Saturday, July 08, 2006

I took it down yesterday


Until yesterday this was displayed above my desk. I had it up there since the day after the election. But I took it down. I could no longer take it. Why? Bush's speech yesterday. I have heard his lies, his falsehoods and his disgusting rhetoric one too many times now.

"But in order to enforce this border, we've got to have a rational way that recognizes there are people sneaking across to do work Americans aren't doing. They're doing jobs Americans are not filling. And my attitude is this: When you find a willing worker and a willing employer, there ought to be a legal way to let somebody come here to work on a temporary basis."

By "temporary" he means "let them come here, establish themselves, get a few women pregnant and then ignore any go home orders that would probably never be issued anyways."

"It takes pressure off the border. When you got people sneaking across to do work, it puts pressure on a border. If somebody can come in on a legal way, it's going to make it easier for our Border Patrol agents to do their job."

This is the libertarian argument for drug legalization. "Prisons won't be so crowded if we would just make things legal." You know, enforcing our burglary laws "puts pressure" on our police and our jails. Maybe we should provide a way that people can "obtain things that aren't theirs on a temporary basis."

"But one way to do is if you have a temporary worker program, say, here's a tamper-proof card that will enable our employers to be able to verify whether someone is here legally to do work on a temporary basis, and enable the government to hold people to account for hiring illegal workers."

Did anyone not hear Lars Larson tear up Sec of Commerce Gutierrez on this? Absolutely shut him down. This is a big lie. Who will have this "tamper proof card?" Everyone? Or just people with brown skin? Either everyone has to have it or no one has to have it. This card is a lie. There will be no verification.

Another lie:

"People in this country expect us to secure the border, and we will."

Notice how it's future tense, not "we are." He isn't interested in securing the border now, only after he gets his amnesty will he pretend to secure the border.

I could go on and on but the bottom line is, If I am polled asking if I approve of our president, I will say NO. I believe that what he is doing is so damaging to our country, so damaging to our children's future that I'm here to say, no Mr. President, F**K you!

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm with you on this one Daniel. I can't take another moment of this bozo!

Bobkatt said...

Daniel, congrates for joining the rank of those who finally realized that we really have no friends in government except for possibly Tom Tancredo. I voted for Bush twice (ok-i'm a little slow) and now I would vote to impeach him on the spot. They are all working to sell or give away our country to the highest bidder. When the truth comes out about the governments complicity in 9/11 and how we have traded our freedom for a false sense of security I hope it's not too late to complete the necessary second American Revolution, the one that actually put the power into the hands of the people where it belongs.
The following is from the Washington Times via ORBUSMAX:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060706-103244-4600r.htm
Privacy concerns prevent the Social Security Administration from notifying an employer that a hired foreign national is not authorized to work in this country, including someone who may be a potential national security risk, says a government audit.
Since 2003, the SSA has issued Social Security numbers, dubbed "non-working," to foreign nationals who need them to collect state or federal benefits, such as public assistance.
The audit released last month as immigration-reform debate heated up on Capitol Hill says 109,064 foreign nationals used their non-working Social Security numbers to report earnings at 100 companies reviewed between 2001 to 2002. It said hundreds of thousands more also are using their Social Security cards illegally.

SSA officials disagreed with the recommendations, saying they would have a minimal effect while creating a substantial workload, both in systems development and in the field offices.
They also cited privacy concerns, saying they were limited by the Privacy Act in what the could disclose to employers about a foreign national working in the United States.


Even when their own audit tells them what needs to be done, they find a way to try and avoid doing it.

Daniel said...

I've been reading your stuff bobkatt and while I don't agree with all of your possible solutions, your basic premise that we have been sold out is right on.

Bobkatt said...

Daniel, for a little more insite on my beliefs I formally posted as BobH. before I started my blog. My only intention is to reverse the trend that is taking the power of government from where it belongs and given it to the elite and big business. My means may be debatable but my motive is just that. I believe that the people have the insite, the ability, the judgement, the right, and the duty to make the decisions necessary to guide this great country into the future. Anyone who doesn't agree on that premise, that sets themselves above the will of the people, that thinks that the constitution and the bill of rights are just suggestions needs to be removed from office for abusing their power.
Keep up the good work and maybe we can turn this ship around before it hits the iceberg.

Anonymous said...

BOB, you left out something very distressing in that story....
Of the top 3 Employers turning in employee SS# that are false...GOVERNMENT workers are tops!

YES "OUR" Government is hiring ILLEGAL Aliens...Violating their own laws...Paying them more of our Tax monies because they speak a foreign language...So a black market is profiting from "our" Government...This has to STOP!
And the Pres. STILL thinks we are buying his Baloney? Why does he want future Pres. to run a NEW turd world America? What is their motivation to bring this place down? If they are power hungry, why wouldn't they want power in the most powerful Nation? We will no longer be the most powerful soon. Why would a multi-millionaire like El Gordo Smith want to be re-elected anyhow? He's Rich! Power over what? A bi-cultural, bi-ligual, debt up to their eyeballs, socialized Nation full of non Tax paying, deadbeats on some social program. How much longer can this hold up?
Will the Sheeple fire these jerks? Can't wait for November.

