough to cut their own political throat, go ahead and try this trick.

[macamadamia]

I have to wonder about those who voted for Bush in 04 but call for his impeachment NOW. They are hypocrites. Bush didn't solve the border problem BEFORE 04! So why would anyone, knowing that the president was doing something impeachable, vote to put that same man back in office? Where were these "courageous" calls for impeachment....BEFORE November?


That said, I think impeachment would be a disaster. Does anyone think the Dem party will sit back and avoid all the rich opportunities given them by their opposition? They and the MSM will utterly disempower the right. It will be a blood bath. And then most likely a Dem will be elected in 08. The border issue will be ignored by the Dems AND the MSM. And illegal immigration will continue its cancerous way. And God forbid how we will deal with terrorism.

[ricoshea]

Buchanan and his intense hatred of the Bushes should be set aside.We have the worst natural disaster in our history right now and people are suffering.
Impeaching Bush especially now would make the wheels come completely off this country.

[dsc]

"Simply because it's near impossible to seal our borders without deploying 3/4 of a million troops on the border"

Ever heard of motion sensors? Concertina wire? Land mines? Machine guns? Cobra gunships? Artillery?

There's not an officer or senior noncom in the Army who couldn't shut that border down in a month, and it wouldn't take more than a thousand troops.

Those people aren't NVA sappers; they're civilian turkeys who aren't willing to die for a chance at a below-minimum-wage job.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The answer is B.

After the attack, they will cram through every evil thing they ever wanted, including rushing through the damned North American Community.

For your own good, of course.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Impeach Bush!

Jim: please take out the trash more regularly. Thank you.

[NJ_gent]

"Or Osama could come by sea anywhere along our thousands of miles of coastline, by container,"

We should be inspecting 100% of all containers and cargo entering the US. It is doable, and it's vital to our security to do so. Otherwise, terrorists could just as easily ship some nukes here, then stroll across our open borders and pick them up for later use. Not a safe situation. We need to beef up the Coast Guard, inspect all containers, and secure all borders.

"walk across the Canadian border in one of million unpopulated locations"

While I agree that our northern border is not well secured either, we at least have far less threat vectors from that direction. Our Canadian neighbors may not be great with their anti-terrorism policies, but they do at least exist. We have cooperation between our intelligence agencies, and Canada isn't about to allow Osama to fly right in and make himself at home.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our southern neighbors. Aside from the governments sympathetic to Osama (I can see Venezuela inviting him to fly in), there are plenty to our South that just don't give a damn. They're not checking who's coming into their country because they don't care and they don't have the money to do anything if they did care. That leaves ample opportunity for Osama and his henchmen to fly into any one of various countries, then make the land trek into the US. So long as they take along some bribe money, it's not as though they'd have any difficulty making it past any Mexican police encountered along the way.

We're already catching a lot of African and Middle Eastern illegals crossing our southern border. I haven't heard of anything like that happening on the Canadian border. That said, I'd certainly support beefing up the secure along that border as well. Perhaps the USBP could shift all operations to the Canadian border once the southern border is militarized.

"Nevertheless, doubling the border guard would have little affect on any of the above."

We can bring illegal immigration across our southern border to a halt. An Israeli style wall with constant patrols by trained military personnel would prevent virtually every crossing and would quickly identify those willing to use force to enter this country illegally.

"This is a big country with thousand and thousands of miles of border/sea crossings with millions of tons of trade passing over them daily."

Sea crossings are difficult to do to begin with, as you have to have ships capable of traveling for extended periods over the open ocean. I doubt Osama wants to spend a few months out at sea; nor would his terrorist buddies. Chances are, they'll fly into the closest country they can safely enter and then attempt to enter the US from there. We cannot secure every inch of coastline, but we can make it extremely difficult for ships capable of making the voyage across the ocean to get to US coastline without being seen and cleared, and we can make it all but impossible to cross the southern border without US authorization. We can make it far more difficult to cross the Canadian border undetected, and combine that with united intelligence efforts with Canadian agencies to provide a more comprehensive security arrangement. As for the trade, it will adjust to meet the new security conditions. Processes for clearing goods can be streamlined and optimized. Any slowdowns that are necessary to provide for the national security of the United States override economic concerns. Your goods may be slightly delayed every once in a while, but at least you'll still have a store standing in which to sell those goods.

"You will fail stopping Osama from crossing the border if that's what he really wants to do."

