Accomplishing that is very simple. Read the plain language I write about my own opinions. There are no nuances or anything else.
I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
End of story.
Posted on 08/30/2005 10:34:44 PM PDT by goldstategop
Pat Buchanan, former communications director to President Ronald Reagan, former presidential candidate and WND commentator, has come to the conclusion that a courageous Republican legislator should move a bill for impeachment of President Bush.
I reluctantly agree – and for the same reasons.
President Bush has had nearly six years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.
He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration "reform" plan that involved a "guest worker" program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen.
Some will tell me this can't be done and that it is irresponsible to propose it because Bush is a wartime president.
My response? It is precisely because this nation finds itself in a desperate war declared by a formidable foe determined to use our open borders to destroy this country that we must act now.
Some will remind me I endorsed Bush just two years ago for re-election.
My response? I made it very clear at the time that I was not really endorsing Bush, per se, but seeking the only practical way to defeat his reckless and irresponsible and treasonous opponent. There is no contradiction here. Kerry had to be defeated. Now Bush must go. America can do better.
I don't agree with many of Pat Buchanan's foreign policy ideas. But on the border, he is 100 percent right. Bush has been a disaster. No matter how successful we might be in our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can lose this war against jihadist Islam right here at home.
Our enemies have already used the open border to penetrate this country – and they will do so again.
When Bush placed the old Immigration and Naturalization Service under the new Department of Homeland Security, I actually believed he recognized how critical border security was to the defense of our homeland. I was fooled.
In the current issue of my premium, online, intelligence newsletter, G2 Bulletin, author Paul Williams recounts in extravagant detail how al-Qaida operatives have already used the open Mexican border not only to sneak operatives into the country but to smuggle in nuclear weapons with the help of the MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) street gang.
The fuse has been lit.
The war in Iraq, which I have supported, will mean little when, not if, a nuclear weapon is detonated inside our own country.
When that happens, we will no longer be having debates about who has more culpability for Sept. 11 – Bush or his predecessor. Bush has had ample opportunity to address the mistakes of the past. Instead, he has repeated them. They say hindsight is 20-20. Not for Bush.
Even if the border issue and the tsunami of illegal immigration was not strictly speaking the No. 1 national security issue we face, enforcing the laws of the land would be the right thing to do – the only moral and right thing to do.
Americans are dealing with more joblessness, higher crime, skyrocketing taxes, a crippled medical system, overcrowded jails, an overburdened judicial and law enforcement system, costly and divisive language barriers and changing demographics that are permanently transforming the U.S. culture.
Why?
Bush claims it is because America needs cheap labor. That's what the law of supply and demand is all about. It's not his duty or responsibility to acquire workers for big corporations and other fat cats below what the market will support.
I don't even believe Bush is being honest when he makes this argument. I am convinced there are international agreements behind this. I am persuaded the systematic destruction of the American way of life through uncontrolled and illegal immigration is part of a master plan for merger and global consolidation – first with our neighbors in this hemisphere and later worldwide.
This secretive plot must end here and now.
America was founded on the principle of independence and sovereignty. The president is betraying our most sacred national heritage.
Bush is ignoring the will of the people and he is violating the law of the land.
It's time to turn up the heat.
As Buchanan suggested: Will even one courageous Republican member of Congress have the guts to sponsor a bill of impeachment?
How do you know so much about what he's going to do? If he does other "rotten things," have him arrested. You can't have someone arrested, and you shouldn't care, if someone opposes immigration for any reason.
Because his real objection is to job competition, not to illegal immigrants. He is opposed to anyone who takes a job for lower wages than he would like to receive.
Assuming everything you said is true, so what? Part of the basis for the immigration law is to keep American wages up. You might disagree with the object, but you can't disagree with the law's enforcement as long as it's valid.
Dense. I know what he's already done: he's accused his co-workers of being illegal aliens, when in fact all he really knows is that they have tanned skin and speak Spanish. I'd call that "rotten".
Part of the basis for the immigration law is to keep American wages up.
I believe you just stated that immigration law exists partly to impose a hidden tax on Americans, by making them pay more for construction and other menial labor. Are you honestly OK with the morality of that? So you're in support of the looters in NO, then.
Maybe I just don't understand all the NUANCES of your posts. I don't reckon I want to, either, as I prefer seeing things clearly.
Didn't take you long to start insulting me, did it?
I know what he's already done: he's accused his co-workers of being illegal aliens, when in fact all he really knows is that they have tanned skin and speak Spanish. I'd call that "rotten".
You would, wouldn't you? "Racial profiling," too---bad, very evil... I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted anyone to raise the alarm about all those nice brown-skinned Arabs learning to fly planes in 2001, would you?
I believe you just stated that immigration law exists partly to impose a hidden tax on Americans, by making them pay more for construction and other menial labor.
No, don't put words in my mouth, or think you can divine what I believe. I said work permits, visas, etc. in the immigration law have as an object protecting the American worker, and his/her wage levels.
Are you honestly OK with the morality of that?
