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?
"That wasn't the topic."
Does Democratic Underground actually pay you people to come over here and act stupid?
"My response is to send a message by voting against incumbents of both political parties in local and state elections."
- Stopping the illegal flow of illegal immigration from Mexico is replacing Social Security as the "Third Rail" of American politics. In case you hadn't noticed, Latino voters have replaced blacks as the second largest ethnic group in the country and they are massively opposed to any draconian measures to stem the tide of relatives and friends who wish to join them here. That is why neither the Republicans or Democrats will adopt any measures which might lose them this important voting block. This is even more vital to the Republicans since they already have lost the black vote. To lose the Latinos to, would mean they would never again occupy the White House or control either the Senate or Congress ever again for that matter.
However, your comment that you are registering a protest by, "voting against incumbents of both political parties in local and state elections." leaves me puzzled. Just how do you go to the polls and vote against someone?
I live in San Antonio. How could I not notice? :-)
But, living in San Antonio I know something about how my friends and neighbors think and feel about illegal immigration. It is not so pro-illegals as you might think. We can't help how Republicans perceive Latinos as a block of voters.
However, your comment that you are registering a protest by, "voting against incumbents of both political parties in local and state elections." leaves me puzzled. Just how do you go to the polls and vote against someone?
You're a Democratic officeholder? I vote for your opponent, regardless of his or her party affiliation. You're a Republican officeholder? I vote for your opponent, regardless of his or her party affiliation.
For Congressional and Senatorial races, I'll continue to support the more conservative, Republican candidate.
I appreciate your information, especially on your view that Latinos will not vote as a block when it comes to matters of immigration. I get all my information on that topic from MSM sources so I might well have the wrong take on this score.
As for your voting for someone in a local election who has pledged to take a strong stand against illegal immigration, I'm afraid you're going to find yourself voting for third party or independent candidates, since I don't see official Democratic or Republican candidates taking a hard line here.
While Bush did introduce the so called "guest worker" control solution, it's been much sneered at by his opponents but I think it's as far as he dared go in doing something about the issue without creating a tremendous press backlash.
Non-morons understand the off topic remarks out of the blue are not particularly usefull when a subject is being discussed. Or do you have Epstein-Barr?
He's just trying to diminish Eisenhower's Operation Wetback in order avoid admitting he's been posting BS about the history of border enforcement with Mexico. He's been posting that the border never has been enforced, and that's a crock. I don't know if he simply posts what he thinks sounds good, or intentionally seeks to mislead, but either way he's posting junk.
Until the end of the 1800s the land of Comancheria occupied the border region, and no one casually crossed the border in either direction. The Army was enforcing the border in the early 20th century while Mexico was boiling with revolution. During the Depression Mexicans were repatriated- Okies, Americans, picked California's crops. Eisenhower sent Mexican illegals home with Operation Wetback, and we had 10 years or more of border peace.
The open border is a recent phenomena, and it appears to come from an unholy alliance of businessman and politicians who think they can abrogate the law because it's in their personal interest. Anyone interested in seeing where this comes from should read Kenichi Ohmae's "Borderless World", which made the case that borders are irrelevant and nation states are obsolete. It's basically the line that Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorials pushed for years.
Yeah, its so new that two decades ago the most conservative president since Hoover threw in the towel and admitted that there was no chance of stopping the flow.
As to the past economic disparities were not so great as now and the osmotic diffusion not so inevitable. Hence there was no great draw to the North anything like today.
Pancho Villa was replused by the army in the second decade of the 1900s but that was a unique event and certainly the army was far too small to patrol the border other than in places where Villa might be tempted to come over. Prior to that any border enforcement was by Texas and that was nothing significant.
One of your speculation is correct namely this is problem only complained about since the 1950s. Not counting actual attacks by criminal gangs like Villa's.
It is an insoluable problem until Mexico enters the 20th century and develops a strong economy. Any cracks that I APPROVE of it is simply false.
BUMP!!!
you said it. You got it right.
I hate Farah and I hate it everytime this thread makes it to the top.
Well you got me, I suck at spelling. Since I am in the Military and only earn a small $70,000 of your tax payer dollars a year, I don't think I could afford your English classes. I am sorry that my English is not as good as your English. It is obvious that you are another Stuck up, academic liberal snob. So go to hell..... I will try to get by on your tax dollars. Thank you for your contribution. A democrate is like a Democrat but with an E on the end to signify their frenchness. Frenchness is a term I use to describe uptight snobbish blowhards like yourself. Blowhards are folks who never respond to the subject matter but continue to pontificate on how much smarter they are than the rest of us. Pontificate is not something that you do in the rest room but as a manner of speaking could describe the crap that comes out of your mouth, maybe it is something you do in the bathroom?
Oh and respond to the subject matter you F*&^*& ass.
If you could un-ass you thought process, maybe you could actually make a positive contribution to the dialog. In reality, I doubt it.
I'm hearing this all over the place. Usually from liberals, and self professed nazi's and communists.
(I live in L.A. that should explain why).
Unbelievable.
Farah, like so MANY in our current climate, has decided to take the lofty, intellectual route, rather than the roll-up-your-sleeves and "git 'er done" route.
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.