Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Impeach Bush! (Joseph Farah On Upholding American Sovereignty Alert)
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/31/05 | Joseph Farah

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?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: americansovereignty; asshole; barkingmoonbat; blindbushbots; buchanandroids; bushenenmyofrepublic; bushtreason; deportfarrahfirst; dramaqueens; farahhatesbush; farahisaloon; farahkoolaid; farahvotednader; farrahtheusefulidiot; illegalimmigration; impeachment; joepatshouldbehanged; josephfarah; lordhawhaw; moonbat; moron; motherfarrah; nationalsecurity; openborderslobby; presidentbush; putdownthecrackpipe; rightwingmoonbats; seditiousarticle; tokyofarrah; worldnetdaily; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-435 next last
To: goldstategop
Another think: Everybody seems to concentrate on our southern border while our northern neighbor Canada seems to be the real destination of militant muslims. We know this. And our northern border is much longer and desolate than our southern boundary.
And of course we have to figure out a workable way to check upon everything imported into our country.
101 posted on 08/31/2005 1:01:56 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Calling for the impeachment of a wartime president. How is that not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

Leaving our borders wide open in a time of war. How is THAT not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

102 posted on 08/31/2005 1:16:06 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hey, Cindy Sheehan, grow up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: de Buillion
Sorry, did not provide url . . .

Much thanks for the March 2005 article!

The good thing about discussion is we gather a lot more information than we started out with.

You are claiming that 534 additions in AZ are NEW HIRES?

I'm not claiming anything.  I quoted the article.  From whence came the 534 "new' border patrol agents?  I don't know.

And, yes, something else doesn't add up. I was incorrect- the congress authorized 2000 per year, Bush hired 210.

Maybe he hired more than 210 and maybe 534 went to Arizona.

An April 2005 Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs press release;

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Thursday applauded Senate approval of additional funding for border security.

Lieberman co-sponsored an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 supplemental spending bill by Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to increase by $390 million what the federal government will spend on border security. The funding represents an advance payment on the increases in border agents and detention beds authorized for FY 2006 spending by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

“Right now, we have a finger-in-the-dike approach to protecting our borders,” Lieberman said. “With just under 11,000 agents protecting 6,000 miles of border, thousands of people enter our country illegally every day. The new Border Patrol agents hired and trained because of this amendment will improve immigration enforcement and strengthen our hand in the war against terrorism.”

The Byrd amendment, which was approved by the Senate late Wednesday, would pay for 650 Border Patrol agents, 250 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement investigators, and 168 enforcement agents and detention officers.

An additional $10 million would be spent on unmanned aerial vehicles on the Southern border. And $66 million would pay for an additional 2,000 detention beds, allowing the government to house 20,500 aliens at any one time.

The Byrd amendment begins to fulfill border security requirements of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, authored by Lieberman and HSGAC Chairman Susan Collins, R-Me., which authorized the hiring of an additional 2,000 border agents each year for five years, an additional 800 ICE investigators each year for five years, and the creation of 8,000 additional detention beds each year for five years.

 If 2000 were authorized for 2005, why didn't the Senate provide money for 2000?

103 posted on 08/31/2005 1:17:32 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Leaving our borders wide open in a time of war. How is THAT not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

Yeah. How is that not giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Someone please explain.

104 posted on 08/31/2005 1:26:52 AM PDT by XpandTheEkonomy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I agree....George is coming in on the side of business and foresaking the American communities that made this country great...He's not doing us any favors at all!


105 posted on 08/31/2005 1:58:26 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I agree....George is coming in on the side of business and foresaking the American communities that made this country great...He's not doing us any favors at all!


106 posted on 08/31/2005 1:59:00 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
"And how many times did you call for Slick Willy's Impeachment when the same or even more were crossing the border?"

Silly goose; look up Operation Hold The Line and Operation Gatekeeper before bringing Clinton into this mess. The last President, liberal and slimy though he was, did far more to secure our borders than this President has even considered. That certainly speaks volumes to me...

"Go take a look at how much money has been spent on the border"

Liberal rule number 1: When you have a problem, spend lots of money to fix it.
Liberal rule number 2: If the problem hasn't been fixed, you're not spending enough money yet.

It's not about cash spent on the problem; it's about solutions developed and implemented. That means, quite frankly, an Israeli style wall from the Pacific to the Gulf patrolled by military personnel. Clinton got a couple sections of the wall built during his two terms. He never finished the wall, but he got it started. Those walls have worked fantastic in reducing illegal immigration in the targetted areas, which has forced illegals into the desert and mountain terrain. This President has done nothing more than make token gestures (small increases in the USBP) and issue confused remarks (amnesty first, then a 'once and for all' solution later). None of it has translated into clear and verifiable steps to control the massive and critically dangerous problem of insecure borders.
107 posted on 08/31/2005 2:05:25 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mastergibs; Map Kernow

Both of you knock it off.


108 posted on 08/31/2005 2:13:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
"impeaching the one president who actually had the balls to defend the country."