Daniel said...

Ah, I know who you are! I've been reading your blog and just disagree with a few minor things. (Term limits)

I think that a more democratic solution would be to require Senators to go up for election every 4 years, or even every 2 like the House. Notice how the Reps in the house seem to align themselves a lot closer with what the population actually wants than a senator who knows that 5 years later everyone will have forgotten.

BEAR said...

the race is in a contest with al qaeda. Both know that the borders shall close tightly as soon as the next terror attack occurs, especially if it is imported across our southern border. At least the Canadians know in their hearts that as we go, so go they, and they are becoming more vigilant. The socialist and terrorist invaders flooding our southern borders have no love for America, and no common interest or ideals. I am saddened by the thought of some horrific attack, and how intense the backlash will be when Americans take back our country. In the meantime, our rino leaders choose to fiddle......while the terrorists and other anti-Americans plan. I'm sure that Rove, et al, have done the math, and have calculated that if the terrorists only kill 3,000,000 of us a year, our population will still grow.....sheesh.

Anonymous said...

The party has not called me back for donations for some time now.

I guess they got my message and that I think we have been sold out.

But then we might see a good revolution blossoming in Mexico and day now.

That may well change the shape of things to come real soon.

Bush's buddy might get his beans baked.

Big Mike Lewis said...

I think Bill O'Reilly has it right when he asks us the question, "Who's Looking Out For You?"

The answer is an emphatic, NO ONE.

Daniel said...

Actually there are some people looking out for you: (or me in this case) my family, my church, Jesus, and a random smattering of co-workers and neighbors to varying degrees. Does Senator Smith look out for me? Hah.

Anonymous said...

Daniel, Don't forget that you have a bunch of fellow bloggers who are looking out for you and yours because we know you are looking out for us and ours.

Bruce said...

Right ON!!!!

Gunslinger said...

As much as I agree with the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be N. Korea and or Iran. I am pro victory. But part of that victory MUST be protection from invading nations. This is one of the few things that I disagree with my president on, and wish he would listen to the AMERICAN people about. Unfortunately, it is a very big thing. Oh how I long for solidarity.

Kaelri said...

I'll say it again: you're about four years behind. After the abject plethora of lies that came out of the administration over the war... perhaps you think warfare is a trivial matter in comparison, but I find it hard to believe that it didn't teach you, and everyone, not to trust the instigators?

MAX Redline said...

After the abject plethora of lies that came out of the administration over the war

Let's see...Bush, Blair, Putin, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton - among many others - all agreed that Saddam had WMD, and that he was a threat to world stability.

Coalition forces have in their possession over 500 warheads filled with mustard gas and sarin.

I have yet to see any "lies" regarding Iraq.

Gunslinger said...

John Kerry... Before the war, before he was against it.

Oh yeah, the instigators. They flew planes into some 2300 of my fellow citizens.

Daniel said...

Since you didn't get specific in your accusations Kaelri (but hey, just say "he lied" over and over again and everyone will assume it's true) I will assume that you are talking about WMD's.

Did you happen to catch this story?

And Kaelri, I thought that maybe we could go see a movie together. I called the theater and they say it starts at 7:00pm. I looked online and it says that it starts at 7:00pm. Even Jay H8, who doesn't even want to go see this movie, told me that it starts at 7:00pm. So let's go there for the 7:00pm movie.

Oooops, it's started at 6:30pm. Did I lie to you? Or was I acted on the best information that I had?

Bobkatt said...

Kaelri, it's sad to see you taking the I told you so approach. I am not sure what your point is. Is it that we should only mistrust the Bush administration? Is it to futher polarize the right and left? I think you have to admit that most of us have admitted that we have been betrayed by the very people we voted for.
I think it is facetious to insinuate that any of us think that war is trivial. A large part of the problem is we don't know who to belive. If you think that you can trust the Liberals, consider this:
Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war.
John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Maybe if there was less blame and rhetoric on both sides we could actually get at the truth.

Shaky Louie said...

Geez! Stay away for a while, and so much happens!

Anyway, for a real "sell-out" of The USA, if you haven't already seen this site - you're in for a BIG surprise!

Go to: WWW.SPP.GOV/

[BTW, how does one create a "hot link"? It would help to know the trick, or is it a "secret" punishable by death if revealed?]

Scottiebill said...

Bobkatt, If you are willing to impeach President Bush, then right up there with him should be cetain select senators and congressmen (and women). To wit: Kerry, Reid, Kennedrunk, Pelosi, Gordon Smith, Patty Osama Mamma Murray, possibly Conrad Burns (even though I have known Burns since the late 60s when he was an auctioneer at the Billings, Montana stockyards), Feinstein, and Feingold, to name just a few.

Bush may yet have to undergo impeachment in the near future, but if he does, he should not be alone. There are many others who also need to go down that path, perhaps even before Bush.

Anonymous said...

I'd say Portland wishes the same to you, Daniel.

James said...

Actually the Libertarian argument for drug legalization is that its no damned business of anyone elses.

The fact that the war on drugs has caused a prison crisis while true enough and plain to see is not the reason for legalization only a byproduct of it.