Impeach Bush! (Joseph Farah On Upholding American Sovereignty Alert)

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

As Buchanan suggested: Will even one courageous Republican member of Congress have the guts to sponsor a bill of impeachment?

"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.

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:

New hires included 600 positions vacant due to attrition for a total of about 618. How many were actually hired in FY 2005?
Why did Bush only seek funding for 210 when he was authorized to hire 2000?
Why did Congress only allocate funding for 650 when they were the ones who authorized and expected 2000?

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

"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".

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.

"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.

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.