Thread: What's wrong with our government?

Many of the top elected officials in the country told us they were concerned with "homeland security." Bulls!@t! They refuse to properly fund our border patrol along the Mexican border, they criticize groups like the Minutemen, calling them vigalantes, and offer special assistance to illegal immigrants such as health care. Does this sound like they are trying to discourage illegal immigration? Absolutely not! They are encouraging illegal immigration, and they are selling our country to the lowest bidder. Excuse me for saying so, but if you voted for GW Bush this past election, you should be horse whipped. I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, or what your political stance may be, if you voted for that rat bastard in the Whitehouse, you made a huge error in judgement. For God sakes folks, don't make the mistake in 2008 of voting for one of his cronies.
So my fellow Americans, what's wrong with this country is owed, at least in part, to us. We are to blame for placing politicians in office who care about some other bottom line than the safty and security of US citizens. We are to blame for listening and believing their retoric, when in our hearts, we have to know they are pulling our legs. We are to blame when we can't vote for someone because of the political party he or she is affiliated with. We are to blame when we feel we have to vote for someone just because they are a member of a party we feel we are affiliated with. We are what's wrong with this country, and therefore, we are the ones who will have to bring about change. We cannot count on elected officials to take our best interests to heart.

WELCOME TO ALIPAC COUNTRY JIM!!

And I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a 4th generation GOP (maybe longer than that but this far back I know) that voted for the ManiaX in the White House Twice And his Traitorous New World Order Pappy Twice as well.

I take full responsibility for my erroneous votes. I had no idea who these people really were. I thought I did, I thought we could trust our Party, trust former Vice Presidents, CIA Heads, Governors of a big state like Texas....but NO NO NO NO NO NO....we now know we can not trust that political record or any political record or any party affiliation.

NOW we have to put these people under microscopes before we elect them and every single day they are in office and as soon they make a mistake, boot their butts out with a U S Congress that is hereby duly notified...when you realize or hear from us that There's A Traitor in the White House and it's time for him to MOVEOUT, then you are to act immediately before that person and his crones can cause serious damage to our nation and the American People.

Oh yes, Country Jim, we are responsible, but I have to tell you from what we've learned Kerry's big backer was George Soros, OPEN BORDERS LOBBY KING PIN....and thus he owned Kerry, so it sadly would not have mattered between the two choices.

WELCOME TO APLIPAC and Thanks for the Post!!

We can't take our eyes off this process anymore; we have to be political activist 24/7/365. Ugh!! But if we don't, we'll lose our country and ourselves.

I've realized--sigh-that the illegal immigration issue is just the tip of the iceberg as far as things that require our time and attention is concerned...and when we finish with this there are dozens of other threats to our country and our well being.

I didn't think that either Bush or Kerry was a very good choice...if we had any 'choices' they dropped out for lack of money and support way at the beginning. That's the other thing we need to be careful about when we're considering a vote...I mean...why think we're 'wasting' our vote if we're voting for someone who is sincere but not well financed? We now have the tools to learn what we need to know about candidates...we can research their record. With grassroots efforts perhaps we can change the way we select our representatives.

As far as voting for Bush..mea culpa...mea culpa...therefore, here I am, working every day to try to correct that error...I see no reason to apologize for it...what the hey...there's nothing quite so clear as hindsight. I did what I did with the information that I had at the time...as did others.

RR

I still wouldn't vote for John Kerry if he was the only one on the ballot. Under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, John Kerry should not be a Senator for any state -- he was a traitor to this country that is honored in a Hanoi museum.

IMO the terror attacks were alive and doing well during the Clinton years, but he was too busy turning the White House into a Whore House to care about the American people. Attacks on American citizens in 'foreign countries' was something that required the immediate action of the United States -- Bill Clinton did nothing. When the Sudanese offered bin Laden on a silver platter he refused the offer.

the only time Bill Clinton decided to "stand up" for the American people was when he was going through an impeachment trial

Originally Posted by RoadRunner

I've realized--sigh-that the illegal immigration issue is just the tip of the iceberg as far as things that require our time and attention is concerned...and when we finish with this there are dozens of other threats to our country and our well being.

I didn't think that either Bush or Kerry was a very good choice...if we had any 'choices' they dropped out for lack of money and support way at the beginning. That's the other thing we need to be careful about when we're considering a vote...I mean...why think we're 'wasting' our vote if we're voting for someone who is sincere but not well financed? We now have the tools to learn what we need to know about candidates...we can research their record. With grassroots efforts perhaps we can change the way we select our representatives.

As far as voting for Bush..mea culpa...mea culpa...therefore, here I am, working every day to try to correct that error...I see no reason to apologize for it...what the hey...there's nothing quite so clear as hindsight. I did what I did with the information that I had at the time...as did others.

RR

So did I, RR. And he had been governor here, and did a pretty good job. I voted for him in 2000. I took all kinds of heat, as a black Republican. That is akin to a clown that hates circuses. However, once I saw what he was really up to, I could not have been more wrong. That is why I am working so hard to un-do it.

First of all, thank you for you comments everyone.

I agree the choices we had in the voting booth during the last presidential election were not the best choices in the land. Unfortunately, they were the candidates with the most money and political clout.

I do know that protecting our borders, and therefore, our way of life, is the most important issue today, hands down! My next vote will be cast for the individual who I think is most like to protect our borders and inforce the laws of this land.

I consider myself a patriot. I believe in the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Most of all, I believe in the American spirit, for it has been that spirit that has brought us this far.

Who to delegate in 2008, is yet to be determined, but hopefully, we have more pull on Capital Hill and more pull in the hearts and minds of Americans when the time comes. The importance of taking our message to the people at a grass roots level cannot be overstated. As one gentleman pointed out above, there were likely good candidates, who because of lack of support, never made it to the ballot. We cannot be afraid to support someone, simply because they may not win.

"This land is your land, this land is my land," but it is not their land.

Originally Posted by Sixx

. I voted for him in 2000. I took all kinds of heat, as a black Republican. That is akin to a clown that hates circuses.

that is cute, I've never heard that before!


IMO, Congressman JC Watts from Oklahoma, a black republican, gave one of the best responses after a state of the union address I think I have ever heard. I told my mother he talked like a preacher --- lo and behold he was one!

An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their act of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working using false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status for their breaking the law. In January, 2004 President Bush Proposed an earned legalization program for illegal aliens. This is an amnesty under another name.

For over 200 years, the United states only granted amnesty in individual cases and had never given amnesty to large numbers of illegal aliens. Then in 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which gave amnesty to all illegal aliens who had evaded law enforcement for at least four years or who were working illegally in agriculture. This resulted in 2.8 million illegal aliens being admitted as legal immigrants to the United States.

Because of chain migration, those granted amnesty have brought in an additional 142,000 dependents - relatives brought in to the United States to join their family members.

The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet since 1986, Congress passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens:

1. The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 - the "one-time only" blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens.
2. Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 - a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
3. Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 - an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
4. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 - an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
5. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 - an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
6. The Late Amnesty of 2000 - an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
7. The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 - a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.

An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Issuing an amnesty to illegal aliens only encourages more illegal immigration into the United States. After the 1986 amnesty, illegal immigration increased significantly. Census Bureau 2000 data indicate that 700,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens settle in the U.S. each year, with approximately 8-11 million illegal aliens now currently living in the United States (up to 12 million, according to Department of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge).

Yet an amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied. An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year. Amnestied illegal aliens have no sponsor to support them financially. Instead, by enacting an amnesty, Congress places a staggering financial burden on American taxpayers to support those amnestied.

According to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, the total net cost of the 1986 IRCA amnesty (direct and indirect costs of services and benefits to the former illegal aliens, less their tax contributions) amounted to over $78 billion in the ten years following the amnesty.

Congress has paved the way for more amnesties. In 2001, Mexico's President Vicente Fox began to lobby the United States to "regularize" the status of millions of illegal aliens from Mexico living in the United States. Both U.S. political parties, in attempts to pander to the Hispanic vote, speak of amnesties in various forms for illegal aliens.

By granting amnesties, Congress has set a dangerous precedent that threatens homeland security. Our normal immigration process involves screening to block potential criminals and terrorists from entering the United States. Yet millions of illegal aliens have avoided this screening and an amnesty would allow them to permanently bypass such screening.

President Bush's January, 2004 guest worker plan announcement - really an amnesty for illegal aliens - directly caused at least a 15% to 25% increase in illegals entering the United States.

Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans oppose amnesty for all illegal aliens and that Hispanics are less likely to reelect President Bush if he supports amnesty.

SO WHY do they do it? Because they can without repurcussion......till now!

amnesty for aliens is unconstitutional and neither Congress nor the President has the authority to pardon citizens under the jurisdiction of a foreign power in violation of the law of nations ...

Originally Posted by Mamie

amnesty for aliens is unconstitutional and neither Congress nor the President has the authority to pardon citizens under the jurisdiction of a foreign power in violation of the law of nations ...

That's Right