| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Buchanan: Impeach Bush over Illegal Immigration |
| 2005-08-30 |
| Trimmed to what readers should be able to stomach. A president like Teddy Roosevelt would have led the Army to the border years ago. And if Fox did not cooperate, T.R. would have gone on to Mexico City. Nor would Ike, who deported all illegal aliens in 1953, have stood still for this being done to the country he had defended in war. What are these Bush Republicans afraid of? Dirty looks from the help at the country club? Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska. Haven't you heard there's a war on. If we can bring democracy to the Middle East we won't have to use nuclear weapons. It's worth a try. His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees – health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons – onto taxpayers. George Bush is chief executive of the United States. It is his duty to enforce the laws. Can anyone fairly say he is enforcing the immigration laws? Those laws are clear. People who break in are to be sent back. Yet, more than 10 million have broken in with impunity. Another million attempt to break in every year. Half a million succeed. Border security is homeland security. How, then, can the Department of Homeland Security say America is secure? Twice, George Bush has taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article IV, Section 4 of that Constitution reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." Well, we are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion." It may be the only way left to get his attention, before the border vanishes and our beloved country dissolves into MexAmerica, what T.R. called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." Shut up, Pat. You're not helping. I'm all for eliminating the invaders and deporting all the illegals, but you are not going to bring other people to that approach with articles like this. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #22 DepotGuy, I use the term Hitler specifically because it is commonly known that once you escallate to comparing someone to Hitler there is no debate, just arguement. Same thing with using the highly overused term impeachment. Both screaming hitler and demanding impeachment have been strong traits of the left since Bush took power. Buchanan has joined them. He might be right on the border, I believe I said that, but the best arguement in the world will not be heard if you use overly heated terms and turn off your audience. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-30 16:57 |
| #21 DepotGuy, Who is arguing with you about how bad illegal immigration is? Not me! They should crack down, and Bush is an idiot for not doing so. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-08-30 14:57 |
| #20 Hitler ya say. No Stalin or Pol Pot references? Look, Buchanan is a dope who has made a career out of inflammatory rhetoric. That does not erase the fact that the immigration crisis has gotten worse under the Bush Administration. To suggest that the Presidents "Guest Worker" proposal is anything but amnesty is delusional. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-08-30 14:54 |
| #19 Buchanon is right that we should take the border seriously. But demanding impeachment is the modern version of calling someone a Nazi. It shows you are simply screaching to hear yourself screach and screaching is annoying. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-30 14:30 |
| #18 We should monitor the border, and even at the lower funding levels we have now, we could do better to turn away illegals. If anything law-abiding "Hispanic-Americans" agree with the Minutemen, which is all the more reason to hate sub-slime garbage like Patsy the Pig. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-08-30 13:37 |
| #17 "misanthropy" |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-08-30 13:31 |
| #16 DepotGuy, So what? Hitler was right about German Shepards being nice dogs and the injustice of the Versailles Treaty to Germany. It doesn't change the fact that he was a racist a-hole, although I owe him an apology for comparing him to a morally castrated hypocrite like Buchanan. Hitler, at least, was honest in his degraded anti-humanistic misanthophy. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-08-30 13:30 |
| #15 The administration sees this as a political issue used for leverage with Mexico and rapidly expanding hispanic voting blocs. I often wonder what the administration deems the threat posed by the openness of the Mexican border. Do they not take it seriously, is it a congressional failure, or is it really a non issue that is a larger perceived threat than a realistic one. I don't pretend to know, but obviously there are political overtones and a rapidly expanding hispano base for the GOP no doubt must play into the decisions made. I just wonder about the reality of the security threat.Is the openness of the Mexican border a real threat? Or do we see foreign agents coming a mile away as it were? By the time terrorists get into Mexico do we own them? Anyone willing to take this question on? As I said this ain't my cup of tea. An open Mexican border:security issue or red herring? EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-08-30 13:29 |
| #14 Probably not. Funds are line itemed and unless the congressional budget made provision for this, it's almost certainly not the case that the Administration could move legally in the way you suggest. |
| Posted by: Omerens Omaigum2983 2005-08-30 13:11 |
| #13 Point well taken .com. But "lack of money" is the convienient excuse for "lack of political will". Indeed congress hasn't appropriated the adequate funding for this crisis. Impeachment is an outrageous suggestion by a proven grandstander. But if this is an issue of national security couldn't the President issue an Executive Order which includes federal funding? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-08-30 13:07 |
| #12 Apologists? Really? Simple question for you, DepotGuy: Who controls funding for all Govt activity? Therein lies your first answer. Pass it on to Pat, will ya? He's confused about the Constitution. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-30 11:54 |
| #11 Somebody needs to put Pat in the penalty box for awhile. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-08-30 11:38 |
| #10 For all the apologists out there please answer the fundamental questions that Buchanan is asking here. If the Chief Executive of the United States is sworn to uphold the US Constitution doesn’t that mean enforcement of existing laws? Can anyone fairly say this administration is enforcing the current immigration laws? Are the people illegally crossing the borders effectively being apprehended and prosecuted? Is amnesty for illegals contrary to current immigration laws? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-08-30 11:38 |
| #9 What are these Bush Republicans afraid of? Dirty looks from the help at the country club? Shut the hell up Pat. As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-08-30 11:37 |
| #8 Best thing the Repubs did was to eject Buchanon from the party. Unfortunately his move towards the left might cause lefties to rethink their own madness before they have sunk into the mud to far to recover. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-30 11:19 |
| #7 Buchanan both the worst president of the United States [served prior to Lincoln] and a failed late 20th Century presidencial candidate. Must be something with the name. Why is anyone listening to this has been? Next Aaron Burr comments on the Jefferson Administration. Away, begone. |
| Posted by: Glavitle Slaque3075 2005-08-30 09:52 |
| #6 Buchanan: Loser, failed candidate, fired as talking head on cable.... how low can you go assho? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-30 09:50 |
| #5 You got it, EB - sorry. The Drano smoothie's okay, though, methinks. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-30 08:34 |
| #4 .com, Don't insult patriotic American shit by comparing it to the toxic waste that is Pat Buchanan. At least shit has a purpose to its existence, unlike morally self-castrated filth like Patsy the Pig. Cancer was too merciful for Nazi-loving sewage like him. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-08-30 07:59 |
| #3 Buchanan. *snort* He's the opposite extreme - a sack of (insane) shit set aflame on America's doorstep. WorldNetDaily is the spineless ankle-biter enabler who rings the doorbell this time. Drano smoothies for them both. *flush* |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-30 07:04 |
| #2 How about?: 10 year minimum sentence for producing false documentation for illegals; increased criminal sentencing and punitive fines for intentionally employing illegals; 20 yr minimum for intentionally transporting illegals either across international frontiers or within territorial US; mining border areas (frontiers between Peru and Chile and Ecuador and Peru, etc are heavily mined); destructive military response to tunnel base structures that penetrate US territory (37 known tunnels between US-Mexico; 1 tunnel between Canada-US); confiscation of all assets acquired by illegals; reverse show cause onus for citizenship status, imposed on illegals who have shown themselves to be productive members of US society; controlled temporary worker programs under Federal - not self-interested State interests - auspices; cutting the crap (legal solutions are subverted largely by American business; local law enforcement jumps hoops for large employers who want a steady supply of cheap labor). US Congress legislators make law. Point the finger in their direction, unless the Executive obstructs justice. |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-08-30 01:09 |
| #1 Impeachment talk because you don't like a policy will get nothing accomplished, Pat. Yes W. is weak on the border but the political writing on the wall sez he's likely to make some changes in the near future. If he doesn't, he's a failure as a "security-minded" president no matter what happens overseas. If W. doesn't clamp the border now, it won't happen until after 2012, since there is every chance that a certain Rodham will be the next president. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2005-08-30 00:41 |