What Bush Will and Won't Say on Monday

[Lil Red]

[url="http://thedragonandphoenix.blogspot.com/2006/05/bush-prepares-to-drive-his-poll.html"]From the Dragon and the Phoenix blog[/url]
[b][u]Bush Prepares to Drive His Poll Numbers to Historic Lows[/u][/b]

President Bush has asked the networks to clear their schedules for him (they don't have to) to address the nation on [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195244,00.html"]Monday[/url] night. On immigration. Yup. And if that isn't bad enough, he will further drive conservatives up the wall by pre-empting 24.

But back to immigration. The [url="http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/05/11/breakthrough-on-senate-immigration-bill/"]Senate[/url] has agreed to an amnesty bill, which pays lip service to border enforcement (Senators, where is the increased funding for said enforcement? What? You forgot?). So that you can view something on TiVo Monday night, I will read the tea leaves and tell you what the President will say:[list]-Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande
-They just want to put food on the table
-They do jobs Americans won't do (recently changed to the more politically correct "they do jobs that America can't fill)
-We have to bring people out of the shadows
-We have to give them a path to citizenship
-They pay taxes
-America is a nation of immigrants
-We need to pass a comprehensive immigration bill
-We are a compassionate country
[/list]The answers:[list]--No, but they don't start there, either. Mexico is rich in natural resources, and has a young, energetic work force. It should be taking care of its own people intead of placing the burden on U.S. citizens, while its elite continue to benefit from rife corruption.
--So do Americans. Illegal immigration, or creating a huge underclass by legalizing illegals, [url="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/dobbs.immigrantprotests/"]drives down wages[/url], and prevents them from keeping pace with the rate of inflation.
--[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200603140822.asp"]Simply not true.[/url] And please consider changing the requirements for welfare benefits and see just how many Americans will take those jobs.
--Mr. President, they're not in the shadows. Have you been watching television the last few weeks? If not, swing by my local Seven-Eleven, and I'll point them out for you.
--We already have a path to citizenship. It's called "get in line."
--Uh, no they don't. Most of them are paid under the table, and those who are not often claim they are "exempt" from federal and state income taxes.
--America is a nation of Americans. About 87% of the population is either native born or legally present in the country.
--Why does it have to be "comprehensive"? Why this straw man all-or-none mentality? Close off the spigot, first - enforce the border. Then take the time to examine legalization options.
--Yes, we are. But compassion should be wise, and the best interest of the American people should be your first priority. You are not the president of Mexico, sir.
[/list]What he won't discuss:[list]--The overwhelimng financial costs of illegal immigration, and [url="http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html"]studies that show those costs would triple upon legalization[/url]
--The [url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17107"]ruination[/url] of our public schools
--The [url="http://lungdiseases.about.com/b/a/178392.htm"]increase[/url] in [url="http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_illegal_aliens_spreading_diseases.html"]serious[/url] diseases that illegal immigrants are bringing into the country, and the [url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275"]closing of hospitals[/url] under the strain of caring for these people
--The high number of illegals in [url="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/28/lt.01.html"]prison[/url], and the [url="http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html"]victims[/url] of serious crimes committed by illegals
--Why it's "impossible" to deport 12 million illegals, but it's not "impossible" to process all the paperwork to grant them citizenship or some other legal status.
--Why we can spend taxpayer money to build schools and gymnasiums in Iraq, but we won't build a fence at the southern border.
--Why the [url="http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3799653"]Border Patrol has been informing Mexico[/url] of the activities of American citizens.
--Why he has called the Minute Men[url="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001842.htm"] "vigilantes"[/url] when they are not breaking the law, but illegal immigrants streaming across the border are "good," "hard-working," and "honest."
--What will happen to our economy when these 12-20 million illegals lose their jobs and go on welfare. If you give illegals amnesty, employers will have to abide by state and federal wage laws, thereby driving up their costs. This will drive up the costs of food, etc. And that will encourage employers to keep hiring . . . illegals. So, what will happen to all those newly legalized immigrants? Why, welfare, of course! What you will have created (because border enforcement is so lax) is a huge new population that will apply for all sorts of entitlements.
--Why tax law enforcement, drug law enforcement, and rebuilding Iraq are not impossible, but enforcing our immigration laws is just too much for the federal bureaucracy to handle.
--Why American citizens have to pay higher tuition if they are not a resident of a particular state, but illegal immigrants are entitled to in-state tuition in many areas
--The [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7820047/from/RL.3/"]environmental[/url] costs of illegal immigration
--The refusal of many immigrants to [url="http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty12.htm"]assimilate[/url], and their stated desire to [url="http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/004848.htm"]"reconquest"[/url] the southwestern United States
--Why he values immigrants and their cultures and "rights" over those of American citizens and taxpayers.
[/list]Shame on the President and the Senate.

