I see I taste I write Links What?
March 19, 2005

The hardly conservative George Bush - Part II

Blog . . 18-March-2005

Relevant quotes of the day:

“As a nation of free men we live forever, or die by suicide.”

Abraham Lincoln

“A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy.” Guy Fawkes

“Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.”Benjamin Franklin

“Good intentions are no match for armed and resolute wickedness.”
Winston Churchill

“There is only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second--surrender.”
Ronald Reagan

Would you believe that the ostensibly conservative –W- an alleged--and in selected situations the demonstrated--staunch defender of the U.S. who will not secure our borders, indicating that those invading our country are “peaceable people” who come here for employment are just seeking opportunity. (The euphemism “undocumented workers” is substituted here for factually accurate: illegal immigrants, and “peaceable” necessarily implies all of them.) For the many, peaceable people is likely true, but no nation can remain a sovereign or a free self-determining realm without exercising control over its borders, keeping out the peaceable and the unpeaceable. We can . . . and we must! Compromise over such an issue, with Liberals, Democrats, the press, the business community, the Hispanic community and/or the Mexican government, is both untenable and unforgivable. When did being elected become more important than doing what is right when necessary?

In so doing he overlooks the fact that a huge majority of our nation’s citizens, including a majority of Hispanics, favors border control and opposes illegal immigration. Even liberal Europe is beginning to get the message about dangerous, and too numerous immigrants! Why not “43?” Will it take another 9/11 to get his and the government’s attention? One hopes not, but one must enquire into why the “compassion” on this point.

The current status of inspections on container cargo, and other shipping, is said to be no better than on 9/10. Why not? A “suitcase nuke” is only a little larger than a standard airline carry-on. Searching millions of potential sites for such importation is understandably extraordinarily difficult . . . but no better than 9/10? Certainly we can do better than that. At least we could try, and if we trying there would measurable evidence of improvement.

“W” has done so well in so many parameters of foreign consideration, errors and miscalculations notwithstanding, that it is difficult to comprehend why he has not acted in these and other related matters. Surely Europe, Canada and Mexico--never mind the Middle East dictatorships--shouldn’t get a voice in domestic U.S. affairs. Why do they seem to? Giving these folks a veto, or even compromising a rational position, is irrational. Maybe they don’t mind getting attacked (they certainly don’t mind it when we get attacked), or like the Spanish they may still feel that the terrorist can be bought off by compromise. I don’t. Collectively we don’t, and clearly Bush doesn’t, so why is he reluctant to do what is necessary. Politically correct is one thing, intolerable and unacceptable as it is. Surrender, and possible suicide, is quite another, and altogether unacceptable.

Effective politics is the essence of compromise. But one must not compromise principal, national security or independence. That represents the death-knell for sovereignty. (Sovereignty remains a subject for a later rant, and a book review.)

Political correctness, trolling for European support and behaving as the world opinion believes we should is getting tiresome. So they didn’t like the invasion of Iraq. Too bad. (And many of them are now having second thoughts about Iraq, however reluctantly.) They didn’t like it when Reagan pushed missiles into Europe in contravention of their wishes either, but he was successful in forcing the USSR to remove their missiles as an “even trade.” The Germans were apocalyptic when he delivered his “tear down this wall” speech. They didn’t like Reykjavik, or “star wars,” but Reagan prevailed and won.

But Reagan did what was necessary and correct despite flak from all quarters, including more than a little from the “peaceable” in the world, including the U.S. “There they go again” was his peaceable rejoinder.

So . . . “splain” to me just why any American President, let alone a conservative, would hamstring the U.S. by refusing vigorous defense of our borders? We don’t need foreign power agreement, nor do we need accolades from them. We just need to surrender. It’s as simple as that! Frightening, too.

Posted by respeto at March 19, 2005 12:03 PM