Nope; we can make it all but impossible for him or his henchmen (or anyone else) to do so. You also have to consider the deterrent factor of such a wall. You're going to have virtually no illegals trying to cross the border if they have an impossible task ahead of them. They cross now because they can walk or be driven across fairly easily. With high security measures in place and a virtually impossible challenge of getting across the border, we'll see an enormous drop in attempts to cross the border illegally. That means we end up with more personnel defending the border against less attempted intruders. That further decreases the chances of people like Osama's terrorist buddies getting into the US across the border.

"We are not talking about armies crossing the borders, were talking individuals."

So is Israel, and their wall is working.

"The solution to our problems can't lie there because if they do, we will surely fail."

You consider the Israeli efforts to be doomed to failure as well?

"You want to spend resources on feel good solutions not based on effectiveness."

How exactly is a 2,000 mile Israeli security wall patrolled by National Guard troops and Hellfire-equipped Predator drones completely blocking unauthorized traffic across our southern border a "feel good" solution "not based on effectiveness"? If cutting off the new primary attack vector for our enemy is a "feel good" solution, then sign me up.

"Much like searching old ladies and children that board airplanes... It has the appearance of security... Where little really exists..."

I'm of the opinion that if you want true security on the plane, you search each and every individual attempting to board the airplane. Search every bag, every person, and every other foreign object not bolted to the airplane itself that's being placed on board. Then and only then can you be ensured that you have a secured aircraft. As it stands, the security at most airports (from my experience) stinks. For instance, while they make you take your laptop out of its carrier case for carry-on, they don't even bother having you turn it on for them. I could fit any number of different things in the casing for my laptop and have it look perfectly legitimate from outward appearance, but they would all require destroying the laptop's functionality. That's just one example out of many. Privatize the security forces again and provide serious sanctions against airlines that do not take security seriously.

[Racehorse]

I believe that's been covered, hasn't it???

Much more than I originally thought, as it turns out.

Congress voted to add 10,000 new Border Agents...Bush said NO...

Not quite.

In the first year funding, it looks like he sought funding for only 210 positions instead of the 2000 he should have funded.

That was in March 2005.  By May Congress passed supplementary funding for 650 BP agents. (But not for the full 2000.)

It looks like Congress did meet my demand, though.  They passed legislation which would over five years double the Border Patrol force (from about 11,000 to 21,000).  But, Congress did not provide new money to finance the new agents.  The supplementary switched money from State Department UN peacekeeping programs to Homeland Security.

What I haven't had time to research:

• New hires included 600 positions vacant due to attrition for a total of about 618.  How many were actually hired in FY 2005?
• Why did Bush only seek funding for 210 when he was authorized to hire 2000?
• Why did Congress only allocate funding for 650 when they were the ones who authorized and expected 2000?

Whatever went on does not seem to be as honest and straightforward as I would have hoped for.

[Shalom Israel]

Please people we are in a war with liberalism this is no time to dividing our forces.

Instead we should rally behind our current tax-and-spend liberal president?

[ravingnutter]

Pat Buchanan

No need to read any further than that...

While I agree the border is a real problem, the extremists on the right are just as loony as those on the left.

[bayourod]

"Not one here who calls for this gives a flying flip about this war effort or our troops. "

Many of the anti-immigrant FReepers are members of the Constitution Party (American Independence Party in Calif) who like Buchanan have always opposed the Wars in Afganistan and Iraq. Their platform:

"In responding to terrorism, however, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the United States and its people; and

" In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of the United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people.

" The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments. "

I sometimes think that immigration is not their primary concern, but rather is just the issue they are using to attack President Bush and the war in Iraq. They want out troops brought home "to guard the border".

[Mel Gibson]

Pres. Bush is just like his father and does not represent the interests of the United States. The war in Iraq is a distraction or diversion away from the real criminals who financed 9/11 and are still operating.

Read "Hatred's Kingdom" by Dore Gold.

Any U.S. "leader" who calls the Minutemen a vigilante group should be impeached.

[Shalom Israel]

If one builder uses Mexican labor, his competitor also needs to use the Mexican labor to compete. The citizen carpenter is then forced to work at the same wages as the Mexican. I know this by experience.

Note that I am completely opposed to illegal immigration, mostly because it means being overrun by criminals and drug runners. But I fully support legal immigration, so if I had my druthers we would close the borders--but you'd still be competing with the law-abiding cleancut Mexicans that would flood into the country legally.