[ironmonk]

Why not wait and see instead of someone's blog?

Why feed the fuel of misinformation in this world?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='981116' date='May 14 2006, 07:08 PM']
Why not wait and see instead of someone's blog?

Why feed the fuel of misinformation in this world?
[/quote]
politics is only so creative...this blog is probably accurate. It'll either go this way or he'll do what the
conservatives want him to do. and he's made public statements pretty much in line with this blog's predictions.
For anyone who doubts, Bush is not what we like to call an 'actual' conservative. He's more like a Republican.



hey now, what do you know? lookee here.



[quote]WASHINGTON - In a move designed to win support for immigration reform from get-tough conservatives, President Bush plans to send thousands of National Guard troops to help secure the Mexican border.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bush, in a speech to the nation Monday, will propose using the troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources to more effectively secure the 2,000-mile line between the U.S. and Mexico, said two White House officials speaking on a condition of anonymity before the president is scheduled to speak at 8 p.m. EDT.

In a signal of the high stakes on the issue, Bush was to make his case in a rare prime-time address from the Oval Office. He planned to follow up the address with a visit Thursday to the border in Arizona.

The broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the cable networks Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC planned live coverage of the speech.

Bush was to call for the troops to play a supportive role to Border Patrol agents, who would maintain primary responsibility for physically guarding the border. Bush also will mention the need for immigrants to learn English and assimilate into American culture if they are to become citizens.

But lawmakers have expressed concern about overextending a National Guard force that is already tied up in Iraq. And Mexican President Vicente Fox called Bush Sunday to express concern about what he called the possibility of a "militarized" border between the two nations.

On Monday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the move does not represent "a militarization of the borders."

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," Bartlett said Guard forces sent to the area "will not have law enforcmeent responsibilities or powers. They will be there in a supportive role. ... It's about a constitutional responsibility to enforce our borders."

Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," Bartlett said that as the administration trains more Border Patrol agents, "we also will be drawing on state and local law enforcement officers in a partnership approach."

White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri had said earlier that Bush made clear to Fox that "the United States considered Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border capabilities on a temporary basis by the National Guard."

Bush also assured Fox that any military support would be administrative and logistical and would come from the National Guard and not the Army, according to a news release from Fox's office.

Bush hopes adding the National Guard troops to make the border more secure will persuade congressional conservatives to approve a broader immigration bill that would include his primary objective — creating temporary work permits for foreigners to enter the country and take low-paying jobs. That idea is favored by the business community, but many conservatives want a tougher approach on illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country.

The officials who discussed Bush's proposal would not say how many troops he wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than 10,000 — an estimate being discussed at the Pentagon.

About 100 National Guard troops are serving on the border to assist with counter-drug operations, heavy equipment support and other functions. Some lawmakers say an increase is unwise.

"We've got National Guard members on their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times. 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 borders? That's not their role."

Hagel said the bill under debate in the Senate that he helped write would double the 12,000-strong Border Patrol force over the next five years. "That's the way to fix it, not further stretching the National Guard," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said there may be a need for troops to fill in while the Border Patrol is bolstered. But he did not seem confident that the National Guard could take on the extra duty.

"We have stretched these men and women so thin, so thin, because of the bad mistakes done by the civilians in the military here, that I wonder how they're going to be able to do it," Biden said, also on ABC.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., defended Bush's plan. He said lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard could take on border patrol duty are "whining" and "moaning."

"We've got to secure our borders," Frist said on CNN. "We hear it from the American people. We've got millions of people coming across that border. First and foremost, secure the border, whatever it takes. Everything else we've done has failed. We've got to face that. And so we need to bring in, I believe, the National Guard."[/quote]

[GenesiusMMVI]

Build the 700 mile fence then regularize those north of it.

That's the only policy I support. Anything less...or anything more will lose my vote in 2006 and 2008.

[ironmonk]

Oder of Proprotional Reasoning...
1) Human Life (unborn, against abortion/euthenasia)
2) Family Life (Marriage between one man & one woman)
3) Social Justice (feeding the poor, works of charity, etc...)
4) Global Solidarity

If someone is pro-abortion or pro-euthenasia we cannot vote for them without sinning unless all other candidates are the same.

If someone is pro-same sex marriage or union we cannot vote for them without sinning unless all other candidates are the same.

The Catholic Church teaches us that a country has a right to regulate it's borders... but this is lower on the list of priorities.

Please remember that, don't vote wrong because of a low priority.

Stay focused on the proper order of priorities. Once abortion is ended and marriage is protected, then let's get to the little things.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Seven77]

I think President Bush's decision was fair and balanced... praise GOD!

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='981116' date='May 14 2006, 04:08 PM']
Why not wait and see instead of someone's blog?

Why feed the fuel of misinformation in this world?
[/quote]

Your loyalty to the conservative cause should not demand loyalty to the Republican Party. The true conservative patriot does not emotionally attach himself to a political party, for he may then be manipulated by that party's leaders to accept socio-political processes that are detrimental to the conservative cause. Old political parties, as old as the two this country is ruled by, ultimately have little interest in the desires of the common man.

The Bush administration is doing some of the misinforming. If you can't see that, you're allowing yourself to be manipulated.

Now I understand what the Confederate Revolution was about. I wish they had won.

PAT BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Edited May 16, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Jaime]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='982167' date='May 16 2006, 07:54 AM']


Now I understand what the Confederate Revolution was about. I wish they had won.

[/quote]





Well that certainly is one answer to the problem of illegal immigration.

[Desert Walker]

What do you think I mean? I'm not talking about racial superiority FYI.

[Jaime]

Well when you share thoughtful musings about how you "Wish the south had won"

The continuation of slavery would have been one of the obvious and most glaring results.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='982180' date='May 16 2006, 07:06 AM']
Well when you share thoughtful musings about how you "Wish the south had won"

The continuation of slavery would have been one of the obvious and most glaring results.
[/quote]

Why do you think that Lincoln's White House was the only entity that could have ended slavery in the south?

We must have OPEN minds.

[ncjake]

Yeah I was angry 24 started twenty minutes late, hehe

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='982197' date='May 16 2006, 11:17 AM']
Why do you think that Lincoln's White House was the only entity that could have ended slavery in the south?

We must have OPEN minds.
[/quote]
I'm confused. What must we have OPEN minds about? Slavery?

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='982310' date='May 16 2006, 08:32 AM']
I'm confused. What must we have OPEN minds about? Slavery?
[/quote]

Sorry. No, of course not slavery. Have an open mind about what school history books present as the full story. We didn't need Lincoln to end slavery. Slavery (of the kind in question) would have ended on this continent even if the Confederacy had won the Civil War. The Confederate States of America would, in the end, have done away with that social blight. The Civil Rights movement did, after all, start in the southeast.

Of course, you can deny that this alternate history would have take place. But that's what I'm saying we should have an open mind about. The Confederate Revolution is viewed by many as synonymous with the white supremecy movement of today. I think that is a moronic error.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='982499' date='May 16 2006, 11:34 AM']
Sorry. No, of course not slavery. Have an open mind about what school history books present as the full story. We didn't need Lincoln to end slavery. Slavery (of the kind in question) would have ended on this continent even if the Confederacy had won the Civil War. The Confederate States of America would, in the end, have done away with that social blight. The Civil Rights movement did, after all, start in the southeast.

Of course, you can deny that this alternate history would have take place. But that's what I'm saying we should have an open mind about. The Confederate Revolution is viewed by many as synonymous with the white supremecy movement of today. I think that is a moronic error.
[/quote]


Its a moronic error that they perpetuate then. I have yet to see a white supremacy movement without a confederate flag waving.


Of course, white supremacists are morons