A 9/11 Father, Lifelong Republican, Says: Time To Impeach Bush Over Immigration

Rufus_1611 · Jun 7, 2007

A 9/11 Father, Lifelong Republican, Says: Time To Impeach Bush Over Immigration

My son was one of the nearly 3000 people murdered on September 11, 2001 by nineteen illegal aliens.

It was easy for the 19 monsters who committed these acts to get into our country and, once in, to remain here unchallenged and at their leisure plan, rehearse, finance and carry out their mass murder. The 9/11 attacks, the murder of my son and thousands of others, were made possible, even inevitable, by the open borders policies instigated by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, John McCain and others who are in the pockets of the Open Borders Lobby.

They share in the responsibility for those deaths.

...

As 9/11 FSA became widely known for its advocacy in Congress and the states on border security and secure I.D. issues, we found we were being contacted by many whose relatives were murdered by illegal aliens in “ ordinary” street crimes and vehicular homicides, and other victims who survived violent crimes committed by illegals. This led to 9/11 FSA becoming an advocacy group for victims of any violent crime committed by illegals, whether these be the terrorist acts or individual crimes.

...

Whether the crimes were committed by an Islamic fanatic like Osama Bin Laden (OBL), or a thug like the Railroad Killer allowed into the country by the Open Borders Lobby (the other OBL), the fact is that Kennedy and Lindsey Graham have aided and abetted these criminals.

But as guilty as Kennedy and his fellow senators are, for six years and four months, the person most responsible for the failure to exclude dangerous aliens from our country, most responsible for refusing to use his power to remove those already here, has been America’s Chief Disregarder of the Law: President George W. Bush.

...

Consider: Four of the Fort Dix Six would have been eligible for the Bush Amnesty. Several of those who were involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks (including ringleader Ramzi Yousef) had been granted legal permanent resident status thanks to the 1986 amnesty (specifically the Agricultural Worker provision authored by then NYC Representative Charles Schumer, presumably on behalf of the strawberry farmers of Brooklyn). All of the 9/11 terrorists would have been eligible for the Bush amnesty if they had postponed their attacks until after passage of the Kyl-Kennedy-Bush bill. The list of these amnestied or eligible-for-amnesty criminals goes on and on. And we really only know of the criminals whose crimes made the front pages. How many other Americans were killed or raped in crimes committed by Bush amnesty eligible aliens in crimes that did not make the headlines?

...
Click to expand...

..........

BillyG · Jun 7, 2007

Rufus_1611 said:

..........
Click to expand...

Do you agree with the article?

Do you favor expelling 10,000,000 illegals?

How would you go about rounding them up?

Rufus_1611 · Jun 7, 2007

BillyG said:

Do you agree with the article?

Do you favor expelling 10,000,000 illegals?

How would you go about rounding them up?
Click to expand...

I agree with the bulk of the article.

Rounding up the illegals is not necessarily key to the topic of the article. The issue is that an executive or congressmen that does not enforce the law and does not protect the country they swore to defend are guilty of betraying that country and should thus be removed of their public "service". To answer your questions though, I do favor expelling the 20,000,000 illegals as they are criminals and a fundamental necessity for a lawful society is the abiding and enforcement of law. The first priority for addressing this issue would not be rounding up the criminals, the first priority would be to stop subsidizing them and penalizing the organizations that do. Dry up the pot of gold and they will go looking for another pot. Once, the bulk return to their countries of origin because they are no longer rewarded for their illegal actions, then you round up the remaining folks as they are caught committing the other crimes they engage in.

carpro · Jun 7, 2007

Wishful thinking.

He cited no impeachable offense.

saturneptune · Jun 7, 2007

BillyG said:

Do you agree with the article?

Do you favor expelling 10,000,000 illegals?

How would you go about rounding them up?
Click to expand...

He has no idea how to round them up. As far as impeaching President Bush, like was said above, there is no impeachable offense. Our time and energy could be better put to preparing for the next administration by working to elect a person with some morals, and someone who knows how to lead. Bush has 17 months left in office. That is the blink of an eye in time. He has very little support in congress or with the people. Why bring up impeachment. He is the lame duck of lame ducks. Besides, do you really want Cheney President? Leave the man alone to his fate.