The cheap mexican labor is also almost entirely unskilled. You can earn more money in construction by: doing skilled work that they can't; moving to a locale where Mexican labor is less available; getting promoted to foreman. But if you're "forced to take the same wages as the Mexican", then presumably you are no more skilled than they; live in Texas; aren't qualified to be foreman. If the illegals work for $2 an hour, you should go to McDonalds where you can make triple that. Or learn to drive a bus/truck/crane, and make 2-6 times the minimum wage. Or become a cop, secretary, store manager or nurses' aide. If you can manage ten months of night nursing classes, you can be an LPN and make anywhere from $20 - $50 an hour.

And I know that by experience. I have a PhD in Mathematics, and was looking for a professor's job in 1996. At that time, famous mathematicians were flooding from Eastern Europe, and wiling to take any pay to teach at any level, including High School. I was indeed unable to secure a job in my field thanks to a flood of legal immigrants. But instead of cursing the @#$@#!$ Russkies, I went into compuer programming, and now make 50-100% more than I would have as a teacher. Cry me a river.

[verity]

Both Farah and Buchanan need their hair parted with an ax.

[bayourod]

"So is Israel, and their wall is working."

Israel let's anyone pass through a gate who has a permit. A permit takes about twelve hours to get. Any fence works if you have enough gates.

If we enact a guest worker program that allows for a sufficient number of foreign workers to come over legally to satisfy the labor demands of our expanding economy then we wouldn't have laborers jumping the border illegally. This would free up our border guards to concentrate on drug smugglers and gangsters.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Yawn. Joe Farah is taken seriously only by hard-core Brigadiers and himself. I consider him a joke.

[SteamshipTime]

rdb3,

There is currently no war. US troops are doing police work for the government of Iraq. There is no nation-state with which we are in a state of war.

The historical role of a military is to protect the nation's borders. US troops are absent from their historical role because they are protecting the borders of Muslim caliphates 6,000 miles away. President Bush, as commander in chief, is clearly derelict in his duty.

If a Democrat were in office, you'd be pounding on your keyboard every day about how the President should secure the border, particularly given the threat of Muslim terrorism.

[NJ_gent]

"If we enact a guest worker program that allows for a sufficient number of foreign workers to come over legally to satisfy the labor demands of our expanding economy then we wouldn't have laborers jumping the border illegally."

We have a visa program in place which allows those with jobs waiting for them to enter this country legally. If that program needs to be expanded or modified, then that is an option. What we do not need is a program to legalize the law-breaking, sovereignty violating criminals who've come over so far. That simply encourages more to follow suit. As for why we have laborers jumping the border in massive numbers, it's because certain greedy employers want to pay slave wages to people they consider sub-human. Desperate individuals from Mexico find those slave wages acceptable, as well as the risk involved in crossing the border illegally. It doesn't make any of it right in the slightest, and it dramatically impairs our ability to secure our borders. The more people we have pouring anonymously across our borders, the better chance there is for those wishing us harm to slip across with them. We need to know exactly who is trying to enter this country, and we need to know where they are at all times and enforce the provisions of their visas.

They could find plenty of other people to do the work, but not at a fraction of minimum wage for 12 hours with no bathroom break.

[yoe]

As much as I admire and like Condi Rice, it was she who should have correctly seen and advised the President on this when she was National Security Advisor; I honestly don’t think she did in deference to trying to work something out with “The Fox” – a huge mistake on Condi’s part. Colin Powell was another who should have done his utmost to stem the tide of illegals into this country - both employed political correctness and accepted bad advice on the situation - they never sought out the people who live on our borders or if they did, dismissed what was said. Like Able Danger, we are now facing the short sightedness of our government.

President Bush should call for all borders to be closed for a period of time NOW while all eyes are on the Katrina disaster. Call your elected now and demand our borders be closed to all visitor traffic.

[Jim_Curtis]

The cheap mexican labor is also almost entirely unskilled. You can earn more money in construction by: doing skilled work that they can't; moving to a locale where Mexican labor is less available; getting promoted to foreman. But if you're "forced to take the same wages as the Mexican", then presumably you are no more skilled than they; live in Texas; aren't qualified to be foreman.

So if you are unskilled or semiskilled worker you pretty much deserve to have your wages driven down and available work taken from you by illegal invaders?

As for "qualified to be foreman", the main qualification is the ability to speak Spanish.