Insecure Borders: Let’s Give Blame Where Blame Is Due

The Family Security Foundation, Inc. ^ | 7/23/07 | Peter Gadiel

[AuntB]

There is only one person who has the power actually to do something about the egregious state of our immigration law enforcement and lack of border controls. As FSM Contributing Editor Peter Gadiel charges, that person is the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Insecure Borders: Let’s Give Blame Where Blame Is Due

By Peter Gadiel

For five years, members of 9/11 Families for a Secure America have lobbied in Washington and in many state capitols for immigration law enforcement and secure borders. The opponents of our goals are many throughout Congress and elsewhere, but during this period the most powerful of them has been that individual with the sole authority to require the federal government to enforce these laws and who, by his refusal to do so, has made that government a co-conspirator in undermining the security of this Nation. That person is of course, George Bush.

As chief of the Executive Branch he has under the Constitution not only the sole power but the duty to enforce the laws of our country, a duty he refuses to honor. He thumbs his nose at the obligations imposed on him by the Constitution, which, in the name of the God he claims to worship, he has sworn to uphold. Since the people of the United States have no recourse through the court system to make him enforce the law, he alone has the power to decide that illegal aliens will be permitted to prey on Americans, and he has made that decision.

The harm that George Bush has done to this country is seen by many but felt most severely by those who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegal alien criminals, many of whom, after all, are in the United States due to Bush’s refusal to enforce federal laws already on the books.

The president’s efforts to undermine the collective security of the Nation and the individual security of citizens have caused many to ask: “Why does Bush allow illegal aliens, every one a law breaker, to enter the United States freely? Why does he refuse to enforce existing law and to allow terrorists, violent felons and drug smugglers full access to their intended American victims? Why does he continuously ignore the Constitution and the oath he swore to uphold it? Why doesn’t he care about Americans suffering as a result of depressed wages and working conditions, or about the Americans who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens?”

Each time I speak with a person whose family has been shattered by the violent act of an illegal alien, an illegal who almost invariably has had numerous previous encounters with the law, I wonder anew what kind of man it is who occupies the White House and tolerates, and by that tolerance encourages, these crimes. What kind of man is this who lifts not a finger to acknowledge his role in these acts of violence and refuses to take action to prevent future crimes?

I have been meeting such victims and families for almost six years. As time passes I’ve grown more disturbed by what the Bush malfeasance indicates about his character. In part this is so because I meet ever more victims and see the list of victims grow longer. But there is another list that is also growing and this too affects my view of the man: the number of elected officials I have spoken with who, because of their positions in the government, have had one-on-one conversations with the president and who insist he is fully aware of the crimes inflicted by his illegal alien friends. There was a time when I gave Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt; I believed he was insulated from the facts…that he didn’t know what was happening in the states. But now I grasp the truth: He does know. He doesn’t care: What kind of man must this be?

Shortly after September 11, I began encountering 9/11 family members who were convinced that George Bush had had advance knowledge of this conspiracy and that for his own purposes he refused to interfere. Vehemently, I disagreed for two reasons. First, I did not believe that George Bush would intentionally allow thousands of Americans to die. Second, I believed that the incompetence of our government was so highly perfected that it would be impossible to keep secret for very long the fact that officials had advance knowledge of such a catastrophic event.

Today, I have had over five years’ experience in meeting with bureaucrats and members of Congress. I’ve read Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports; transcripts of Congressional Committee hearings and testimony; the 9/11 Commission Report and its associated documents; reports produced by private think tanks and individual experts on crime, immigration and national security. These have confirmed my judgment that our government is staffed by so many individuals who are incompetent or corrupt that it is insane to believe that a secret such as advance knowledge of 9/11 could remain a secret six years after the event. (The 9/11 Commission, in an exquisite formulation of words succeeded in describing and excusing the pervasive incompetence and negligence of federal officials with the phrase “a failure of imagination.”)

But as to George Bush (and many other elected officials and bureaucrats) I have come to realize my original appraisal was wrong. His actions since 9/11 have, for me, established that he lacks concern for the lives of individual Americans. Three thousand people died on 9/11, but since that day far more than three thousand have been killed, individually or in small groups, by illegal aliens. And still he refuses to enforce the laws that would end the killing. Thousands of Americans have been killed in intentional murders, or as ‘by-products’ of robberies, rapes, beatings or auto accidents caused by drunken illegals driving automobiles. Thousands more lives have not been ended but have nevertheless been shattered by acts of violence short of murder, such as child molestation. (The Bush Administration makes a proper accounting of these crimes impossible by virtue of its refusal to require local police to inquire into the illegal status of those arrested.)

That George Bush’s refusal to enforce the laws of this Nation has been the direct cause of these Americans’ death and suffering is simply beyond dispute. He and the Tony Snows and Michael Chertoffs he hires can protest all they want about the “impossibility” of securing our borders. He and they can pretend to be merely incompetent for only so long before Americans wake up and realize they’re not just incompetent, they are misrepresenting the truth.

To the many who wonder why Bush is doing what he’s doing, I offer some advice. For a long time I wondered too. Finally, I realized the futility of spending another moment on this imponderable. The reason why doesn’t matter. The fact that it is so is all that matters. But for those who need to have an answer as to the ‘why’ of the Bush actions I suggest you look at the motives of others who have betrayed our country: ideology, revenge, greed.

One or more of these pretexts must be what Bush employs in his own mind to justify his tolerance of violence and death. In that sense he is undoubtedly conventional, typical of his breed. But in one respect Mr. Bush has carved out a place that is unique among corrupt politicians. In his obsession to pass his amnesty, a major tool in the permanent elimination of our borders, he offered what amounted to a bribe, in public, to members of the US Senate, telling them that if they would vote for his amnesty bill he would provide 4.5 billion dollars to build the border fence that a 2005 federal law he signed required to be built. In those two years Mr. Bush has managed to get only a few miles of that fence built, but suddenly he saw that enforcement of this federal law could be used as a payoff to be offered to Senators to vote for his amnesty. Presto, he promises to come up with four and a half billion to build it.

Of course Mr. Bush is far from the first politician to engage in illegal or immoral behavior. But it is customary for politicians to try and keep their corruption a secret. For example, Boss Tweed of New York; Sen. Tom Dodd (father of the current Sen. Dodd) of Connecticut, Ted Kennedy. These bribe takers, philanderers, drunk drivers and lady killers at least tried to keep their crimes hidden from the public. As reprehensible as they were or are, they at least comprehended that their actions deviated from the norm and felt sufficient concern for public opinion that they didn’t want their crimes exposed. Mr. Bush appears to be unique in this regard, for either he lacks awareness that his behavior is wrong, or his contempt for the people of the United States is so absolute that he is doesn’t care that we see him offering bribes.

Naturally, when corrupt politicians are discussed Bill and Hillary Clinton cannot be ignored: Whitewater; cattle futures; Travelgate; Vince Foster; pardons for Susan McDougal, Puerto Rican terrorists, and Marc Rich; questioning the meaning of the word “is.” We also cannot forget that for eight years prior to September 11, while Moslem terrorists escalated their attacks against the United States these co-Presidents successfully schemed to avoid dealing with terrorism by sweeping it under the rug for their successor. These are the two who paved the way for September 11 by their refusal to respond with sufficient force to the numerous terrorist acts that occurred during their presidency: the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the embassy bombings, the Mogadishu atrocities, the bombing of the USS Cole, etc. By their inaction they encouraged and permitted the growth of the power of binLadin. Ultimately, the greatest responsibility for September 11 lies not with Bush but with the Clintons.

Yet it is George Bush who has been in office for six years after the murders of 3000 on 9/11. It is he who has been president since then as crimes by illegals have killed thousands more. It is possible to excuse the inaction of the Clintons as opportunistic passing of the buck to their successor in the White House. But George Bush cannot claim that excuse. The resulting damage was obvious for all to see. He cannot claim ignorance. He cannot avoid his guilt. Yet, he marches on, completely dismissing the blood that is spilled and the pain that results from his refusal to act.

It is useless to speculate about “why” he permits these crimes. So to those who continue to wonder, my advice is: don’t waste another moment of thought on the matter. Use your energy to contact your members of Congress, your governor, state legislators. Then contact them again, and then again. Educate your friends and enlist them in the cause of immigration reform.

Elected officials do respond to pressure from constituents. You have power, but only if you use it by communicating repeatedly with them. The richly funded campaigns of LaRaza, Chamber of Commerce, Ford Foundation, bankers, lawyers, et al., to open our borders succeed precisely because they make themselves heard while others remain silent. Your silence in the face of their campaigns is as powerful an ally of the open borders lobby as the open borders lobbyists themselves. So, make yourselves heard. You have a voice. Use it.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Peter Gadiel is the president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. He is a lifelong Republican who voted for George Bush in 2000.

[dragnet2]

I will take my own advise I offered to others, and avoid a dialog with you in the future.

It's easy to spot those like you that are less than truthful and genuine in their responses.

[Weeedley]

I am about as liberal as Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler and George Patton all rolled into one.

Patton teaches that history is prologue and we can only affect the here and now.

Who is now in charge of the dismal situation is gonna catch the all the crap for the present dismal situation. i.e Patton didn’t whine about the outcome of WWI, that gave rise to the nazi’s while rolling a 3rd Army tank column through the Whermacht like crap through a goose on the way to Germany.

[MEGoody]

I didn’t say you were a liberal. I said your reaction was liberal.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Good heavens, you are thick.

You are disingenuous.

[MEGoody]

It's easy to spot those like you that are less than truthful and genuine in their responses easier to claim someone is being untruthful or not genuine than to deal with the fact that someone might disagree with me

There fixed it so that it was a truthful and genuine response.

[MEGoody]

You are disingenuous.

Disingenuous: lacking in candor

I've been very candid, and you are very thick not to realize that.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I've been very candid, and you are very thick not to realize that.

No, you've been willfully ignorant.

You think that Bush's worse sin on immigration is one of inaction. That the only thing he's done wrong is to not reverse the policies of his predecessors, meanwhile ignoring what he has actually done.

I'd really like to know what you think of the Partnership for Prosperity agreement, New Alliance Task Force and Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. Bush has taken these actions during his administration. Do you support Bush for what he actually has done?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Disingenuous: lacking in candor

Even your definition is disingenuous.

dis·in·gen·u·ous      /ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

dis·in·gen·u·ous       (dĭs'ĭn-jěn'yōō-əs)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.  

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

[dragnet2]

Even your definition is disingenuous.

LOL! That's why I will chose to avoid dialog with this individual in the future.

[MEGoody]

Even your definition is disingenuous.

My you are thick. I got that defintion from Merriam Webster on line.

[MEGoody]

You think that Bush's worse sin on immigration is one of inaction.

Goodness, you really are thick.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Goodness, you really are thick.

I'll make this really easy for you.

Partnership for Prosperity agreement. Good or bad?

New Alliance Task Force. Good or bad?

Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. Good or bad?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

That's why I will chose to avoid dialog with this individual in the future.

It's pretty clear on which side of the debate he stands, isn't it?

[dragnet2]

Yes.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

My you are thick. I got that defintion from Merriam Webster on line.

Even your defense of your definition is disingenuous:

From Merriam Webster Online:

Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "dis-in-'jen-y&-w&s, -yü-&s-
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ly adverb
- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ness noun

[MEGoody]

There it is, honey - the definition “lacking in candor.” My goodness you are thick.

[MEGoody]

All bad. Does this mean you’ll finally stop asking the same question you’ve already asked (and received an answer to)?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

...the definition “lacking in candor.”

And where is the candor about the following:

Partnership for Prosperity agreement. Good or bad?

New Alliance Task Force. Good or bad?

Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. Good or bad?

Or, is this the part where you call me thick?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

All bad. Does this mean you’ll finally stop asking the same question you’ve already asked (and received an answer to)?

Why are they all bad?

Please point out your post where you wrote these were all bad.

[MEGoody]

Why are they all bad?

Because they only serve to make a bad situation worse.

Let me ask you (although I'm sure you won't answer the question), was Reagan's grant of amnesty good or bad?

Please point out your post where you wrote these were all bad.

Good grief, you are so thick! I was refering to the question you had previously asked numerous times, sometimes multiple times in the same post. I would have thought you were intelligent enough to know that since I've already mentioned it. Get a grip.