I don't think of it as "moral"---I think of it as "legal" and "valid." I don't think the income tax is "moral," but no one's told me that's a basis why I don't have to pay it.
So you're in support of the looters in NO, then.
I wrote that? Show me. Guess that means I can believe your claims about Jim_Curtis' positions too--not. Get lost.
Accomplishing that is very simple. Read the plain language I write about my own opinions. There are no nuances or anything else.
I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
End of story.
ROFLMBO! These people have become what they said Rush Limbaugh would become when we had a Republican administration. Nobody is paying any attention to them so they have to scream louder and try to shock people. Just like the left, have they gone so far right that they have arrived at the left?
The issue of a common language is important for several reasons but the context in which I brought it up was specific to the case he was trying to make...one I've heard often...that the cheap workers from Mexico will lead to promotions for everyone else. I pointed out that you will only be promoted to foreman if you can speak Spanish. His response was to stop whining and learn the foreign language then.
Um, equating "brown spanish speaker" with "illegal undocumented wetback" is what you're trying to defend here. Profiling has its uses, and that ain't one of 'em. Do you honestly believe the things you say?
I said work permits, visas, etc. in the immigration law have as an object protecting the American worker, and his/her wage levels.
By which you mean, "forcing Americans to pay more for goods and services by artificially restricting supply." The same sort of protectionism that makes sugar three times more expensive in the US than the rest of the world. Don't sugar coat it; you use gubmint to do your stealing, but that doesn't make it any less stealing.
So you're in support of the looters in NO, then.
No, I didn't think you were. So you have a double standard; you like some kinds of stealing, but not others. You'll have to forgive me if I find it hard to be sure, in a given case of theft, whether you'll be for it or against it.
Principle over party. BTTT
I got it. I don't want the US turned into an analogue of the old Russian Empire either. Thanks for the clarification---I'm already "wise" to the other poster's claims.
Pat and Joe and their followers imagine that this is a way to force the president to do, immediately, what they want done, the way they want it done, without regard for reality. And WHAT, pray tell, happens to this country and our WOT and to the border and to the hurricane victims, should some moronic GOPers team up with the Dems in the House to proceed with impeachment? Have you any idea what a nightmare THAT would be?
And then there is the wee fact that the House is lead by Danny Hastert. Do you really imagine that he is going to allow this to even get to the point of seeing the light of day? Reality...take a look at it!
What this REALLY is, is two nonentities, who have a minor way to reach the public, encouraging their few followers to join in a two year old's temper tantrum and threat to "hold my breath until I turn blueitis"/ small fish thugs waving around a BLACKMAIL threat.
And should this cockeyed plan take hold ( which it absolutely will not!) and come to fruition, then Cheney becomes president and should he not do what you want, by the time his impeachment can come about, it will be time to elect a new president, or Hastert becomes president. All of which, will ensure a landslide election of Dems and if any of you imagine that a Dem will do what you want, then you and Pat and Joe need to be locked away in a padded room, given heavy douses by meds hourly, until the day you all leave these mortal coils.
Um, no. Not "equating"---you don't seem to understand what a "profile" is. And I'm not going to explain it to someone who constantly misrepresents and distorts what his respondents say.
By which you mean, "forcing Americans to pay more for goods and services by artificially restricting supply." The same sort of protectionism that makes sugar three times more expensive in the US than the rest of the world. Don't sugar coat it; you use gubmint to do your stealing, but that doesn't make it any less stealing.
No. That's not what I mean---will you let anyone speak for himself? If you want a completely free market in labor, then you are simply lying about being against illegal immigration---don't sugar-coat it yourself---you want to excuse law-breaking even while you pretend you're in favor of law enforcement. How "moral" is that?
So you have a double standard; you like some kinds of stealing, but not others. You'll have to forgive me if I find it hard to be sure, in a given case of theft, whether you'll be for it or against it.
You want to proceed with your accusations that I support stealing and looting based on nothing but your own vituperative extrapolation? I'd call that "personal abuse," but then lucky for you, I know the mods won't.
People like Fergie are just as bad as the Left. In case they haven't noticed, something happened in NO that kinda requires the President's attention right now. Calling for Bush's impeachment over an issue that was aided and abeted by several Presidents (including Reagan) just puts them further into the moonbat category.
You obviously don't know what a "profile" is. A "profile" is a statistical descriptionn that says, "Check this guy out, because he might be illegal/criminal/whatever." The guy wasn't talking about a statistical profile at all; he made an assertion of fact--that these people are illegal. Not might be. Are. They ARE illegal. I would concur that they might be, and at least some probably are--but that's not what he said. He said they ARE illegal, when in fact he has no idea whether they're illegal or not. Do you finally get it?
No. That's not what I mean---will you let anyone speak for himself?
You are claiming that you believe in keeping prices (i.e., wages) up, but you don't believe in making people pay more. That's nonsense. For every increased price, there's someone else out there paying more. You can't be for higher prices and simultaneously against people paying more. It's a contradiction. Do you get it?
These days it seems that reality and Buchanan-nuts don't mix.
That's sadly been the case for at least the past five years. Same with Joe F. Both live in a state of delusion.
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.