Rufus_1611 · Jun 7, 2007

saturneptune said:

He has no idea how to round them up. As far as impeaching President Bush, like was said above, there is no impeachable offense.
...
Click to expand...

The author's argument for impeachable offenses were included in the article...

...
For those who haven’t paid attention, here’s a list of his high crimes, his violations of his Constitutional obligations:

Rather than repelling foreign invasion as he is required to do, he has invited it and he has provided aid and comfort to the invaders and to those who give them employment.

Rather than acting to insure domestic tranquility he has done his best to destroy it. His presidency has been devoted to tolerating and encouraging infiltration of our country by violent criminal aliens who, once inside our country, commit crimes as individuals, as part of organized international gangs or as agents of violent religious movements emanating from such enemy nations as Saudi Arabia.

He has encouraged the erosion of American sovereignty, and aided those who would destroy our independence. It has become the publicly-expressed policy of the Mexican government to influence the internal affairs of the United States. This policy has been put into effect using the 48 Mexican consuls in the US. Lobbying by these foreign enemies, which is in violation of treaties, is now common, widespread, and done openly. Mexican officials and illegal aliens acting in concert with them lobby elected and appointed officials throughout the United States; in small towns and large cities, in county commissions, state legislatures and the Congress. The President of the United States refuses to end these practices, even though he could do so with a simple instruction to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she order the expulsion of the offending diplomats and closure of the consulates.

Bush’s open refusal to enforce immigration laws already on the books amounts to an assumption of the power to repeal legislation without the involvement of any other Branch of government.

Armed Mexican troops have invaded US territory. This in itself is not an unprecedented event, but Bush’s failure to respond with force or even a public condemnation is unique in our history.

...
Click to expand...

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. - U.S. Constitution
Click to expand...

carpro · Jun 7, 2007

The author's arguments, from an impeachment standpoint, just don't hold water.

If they did, most of the elected officials in Washington, would be impeachable.

Rufus_1611 · Jun 7, 2007

carpro said:

The author's arguments, from an impeachment standpoint, just don't hold water.

If they did, most of the elected officials in Washington, would be impeachable.
Click to expand...

Most of them are.

carpro · Jun 7, 2007

Rufus_1611 said:

Most of them are.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Constitution and the facts.

The author's emotional presentation won't make it so.

Rufus_1611 · Jun 7, 2007

carpro said:

Not according to the Constitution and the facts.

The author's emotional presentation won't make it so.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that our leaders have acted to repel this foreign invasion?

carpro · Jun 7, 2007

Rufus_1611 said:

Are you suggesting that our leaders have acted to repel this foreign invasion?
Click to expand...

I stated that the author's emotional appeal will not and cannot manufacture impeachment level offenses where they don't exist.

Any "suggestions" you draw from that are your own.

Rufus_1611 · Jun 7, 2007

carpro said:

I stated that the author's emotional appeal will not and cannot manufacture impeachment level offenses where they don't exist.

Any "suggestions" you draw from that are your own.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you an emotional question. The author alleges that it is the responsibility of the commander in chief to defend the United States from foreign invasion and you accuse him of emotionalism. Your lack of response and inattention to the allegations suggests that it is not he that is emotional.

The constitution suggests that congress has the power to collect taxes and one of the purposes for this is to defend against foreign invasion. The commander-in-chief would be the responsible party for the defense of this country. Thus...

Has the commander-in-chief or congress defended the U.S. from the illegal invasion of 10-20 million people from a foreign country or have they actually encouraged this invasion?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" - U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15
Click to expand...

If they have repelled the invasion then how did all those folks get in and why are they still here?

If they have encouraged the invasion then why isn't this an impeachable offense, when it is their duty to repel such invasions?

carpro · Jun 7, 2007

The author cited no impeachable offenses.

How much clearer does it have to be?

Obviously you disagree. So be it.

A 9/11 Father, Lifelong Republican, Says: Time To Impeach Bush Over Immigration

Rufus_1611 New Member

BillyG New Member

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

saturneptune New Member

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

A 9/11 Father, Lifelong Republican, Says: Time To Impeach Bush Over Immigration

Rufus_1611 New Member

BillyG New Member

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

saturneptune New Member

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rufus_1611 New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter