Skip to comments.The Meaning Of The Word "Amnesty" (Meet President Bush, The GOP Clinton Alert)
Posted on 04/26/2006 2:52:21 AM PDT by goldstategop
We had a President in the 1990s who didn't always mean what he said and didn't always say what he meant.
Once he even questioned the meaning of the word "is."
Now we have another President who tells us he opposes "amnesty," but his definition of that term has little to do with what it says in the dictionary.
Just for the record and to spare you the time of looking it up Webster's New World defines amnesty as follows: 1. a pardon, especially for political offenses against a government; 2. a deliberate overlooking, as of an offense;
Asked at a recent press briefing what the President means by amnesty, White House spokesman Scott McClellan explained it is anything that "put someone on an automatic path toward citizenship."
Maybe now we can see why the President is speaking a different language when he says he opposes amnesty.
He is clearly not against pardoning millions, even tens of millions, of illegal aliens who broke the law by entering this country, and who continue to break our laws by living and working here. President Bush doesn't consider such a blanket pardon "amnesty."
He only considers a blanket decision to put those people on an "automatic path toward citizenship" amnesty.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of Presidents who can't speak or understand plain English. I'm sick and tired of Presidents Democrats and Republicans who choose to obfuscate and confuse issues rather than execute the laws of the land and heed the will of the people. I'm sick and tired of Presidents and other elected officials who twist and bend not only our duly enacted laws to suit their own agendas but even the meaning of simple words.
I'm also sick of hearing this President tell the American people that we would never be able to deport all the illegal aliens in this country.
"Massive deportation of the people here is not going to work," he said again this week. "It's just not going to work."
Now, I have to tell you this sounds a little strange coming from a man who says we can and will defeat terrorism, that we can and will bring "democracy" to the Middle East, that Islam is and can be a religion of peace.
To further confuse the issue, Bush went on to say the following: "I know this is an emotional debate. But one thing we can't lose sight of is that we are talking about human beings, decent human beings."
Can I ask how we know that, given that these people, we are told, are "undocumented"? We don't know who they are, but we are certain they are all "decent human beings." Do I have this right?
But Bush's obfuscation gets even worse.
After telling us how wonderful these people are and how we don't want to deport them and can't, he then boasted that 6 million have already been captured and turned back since he took office.
Now, which is it? Are you as confused as I am?
Then, he shifted gears again: "You can be a nation of law and a compassionate nation at the same time."
In other words, as I read this quote, laws are not meant to be enforced uniformly because that wouldn't be compassionate. Instead, we should enforce them arbitrarily in order to be compassionate.
All of this leaves me with a few questions:
If we can capture and deport 6 million illegals since 2001, why can't we capture and deport another 12 million to 20 million with no time limit no statute of limitations?
If it is compassionate to capture and deport 6 million illegals since 2001, why is it not compassionate to do the same to the 12 million to 20 million illegals who have taken up permanent residency here in violation of our laws?
If we can send a man to the moon, if we can overthrow Saddam Hussein, if we can defeat international terrorism, why can't we get control of our borders? Why can't we prosecute lawbreakers?
If we can identify the "undocumented," if we can make provisions for them and bring them into the system, why can't we deport them?
Won't amnesty, no matter what you call it, only encourage millions more to come to America illegally?
If President Bush can't be trusted to define amnesty honestly, can we continue to trust him with the security of the country? Can we trust him any more with the lives of Americans? Can we trust him to serve the people and the Constitution in other ways for remainder of his term?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Yes. He calls them "new Americans".
|We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.
Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.
For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.
As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.
George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
It's an *amnesty program*, pure and simple, any way you look at it. Any way the WH spins it.
Definition of amnesty Couldn't be any clearer!
"political offense against the GOVT!" hmmmmm interesting when the govt says, oh that's ok treat them with respect. REALLY and who than is treating TAXPAYING VOTERS with respect?
Who is treating our country with respect? Who is treating lawabiding citizens with respect? Who is treating AMERICAN WORKERS with respect?Who is treating our LAWS with respect?
Actually, W is leading the charge toward this program. The quote is from August, 2000. Du(m)bya has always felt that the hispanization of the United States is not only inevitable but desirable.
Mr 'Compassionate Conservative'... BS.
The US Taxpayer is getting another of W's *shafts*, and we'll be paying for it forever in ways we don't even know about, yet.
Once again, we're screwed.
President Bush wants everything his way and thinks we should just support where his leanings stand cause we voted for him. Well, after the huge agricultural bill increase, campaign finance non veto and his huge compassion spending my support has waned. If Congress would just ENFORCE our current immigration bill and disallow anchor babies (they are coming by the plane loads from Aisa too!) most of our problems and theirs would be solved quickly! After they begin enforcing and fining businesses this run for the border will shift tide and go north to south!
Repealing the 14th Amendment (anchor babies), going hard after businesses using illegal aliens and ending social services to all illegal aliens, would facilitate a quick end to this balkanization and globalization of Our American Way of Life.
But Bush is a globalist, and none of the above will ever happen. He's setting in motion, events which will balkanize America forever.
Of course, you and I are *racist vigilantes* for even discussing the issue.
Of course, you and I are *racist vigilantes* for even discussing the issue.
I've gotten over the part where those who wish to destroy my way of life, attempt to shame me into silence, by questioning my humanity (p.c.) .
I happen to know, in my heart, if we are silenced now, our kids wont have a future anywhere near as grand as it could be.
Firstly, Mexicans are not a race, so I don't have any qualms about laughing at the names I'm called, and directly refuting the rabid accusers.
A civil war is coming and it has to be fought, in the courts, legislatures, seats of power and if need be, the streets, to preserve Our American Way of Life.
I hope you're as ready as I am.
I didn't know about this speech until about six months ago. Bush learned that he can say and do anything because of our fear of the likes of Kerry or Gore. What choice did I have at the polls between an avowed socialist and a compassionate conservative (socialist-lite)?
I would hope that Bush would turn around on this issue. It would show, for the first time in his presidency, that he even recognizes that there is an American electorate out there that voted him in to uphold the Constitution - not interpret it to mean what he wants.
I bet your thoughts are now turning to the War on Terror, right? You are going to say "Look, he's fighting the war on terror." Yes. We are. But, if that's all Bush carries to his legacy that legacy will be even thinner than his father's. His father tried to turn to domestic issues late in his first term. This Bush hasn't considered domestic issues yet.
"Wait" you say, "he's lowered taxes, tried to get SS privatized, created the greatest social medicine program in the history of the U.S., spent more money on schools than any president in history and created a panel to study energy."
Great. Half of his initiatives are socialist in nature and the conservative initiatives are either not permanent (tax reduction) or haven't come to pass.
What kind of leader is he? He has always been weak. Don't bother to point to Reagan and how he had to battle Congress all the time. Bush is president during a republican controlled Congress and he still can't get anything done. Reagan led the democrats to where he wanted them. Bush has been schizophrenic from the start. He's conservative on some issue but liberal on most domestic ones. The republican Congress has to fight him one day and try to defend him the next. Even they have gotten turned around by his schizophrenia so that the don't even know which way to go.
Bush has been a failure as a conservative choice for president. He used up all of his political capital on Iraq and didn't save any for the domestic conservative issues.
We are in this position because Bush can't see that America should always come first. He is, in some ways, like Jimmy Carter who was always worried about human rights around the world except with Bush he's more worried about the future of foreign economies than he is about America's. Bush takes for granted that building a debt of 8 trillion dollars will somehow take care of itself. That's not the measure of leadership. My children will be taxed on that debt for their entire lives. Do Bush, the rich democrats or the country-club republicans even care about that? Hell no. Their lives are so insulated from this problem that they don't even think it exists.
No they don't. They want the borders secured, but do support a guest worker program. No poll that I've seen supports a wholesale deportation of illegals.
You people calling for Bush's impeachment are a blight on this website and on the GOP.
When you vote in a President, he usually gets to do what he ran on.
Some of you people have lost your friggin' minds.
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.