Willfully disregarding perimeter security in time of war is not defending the country. I'll agree that this President has provided a strong defense of this nation when Osama bin Laden cannot easily stroll across our borders and into this country completely unchallenged with a nuclear bomb strapped to a donkey that's walking next to him. A group of children could enter this country undetected. What does that say about a large group of trained terrorists?

This is not a difficult concept. The Israelis get border security as necessary for defense against terrorism; why can't some people here understand it? Until our borders are secured, we have zero defense against terrorists, regardless of our actions abroad.
109 posted on 08/31/2005 2:19:45 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DB
"If your goal is to stop terrorists from getting in, you will fail."

Urging those who are under attack to surrender is generally a job we reserve for the French. I do not believe they will be pleased with your stepping on their toes in this matter.
110 posted on 08/31/2005 2:23:07 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

I'm not surrendering. Not even close.

I'm putting the resources where they will be most effective.

Big difference.


111 posted on 08/31/2005 2:27:57 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
Israel is a tiny country.

We are not.

WWII was fought without sealing our borders.

Did you call for Reagan to be impeached?
112 posted on 08/31/2005 2:30:26 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DB
"Israel is a tiny country. We are not."

Israel's GDP is tiny. Our's is not.

"WWII was fought without sealing our borders."

WWII was fought against recognized governments using recognizable militaries who did not have access to nuclear weapons. This war is being fought against unknown enemies using unrecognizable paramilitary units who do have access to nuclear weapons.

In other words, you're saying we should have fought WWII like we fought the War of 1812. Different war; different tactics.
113 posted on 08/31/2005 2:34:49 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DB
"I'm putting the resources where they will be most effective."

Precisely what is a more important area to place resources than protecting the perimeter of the homeland? Right now, Osama bin Laden himself could fly to a country in Central or South America, make the trek through Mexico, and walk across our border onto United States soil undetected.

Anyone who doesn't see that as an absurd and unbelievably bad situation is completely nuts. It's going to take a nuclear weapon transported across the southern border and detonated in a major American city before some people wake up and realize how dangerous our open borders are to our national security.
114 posted on 08/31/2005 2:39:36 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
Yes, I'm completely nuts. Thank you for your fine analysis...



Or Osama could come by sea anywhere along our thousands of miles of coastline, by container, walk across the Canadian border in one of million unpopulated locations... Yes Osama could do a lot of things...

Nevertheless, doubling the border guard would have little affect on any of the above. 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. You will fail stopping Osama from crossing the border if that's what he really wants to do. Even after you spend billions trying to stop him from doing so. We are not talking about armies crossing the borders, were talking individuals.

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

You want to spend resources on feel good solutions not based on effectiveness. Much like searching old ladies and children that board airplanes... It has the appearance of security... Where little really exists...
115 posted on 08/31/2005 2:54:58 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse
Why wait on George to propose doing the right thing when Congress can do the right thing? Then, should Bush fail or refuse to be the executive, impeach him.

I believe that's been covered, hasn't it??? Congress voted to add 10,000 new Border Agents...Bush said NO...

116 posted on 08/31/2005 3:00:57 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #117 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop
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.

Just as union extortion causes artificially high wages, Mexican illegals lead to artificially low wages for the citizen working man. 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.

118 posted on 08/31/2005 4:14:01 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Anybody who has the mental capacity to think this through, could see that its the democrats that hold the nation hostage by hysterical howls of racism any time any one tries to do anything.


119 posted on 08/31/2005 4:36:53 AM PDT by tkathy (Tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom breeds peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Introducing a bill of impeachment might be a succor to Dems and other terrorist supporters, but someone needs to impress upon Bush that he works for US and NOT for Vicente Fox. To allow the borders to be as porous as they are in wartime is not just ignorance, it's criminal stupidity.

Northeast Republican office holders are generally pretty oblivious to the attitudes and opinions of the rest of the US....and Bush is no different (don't give me this "He's from Texas" jive....look at his family background. He was highly influenced by his dad, and Bush 41 is the quintessential northeastern "old money" Republican. They are both good and essentially decent men, but also thick as a brick when it comes to grasping the needs and attitudes of the vast majority of the population). Bush's willful ignoring of the border, save for the occasional "shut folks up" sop, such as hiring a whole 200 rather than 2000 Border Patrol officers, is what is causing many of his former supporters to begin thinking impeachment.

I don't necessarily want to see him thrown out....I want to see him woken up and kicked in the ass to DO SOMETHING AND ASSERT AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AGAIN. Those representatives and senators who aid and abet illegal aliens should be thrown out of office and indicted as accessories to trafficking in illegal aliens, or treason, as the case may be. As long as the political class in this country can disregard our national sovereignty and disrespect our culture (bilingual everything, honoring Mexican holidays, etc.) with impunity, then WE HAVE NO COUNTRY!

We need to look beyond the Republicans.....they've proven to be no better than the Democrats on many issues, and worse on some. Maybe it's time conservatives said "Good bye" to the Republicans and "Hello" to a Conservative Party. This might be just the issue to do it on. That, or proceed with a Bill of Impeachment for Dereliction of Duty in Wartime.....either way, what has to be done to save our country will be painful.


120 posted on 08/31/2005 4:44:32 AM PDT by Bombardier ("Religion of Peace" my butt.....sell that snakeoil to someone who'll buy it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
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.
121 posted on 08/31/2005 5:01:40 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


122 posted on 08/31/2005 5:10:27 AM PDT by macamadamia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
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.
123 posted on 08/31/2005 5:53:49 AM PDT by ricoshea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

"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.


124 posted on 08/31/2005 6:10:29 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Captainpaintball

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.


125 posted on 08/31/2005 6:15:23 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Google CFR North American Community)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Impeach Bush!

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

126 posted on 08/31/2005 6:36:20 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-G-d, PRO-LIFE..." -- FR founder Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
"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.
127 posted on 08/31/2005 7:18:44 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; de Buillion
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:

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

128 posted on 08/31/2005 7:22:59 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: patrioto
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?

129 posted on 08/31/2005 7:36:15 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
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.

130 posted on 08/31/2005 7:40:10 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"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".

131 posted on 08/31/2005 7:41:58 AM PDT by bayourod (Blue collar foreign laborers create white collar jobs. If they come they will build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


132 posted on 08/31/2005 7:47:01 AM PDT by Mel Gibson (Suffer from Allergies, Asthma or Adversely Affected by Foul Air ? See "About Me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
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.

133 posted on 08/31/2005 7:57:21 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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


134 posted on 08/31/2005 8:00:35 AM PDT by verity (Don't let your children grow up to be mainstream media maggots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent; DB
"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.

135 posted on 08/31/2005 8:01:15 AM PDT by bayourod (Blue collar foreign laborers create white collar jobs. If they come they will build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: zarf

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


136 posted on 08/31/2005 8:01:58 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (Unleash Karl Rove!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

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.


137 posted on 08/31/2005 8:15:18 AM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
"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.
138 posted on 08/31/2005 8:15:39 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
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.

139 posted on 08/31/2005 8:36:59 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
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.

140 posted on 08/31/2005 8:38:25 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What is this a gathering of the Crackpots?


141 posted on 08/31/2005 8:40:14 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
"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. "

Most illegals are paid far more than minimum wage. There is competition among employers for even illegals. A skilled bodyman, carpenter, butcher, back hoe operator, five axis mill operator, or diesel mechanic can name his price. If he doesn't like his working conditions he can walk across the street and go to work for another employer.

There simply aren't enough workers to fill the demands of our expanding economy. We aborted 40 million American workers and most of the rest we sent to college to get degrees in art history so they can sell insurance and houses to illegals.

142 posted on 08/31/2005 8:50:56 AM PDT by bayourod (Blue collar foreign laborers create white collar jobs. If they come they will build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Farah, in case you hadn't noticed, we just had the worst natural disater in our history two days ago. By at least an order of magnitude.

Just please can the over-the-top rhetoric for a few weeks. PLEASE.

143 posted on 08/31/2005 8:55:33 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
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 the "illegal" part, you already read the part where I said I oppose illegal immigration, but support legal immigration. If you have trouble reading English, improving in that area will open up some real prospects for higher pay. As for "qualified to be foreman", the main qualification is the ability to speak Spanish.

...which can be learned fluently in about three months, especially if you befriend some of your Mexicano co-workers. It can't be the only qualification, or every Mexican would be a foreman by now.

144 posted on 08/31/2005 9:00:57 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
"There simply aren't enough workers to fill the demands of our expanding economy."

Then I guess we'll need to expand our existing visa programs after the American public gets fed up with illegal immigration to the point that our government is forced to deport all those who have no right to be here and prevent them from returning without prior authorization. That's comin' soon. :-)
145 posted on 08/31/2005 9:04:26 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Well this did. Farah lost the last ounce of credibility. It was hard to sqeeze that last ounce of credibility out, but Farah did it.


146 posted on 08/31/2005 9:06:16 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
"Then I guess we'll need to expand our existing visa programs "

It's called a guest worker program and there are three bills pending to do that, including one by Tancredo.

147 posted on 08/31/2005 9:08:20 AM PDT by bayourod (Blue collar foreign laborers create white collar jobs. Without laborers you don't need managers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

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

That bears repeating...

148 posted on 08/31/2005 9:08:57 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
What is this a gathering of the Crackpots?

Yeah, welcome home...

149 posted on 08/31/2005 9:12:01 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
Bush hasn't used the money Congress appropriated for the Border Patrol! Anything else you want them to do?

You're full of it. The President must spend every dime that Congress appropriates for specific purposes. This has been the law for decades.

150 posted on 08/31/2005 9:13:36 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Cindy Sheehan, Pat Buchanan, John Conyers, and David Duke Are Just Different Sides of the Same Coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-435 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson