4um: BUSH: WE CAN'T BOOT 11M ILLEGALS

Title: BUSH: WE CAN'T BOOT 11M ILLEGALS
Source: www.nypost.com
URL Source: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/63782.htm
Published: May 15, 2006
Author: By GEOFF EARLE
Post Date: 2006-05-15 09:07:33 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 136
Comments: 21

May 15, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - In his live, nationally televised address tonight, President Bush will tell Americans that it's impossible to deport the estimated 11 million illegal aliens living here.

"We must reject amnesty, but recognize that it is not realistic to round up millions of people and send them home," said White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri in a preview of Bush's speech.

She said Bush plans to spell out his vision for sealing the border, enforcing the law, and "creating a rational system for workers to come into our country and to do jobs Americans won't do." Bush plans to visit the U.S.-Mexican border this week, and will dispatch his Cabinet to help sell the immigration plan.

The Senate plans to return to the contentious issue this week now that Republicans and Democrats have a deal to plow through controversial amendments. But the House and Senate are far apart on whether to put illegals on a path to citizenship.

Tamburri said Bush would call for "better equipment, increased funding, and advanced technology" to secure the border.

She didn't confirm press reports that Bush wants to expand deployments of National Guard Troops to step up border enforcement. Some Guard troops are already deployed in Arizona and New Mexico, but Bush is considering a big increase.

White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that enforcement was the Border Patrol's job - but then asked whether they needed help from the Guard on an "interim basis."

"This is not about militarizing the border," he said. The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border. It's what the American people want."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), speaking on ABC's "This Week," slammed use of stretched Guard resources. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times," he said. "And what in the world are we talking about here - sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send up to or down to protect the borders? That's not their role."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," backed putting more Guard troops on the border with Mexico, and said lawmakers taking shots at the idea were "whining" and "moaning."

Bush plans to repeat his call for creating a temporary-worker program "that would allow foreign workers to enter our country in a lawful way for a limited period of time," said Tamburri. He also will call for holding employers "accountable" for the workers they hire by making it easier to check on an employee's status.

The administration also has recently announced some high-profile law-enforcement actions against employers who cheat.

Hadley didn't say whether Bush backed building a 700-mile fence on the Mexican border - although Bush supported the House bill last year that included a fence and tough penalties for illegals and employers who hire them.

Hagel, who helped forge a key immigration compromise, put the chances of enacting an immigration bill this election year at 50-50.

What's worse, is that WE CAN deport them. When you do the math and figure out how much money they cost American Taxpayers every year, versus how many man hours it will take to remove them from our soil, there's a huge profit margin gained.

Getting rid of the cancer known as the illegal alien, will save the patient known as America.

These pricks want to ensure that the Brown Bush gets to be elected to some kind of office, as they want to set up their own version of their 1000 year reich.

Hagel is echoing the wishes of Bilderberg, of which he has attended the last several meetings.

Frist seems to be playing devil's advocate, but I do not trust him further than I can spit.

The Solution: BRING 'EM HOME!

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater

Lets start with the illegal prison population. Get them out. Then seal the border - shut. Then assess the state of American politics and begin a second American revolution, because that's our only hope.

Jesus Christ, you put the National Guard where they need to be to protect the goddamned country. Remember after 9-11, WE HAD GUARDSMEN IN OUR AIRPORTS!!!

Goddammit. These people act like the National Guard is the standing army, rather than people who are to be used by their respective STATES. THAT IS THE JOB OF THE NATIONAL GUARD, TO WORK WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.

Goddamn it, I am so fucking tired of these politicians using people like toilet paper, and treating america's sovereignty like a newly shat turd.

The assumption that the U.S. Govt. can't remove the 20 million illegals causes me to ask ... Is America less capable than Mexico ? They did it.

"Sarah if the American people ever find out what we have done to them, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us". [George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon]

We 'can't' do this or that to THEM, but we 'can' do this and that to YOU! What a moron. The reason we 'can't' round anyone up and deport them for breaking our laws is because we have spineless, ballless men,and yes, wimmen, pretending to represent we the citizens of this country!

Openly attacking American sovereignty: globalists are now openly revealing their true goal of submerging the United States in a world government.(GLOBALISM)(Column)

Those who know what to look for these days should have no trouble recognizing the reality of an ongoing, behind-the-scenes effort to destroy the sovereignty of this country. As the process has accelerated during the past 12 years (the NAFTA era), we sometimes find open admissions by the archglobalists themselves.

In his book Memoirs, published in 2002, David Rockefeller, Sr. made the following remarks, startling in their very frankness: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

"Rethinking" National Sovereignty

It is against this background that we should read an article published in the Taiwan-based Taipei Times on February 21 entitled "State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in a Globalized Era." Just as David Rockefeller directed the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for years, the new article's author, Richard Haass, is the organization's president. The CFR, often portrayed as just another "think tank," has long been one of the chief architects of the "more integrated global political and economic structure" Rockefeller spoke of. Progressive regionalization has proven to be its most workable method. Last year the CFR published Building a North American Community, which openly called for dissolving the borders between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and establishing "regional governance."

In the recent article, Haass concludes that "the time has come to rethink the notion" of national sovereignty. He calls for "new mechanisms ... for regional and global governance that include actors other than states." These include transnational corporations and non- governmental organizations (NGOs). "States," he said, "must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm." In referring to actions taking place in the trade realm, of course, he means primarily those taking place at the World Trade Organization, but also doubtless those that are being implemented through the so-called free trade agreements: NAFTA, CAFTA, and the (stalled) FTAA.

In his recent article, Haass identifies one of the principles of national sovereignty that must be ceded: "the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction." (He does not discuss any other principles.) If even this one principle of sovereignty is ceded, we will no longer be able to call ourselves an autonomous country: we will have to bow to trade-community rules in terms of drug laws (both those that are currently legal as well as illegal), abandon national security efforts and allow others to determine our citizenship requirements because we won't be able to control immigration, give up rules that are intended to keep our foods and beverages safe, and forgo traffic and highway safety because we will not be able to control who is allowed to drive here or the safety of the vehicles they are driving. And this is just a partial list of negatives that will accrue by ceding just one little part of our sovereignty.

The rationale he gives for countries acceding to this loss of sovereignty is globalization. "Globalization," Haass tells us, "implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary." In other words, countries that don't accede will be embroiled in armed conflict.

Haass offers examples of once-sovereign states that were invaded by international bodies. "Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the U.S. preventive war against Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection."

Haass also mentions climate change as a global issue and a reason for states to cede sovereignty. "Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol," he said, "which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the U.S., China and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did." Environmentalism is thus an instrument moving nations toward relinquishing sovereignty to world "governance."

How far does he propose to "alter" our concept of sovereignty? "Our notion of sovereignty must ... be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute," he explains. "If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.... The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

An Open Conspiracy

There we have it: another open call for world government by an insider--one which, moreover, commits a logical fallacy. The fallacy is called false dichotomy--arbitrarily narrowing the number of alternatives to force a conclusion. Either world government or anarchy? It seems to this writer that there is a third alternative: freedom--free enterprise under a constitutional republican form of limited government devoted to protecting life, liberty, and justly acquired property under the rule of law. The CFR (along with the Trilateralists, the Bilderberg Group, and others) has been working to destroy limited government since the CFR's inception in 1921.

So much for labeling as "conspiracy kooks" those of us who have been writing for years about the efforts of the CFR and similar organizations to dismantle our government.

Nowadays, as part of the plan, the internationalists would have us believe that the "rise to globalism" is nothing more than a historical accident--the product just of, e.g., changes in technology. However, the CFR, founded following the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations, has been promoting globalism by stealth from the start.

Now to be sure, there are governments in the world whose sovereignty does not merit much respect, e.g., totalitarian regimes that brutally repress dissent. U.S. sovereignty, however, has its roots in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution--which limits government to a few, carefully specified functions, and governs by consent of the governed. Such ideas have given rise to American exceptionalism.

Disorder in the Courts

Globalist dogma, by speaking of sovereignty in a general way, runs roughshod over American exceptionalism, and is a direct threat to our constitutional form of government. We are already seeing evidence of American courts bowing to WTO decrees, and of Supreme Court justices appealing to foreign law when deciding crucial cases.

Justice Stephen Breyer (CFR) and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (CFR), who both have kowtowed to "international rules" thereby paving the way for internationalism, ironically have both expressed doubts about the future of the Constitution. In the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case back in 2003, they were part of the majority who decided that homosexuals have a "right" to privacy in their sexual behavior, overturning another Supreme Court ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick, of 17 years before on the grounds that the previous ruling did not accommodate "wider civilization," i.e., the world civilization CFR globalists advocate.

In a televised interview on ABC's This Week hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Breyer wondered aloud whether the Constitution would continue to be relevant in an "age of globalism." Will it "fit into governing documents of other nations"? Of course, if the justices actually did the jobs they were hired to do, the constitutionality of our laws would be determined by examining the Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a scathing dissent in the Lawrence case, called the reliance on a foreign law "irrelevant" and said "this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

Derailing Globalism

If the Constitution is not used to derail the ongoing incursion of globalism into American political and economic life, then the future will see more and more power in America flowing away from the American people and into the hands of unelected bureaucrats accountable only to each other. Our rights will be eroded and then denied. For instance, private property rights will continue to be eroded under the auspices of such movements as sustainable development (another brain child of the UN crowd).

Our rulers in the age of advancing globalization will reside either in organizations whose loyalties are to socialist documents such as the UN Charter or transnational corporations whose only loyalty is to money. Many of the latter, of course, already have governments in their back pockets. Principled behavior is not among the strong suits of any of these organizations.

Many Americans still do not see what is right in front of them. Richard Haass's candid article in the Taipei Times should provide a reality check. Just imagine the positive effect of placing his admission in the hands of fellow citizens as well as our elected senators and representatives in Washington. Of course, everyone informed of Haass's remarks should also be encouraged to "Get US out!" of the United Nations--the long-standing campaign of the John Birch Society.

What was true when we torpedoed the planned world government under the auspices of the League of Nations is still true today: globalist plans for the world will not work without America's support.

Steven Yates, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College.

This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.

There's at least that number of survivors - and that number seems to grow every year. My guess is that every Jew over the age of 70 thinks they were in some camp, somewhere.

I was just wondering if it was just a coincidence that I had just seen that figure -- highly doubtful in both cases -- in two places. Or maybe the same neocon was responsible for both?

It's more possible to deport all of them then it was possible for the WTC towers to collapse into their own footprints on 9/11 because planes hit them and they had a few relatively small smoldering fires. The government, the official we can even overrule the laws of physics organization with their fairy tale of what happened on 9/11, is now going to tell us what is and is not possible? I think not.

It’s time to wake the sheeple up; the real truth of 9/11 must be exposed to all who haven’t heard it yet. Don’t waste time with people that are too unintelligent to understand the truth, there are many that will see the truth, and at the very least it will plant a seed of doubt in their minds that could grow to a large army of people that will know the truth of 9.11. When that happens the government will have to kill us all to achieve their objectives, because we won’t tolerate their phony elections and treasonous actions anymore.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02] More and more of our imports come from overseas. - George W. Bush

Either they deport all illegal aliens and fine the employers who hired them or the Republicans will lose big time in November. I know the Democrats are not the solution in any way shape or form, but the Republicans will be blamed for not acting because they are in power now. I am really getting tired of this soap opera.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02] More and more of our imports come from overseas. - George W. Bush

Back in the seventies a corporate type actually went to jail for dumping a rat poison called KEPONE in The James River. (which runs into The Chesapeake Bay, and resulted in a moratorium on shell fishing. The bay has never recovered from the pollution)

Anyway, once someone actually got jail time, the practice of "externalizing their costs" went waaaay down in popularity, and suddenly proper waste disposal was "the cost of doing bizness".

Employer penalties will be the last step, and only then if forced by the people.

The feds will place unfunded mandates on local cops, and every other meaningless sidestep they can until forced to get tuff with their campaign contributor buddies.

Hell, yes, we can deport them. I can drop a dime on at least 60 families right now.

The Democrats are asking the president to at least let them carry sidearms to defend themselves.

Look at it this way, bubbele: you boot them---all of them-- -, or we boot you and your butt buddies in Congress this November. That easy enough for you to understand?

"Ah Love! could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits---and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!" ----Fitzgerald's Ruba'iyat, XCIX

Any national guard solider that would do duty on the border unarmed is an example of an American doing a job that nobody else in the world in his or her right mind would do.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02] More and more of our imports come from overseas. - George W. Bush

Well, obviously we'll just have the wetbacks do it, since they're masters of doing jobs that real Americans don't want to do.