The Shotgun Blog
« Canada, the most awesome place on earth | Main | Stop treating us like terrorists—or we'll blow you up »
Monday, May 15, 2006
Bush's Speech
I thought it was very good. Free of bombast, genuine, empathetic. The George Bush I like so much. Unfortunately, I haven't seen enough of him lately, making tonight all the more welcome.
It was all quite reasonable. Indeed, how can you -- and why would you -- round up 11 million people who are, for the most part, working hard, contributing in a positive way, not collecting welfare? He wasn't suggesting the doors should be wide open, either, and of course, they shouldn't be. It seems odd to even have to point out that there should be some middle ground. But Bush pointed it out well.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on May 15, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834bff5df69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush's Speech:
Comments
I've been looking over a pamphlet which is called a "Sample Ballot" and I just today received my "Absentee Ballot" for our Primary Election (June 6, 2006) here in California.
At least half of the individuals named are "friends" in the sense that I've communicated with them (and contributed to some) or at least have a very strong personal sense of who they are and what they stand for, etc. Perhaps 20% are actual acquaintances associates.
I've been very gravely and sadly pondering my decision that I will not be voting for anyone who is a Republican, for any public office.
This is going to be a really big change in my way of life.
I am beyond enraged at our political situation.
So, you might put me down as not sharing the opinion that the President's speech was "good."
I could solve the illegal alien situation in an entirely equitable and fair manner and very efficiently and very simply. I've communicated my thoughts to appropriate elected officials on this over many months and even years.
I have really nothing personally to do with immigration, but yet in my lifetime I've assisted three individuals in their efforts to (successfully) enter the U.S.A. and one has become a citizen another is on the way and the third I've lost track of. All did the LEGAL deal. None of them worked for me, etc. but I did in fact pay out of my own pocket the legal fees to help one of these guys go through the process ($2,800). I wasn't asked for the money, nor did I ask for repayment. It was necessary and I was (as always in my life) pleased and happy that people wanted to come to America and become Americans.
President Bush is probably going to get better and better at making his case. I think the illegal Mexicans seem to like his ideas, and now I see that at least one Canadian is warming up to his thoughts. So, it probably isn't much problem that one American has turned away.
Adios.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-15 8:05:06 PM
I fully agree with you. This speech showed a side of the President that is truly admirable and a side that we sadly have seen too little of.
He showed that there is middle ground, and basically described the compromise bill that is currently in the Senate.
Posted by: Charlie | 2006-05-15 8:06:31 PM
Share your solution with us Conrad.
Posted by: Roark | 2006-05-15 8:47:48 PM
Conrad-USA
Hope you enjoy having Hillary as your President.
Damn that Bush! Where does he get off creating a world that doesn't please the left or the right.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2006-05-15 9:02:37 PM
"It seems odd to even have to point out that there should be some middle ground. But Bush pointed it out well."
Rondi, you're an intellectual giantess - it's no wonder you should feel so welcome here at the ShotDumb. This truly is Canada's beacon of critical, in-depth analysis and faith. The left can have their 'facts' and their 'reason' - all we need is our 'feelings' and our 'faith'.
Oh you left out the part where the US Gov has been tracking calls to ABC news. The KGB would be proud.
Posted by: Justin Fossey | 2006-05-15 9:56:32 PM
Hey Justin,
"An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly support the surveillance of phone records as a way to protect them against a potential terrorist strike," Vargas reported as she cued up George Stephanopoulos by relaying how "some lawmakers were taken by surprise by this widespread public support for the program."
Are you Canadian, Justin?
If you are, i think it would serve you well to research your own personal foreign policy before criticizing foreigners about their foreign policy.
If your an American, then i guess your in the vast minority regarding the aforementioned poll.
Posted by: Bryan | 2006-05-15 10:50:15 PM
Oh you left out the part where the US Gov has been tracking calls to ABC news. The KGB would be proud. Posted by: Justin Fossey | 15-May-06 9:56:32 PM
-------------------------------------------------
Justin,
Your allegation is untrue-unless ABC is an al Qaeda affiliate or terrorist organization. The NSA program does not track, monitor or surveil anyone's phone calls. It feeds numbers into a computer and the computer pumps out the phone numbers of those making calls to suspected terrorists.
Why anyone in their right mind would object to the government using this unobtrusive program to find out who is communicating with suspected terrorists-when it may help protect the civil rights (the right to life)of thousands of innocent people is a sad commentary on the quality of MSM reporting and the level of BDS- here and in the United States.
The program does not impinge on the privacy rights of anyone except those making calls to suspected terrorists- and even then all that it reveals is that calls are being made. Presumably at the next stage NSA monitors the people calling the suspected terrorists. If you object to that you are not serious about preventing another 9/11.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2006-05-16 6:42:35 AM
Those news about public calls are playing in the hands of American enemies. Why are there no attacks inside USA? Because they take the means to prevent them. Prevention has a better taste.
Maybe France,UK and Spain could learn from USA. Is Canada doing anything efficient about this?
I understand Conrad. There is something sick inside USA. A group of people has sized power in the economic domain. There is no more true free enterprise. See the movie FROM FREEDOM TO FACISM.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-05-16 8:39:42 AM
Remi:
Or that other credible move, The Da Vinci Code.
Listen to the hype surrounding its opening.
Personally, I don't believe anything I see in the movies. It's there just for entertainment value.
When I was younger, people were outraged that I liked Alice Cooper's act. Apparently, they could not distinguish between the act and reality.
In other words, they acutally believed popular culture had anything enlightening to say.
I see this phenomenon with my own son and his friends. What was that movie about the JFK assasination? The kids who were not alive at the time were convinced everything in the movie was true.
Michael Moore ... the list goes on.
I guess there will always be a certain element of the populace, like poster karol, who have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality.
All I can conclude is they're not living a life, they're living in a fantasy world. Apparently, it's quite a large market, fuelled by the human mind's tendency to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in.
Much like W's speech.
I did not see it. I do not feel qualified to comment on it. That's why I took advantage of the situation to change the topic.
Carry on, everybody else and ignore these ramblings.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 8:59:43 AM
Roark - Thanks for asking (i.e. giving a damn). I didn't write it initially because I'm so disheartened in this situation.
First, I would enforce COMPLETELY all aspects of the existing laws which make it a crime to EMPLOY illegal aliens in America. Oh, I'd love to "enhance" enforcement, but just following existing law to the letter will accomplish the task of removing the magnet which (absent any enforcement currently) attracts and holds illegals here in America. I would not particularly focus on ferreting out the actual illegal aliens, I'd just let them wind up thier "business" here and move back to their home country - where they could potentially find employment and maybe rent a room to share with three other families for perhaps less than the $1000 per month they are paying for it here.
Of course, in the process of enforcing the existing laws against illegal employers, all of the illegal aliens whom the enforcement folks gathered up would be handled according to our existing laws (e.g. deport them, etc.), but my point is, I'n NOT target-focus on the illegal workers (they will figure out how to leave, and won't have to pay any criminals to get them back across the border).
Oh, but what about the "hit" on our "economy" (i.e. the "poor" slave wage employer - campaign contributor)???
Unlike the 12 million Mexican illegals (to 20 million, to 30 million) figure bandied about in the discussion of this illegal alien issue, there is also a 6 million figure.
Six million is the number of PENDING applications currently in "process" from people all around the world who have followed the established LEGAL process for emigrating to America for legal worker status leading to subsequent application for American citizenship.
I would solve the illegal alien problem by instantly approving ALL six million pending applications for legal entry to America. No testing, no hoops or hurdles at all. As quick as though they walked across with the daily inflow of illegals.
One control. A biometric space age "finger print" and identity RECORD. You screw up; we find you; you leave (more on where we send you, later).
Ooooppps. One additional control. ZERO people from Mexico. Not for the next one hundred years. Gracias, Vincente!
Then, the supposed shortfall, between the 12 million "official" number of illegal aliens who are "presently" here in America and the six million instant-approved pending applications? I would divide up another six million pre-approved emigration VISAs on a per capita basis among the twenty POOREST nations on earth, and immediately approve entry papers to six million additional physically healthy people.
I'd keep in place all of the welfare laws, etc. which are currently being exploited by the illegals, etc. as what some politicians call our "social safety net" etc. and I'd also make a real easy "Help Wanted" vs "Willing to Work" jobs placement service to link employers' opportunities with folks who are newly arrived, in a completely acceptable LEGAL status in America.
Then I'd let fifteen minutes pass and I'd go around and see the twelve million new folks who would be working and buying TVs or cars, etc. as happy as a clam (same theory as the Iraqi's who are greeting us as liberators and heros, but without the "insurgents" who we all know are merely the 60% of Sunni-Baathists who were complicit in Sadaams' torture operation, and who know that once the new Iraqi legal system is operating it is going to mete out justice).
Oh yeah, and with the existing US Border Patrol agents, I'd just give the order: "Do your jobs properly - perfectly - enforcing our laws and protecting our population from TERRORISTS, easily, because now anyone walking across the border without documents is violating laws that mean something again."
Earlier, I "promised" more thoughts on where we would send law breaker illegals, who either violated the new deal (e.g. our simple reversion to actual law enforcement), or were belligerant illegals who would not just leave after their employer was arrested and had started going through our legal process (for the rest of his life, or until every penney he ever had was completely exhausted via lawyers).
That would be a NEW program. It would be a new "foreign aid" program. I'd pick THE two poorest nations on earth and offer them a way to earn foreign aid, lots of it. I would "out source" prisons for illegal aliens. A two year sentence (long enough to really remember what "mistake" the offender had made). I'd send half of the deported illegal aliens to each of these two poor countries and I'd pay them, $5,000 per year per prisoner, with payment made at the END of each year, and only for those prisoners who were still alive at the end of the year. No punishment, just house the prisoners in these two poorest places on earth, in the manner where the "host" jailer country made out financially by keeping the prisoners alive. If this worked out as well as I think it would, I'd extend the program after the two years to our "regular" criminals, since our old illegal alien problem would be GONE, along with George Bush and our cravenly conflicted-dishonest Republican Party.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-16 9:44:16 AM
Conrad:
We beat you to the punch about immigration from the poor nations.
Much of them are clients of the immigration industry in its home base of Toronto.
They are given $1000 cash when they enter the country, have a vast array of lawyers, social workers and a guideline to remain guests in this country through the welfare system.
Many end up in ghettoized social housing, where they pay minimal rent. Oh, well, at least they have a home base, paid for by the taxpayers, from which to sell drugs and ho's from.
Careful what you wish for. I mean, be real careful and think this through.
I like your idea of fast-tracking those who have applied for immigration, but that certainly must be matched to the labour market's needs.
Otherwise, you take the risk you're going to import more crack dealers ... in both senses of the word (see reference above).
I think I understand your frustration ... a nation that holds itself up as a bastion of freedom based on laws, ignoring those laws when it comes to immigration.
I agree this practise erodes the moral authority of the US in the world.
Thing is, W was governor of Texas, a state bordering Mexico. I'm sure he's conversant with the issues better than I am ... son of parents who legally entered Canada a half-century ago.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 10:09:37 AM
"All I can conclude is they're not living a life, they're living in a fantasy world."
I look forward to your proof, set you free, that God indeed exists and that Jesus was, in fact, his son.
Nothing fantasy there, eh?
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-16 10:24:03 AM
Justin:
His existence is proven through historical records.
Your rejection of learning from what is obvious around you does not negate that fact.
That is my belief, and none of your anticipated name-calling will change my mind.
If you have any further questions, I would be glad to answer them. Pick a topic, any topic on theology if you're not afraid to face the truth.
In not, Orwell was right. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 10:35:52 AM
Let's compare what i asked and what you answered:
1. prove the EXISTENCE of God
2. prove that Jesus was His son
What you answered:
1. It's proven through "historical records"
You're hilarious, set you free. Accusing others of living in a 'fantasy world,' yet you clearly live in one of your own.
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-16 10:48:14 AM
ebt:
Sorry, I forgot.
justin:
Your question was answered in this way in my reply: “What is obvious around you.''
And, you didn't disappoint me. You could not even see the obvious.
Any more questions?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 11:03:03 AM
set you free - I'm not interested in the poor nation people any more than I'm interested in the rich nation people. There is this reported numerical difference between the number of illegal aliens presently here and the number of pending (legal) applicants. If it was 12 million illegals versus 12 million pending apps, I'd not offer anything new to any other nations.
It is easy to understand that laws set up constraints and consequently abiding by laws is obviously always more difficult than violating laws.
Even if one does comply with all the laws, that does not guarantee success, it only provides the possibility of success and ensures that the fruits of "success" can be enjoyed.
Criminal activity is also understood and it is endured and it is handled as one of the costs of freedom in human society.
The concept of a government of laws, which then becomes corrupt and fails continually to uphold laws, destroys the delicate thin line, at the margin of individual decisions about abiding by each law.
There are so many examples, "proofs" if you will, of how disasterous it is to allow social norms to erode.
The societal understanding of human sexuality as a preserve of the natural human family versus its sad portrayal as an unimportant casual "sport" for strangers to engage in, has recked havoc on our population, for absolutely no benefit.
The President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer, before he is the advocate for even programs which he may have been elected to achieve. If he had specifically campaigned for a particular change in existing laws, it is his sworn duty to uphold the existing law all through the time up until he has legally changed it.
America is made up of folks from everywhere. One is only an American by embracing the social compact, the rule of law.
This massive criminal treason perpetrated by President Bush in his aggressive efforts to corrupt and destroy our immigration laws by making his way appear to be an irreversible fiat accompli is not "American". It isn't of the idealism which makes for a safe and civil society and nation out of ethnic, racial, economic strangers and competitors.
One really needs to be "religous" in order to be American. One needs "Faith" in ideals, with the hope they can be achieved on earth.
Guys like Hitler and Stalin and Mao are the ones who push people around and call it a nation.
Think of old "dumb" Reagan and you see a man worthy of leading the American people. When he made mistaken judgements they were not craven attempts to get by again with a previously failed policy, they were the errors which come from attempting to do your best with unknowns.
President Bush has done real damage to America and it is deliberate and his version of "clever."
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-16 11:03:58 AM
Conrad:
Ronnie Raygun was one of my all-time favourites.
I also understand, as we have articulated in other threads, the difference between Canada's victim society and the US's tradition as a survivor society.
To be a survivor, you have to believe in something, that's for sure because it's a forward-looking philosophy. Victimization, on the other hand, attempts to placate perceived injustices through transfers of large amounts of money.
I can see your point where W has gotten off track on the immigration question.
All I can say is it's a good thing people are not breaking down our doors to freeze their asses off eight months a year. That's a good thing.
Now, if we can only find an effective strategy on both sides of the border to fend off the poison of social activism, we'd both be better off.
Through your explanations, I have caught a glimpse of why W's numbers are plunging faster than the intellectual level once certain buffoons enter this realm.
It appears W is trying to outflank the Dems in many ways ... spending, profitable compassion, etc.
I know if I was in the States, I wouldn't be voting for him next election.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 11:28:11 AM
Yeah the obvious is that you attack other for living in a 'fantasy' while you yourself live in one of your own.
You're like a child screaming, "No, no, no, no, no" over and over again.
Face it, kid, you've lost.
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-16 11:56:51 AM
SYF
In grand American tradition (and the only true democracy on earth) you couldn't vote for him next election any more than he could run, his term is up and he couldn't run if he wanted to.
So therein lies the dilemma facing the typical American voter, throw the baby out with the bath water and vote Democrat, or stay Republican. It is interesting to note that as Bush's poll numbers have dropped the Dem's have not increased.
It truly is a case of as bad as Bush has been on some issues, he and his party are still light years ahead of anything offered by the Democrats who have been totally corrupted and taken over by the far left fringe.
Like the Lib's up here they are defined as a "do nothing" party, they offer no ideas and only obstruct anything creative. They obsess over the nuances of the day e.i. SSM, while the real issues, i.e. the war on terror, are not even on their radar screen.
Like any clear thinking person on either side of the border, the thought of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house, Harry Reid as majority leader, and the assorted other far left whack jobs holding any semblance of power in the US at this point in history, leaves me with a very sick feeling in my stomach.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-05-16 12:18:06 PM
Justin:
Talkin' to me?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 12:18:18 PM
deepblue:
Glad your were the first one to catch my red herring about W's term limit being up.
Like that throwaway line, I laugh in everybody's general direction ... no disrespect meant to you deepblue.
See how much fun watching politicians bleat on about their own self-importance when it's obvious they've not important at all.
The thing I like about US politics is that it's much cheaper entertainment than Canadian politics.
Speaking of which, time to go watch Question Period. I can hardly wait!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 12:22:54 PM
Hi deepblue!
I've got an old friend, a woman, wife of a retried US Marine officer, and a homeschooling mother of a couple or a few kids. She is also a Mormon person (I'm a Catholic, "Roman" Catholic - for set you free's clarity).
She and I "met" (on the Internet) and for years discussed many issues in elementary eduction, I had gotten involved in trying to get the local public schools reintroduced to sanity. I participated in local School Board meetings and advocacy and politics.
Anyway, my old friend regularly urged me to get involved with one of our "third" parties, e.g. not Democrat or Republican. I didn't want to "throw my vote away" and didn't follow her encouragement.
I will now think for awhile about how I am going to handle this situation. I will either just drop out of the political activities altogether or I may get involved with a third party. I had considered getting involved with the Democrats, because I feel "certain" that one could just burst that festering boil open with a quick jab of rational "Wake Up!" call to them, but I'm not going to sign on for such a frustrating and (sickening) close association with people who "hold" to so many of the most corrupt and evil ideas that have backed up from the sewers of human "thought."
But, I'm gonna "risk it" and let Nancy Pelosi et al have her shot at defeating Bob Dole's erectilly disfunctional appendage in a suit, who will be the next "Republican" candidate (who knows? it might even be a great "leader" like Senator Bill Frist)!
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-16 12:40:50 PM
Conrad,
Be careful. Take a look at your local candidates first. I was upset at the President, too, but I can't let my Representative and my Senator suffer for it (especially when my Rep in particular is far better than Bush on this).
As an example, if memory serves, the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in CA was, if I have it right, a leading restrictionist on immigration. Granted the odds of him beating Feinstein are slim, but punishing him because of the President's errors is very shortsighted (of course, I also can't stand Feinstein on the China issue, so that may color my outlook).
As for Pelosi, she's terrible on a lot of things, but fairly good on the CCP, so I wouldn't mind her winning, but not at the expense of my aforementioned Representative!
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-05-16 1:08:00 PM
Conrad:
What about McCain?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-16 1:09:14 PM
D. J. McGuire - If I was in Congress right now I could single-handedly get President Bush to enforce the existing immigration laws.
I would propose new legislation (every day) or offer rider/amendments onto every piece of legislation as follows: "ALL government money shall be withheld from all operations of the White House, for every purpose, until such time as the President enforces all existing immigration laws, particularly with respect to those Americans who are employing illegal aliens."
Second, I'd offer daily this new legisltative initiative: Title: "The Bribe President Bush to perform his duty as President of the United States in the same manner as it is done in Mexico Act". The new law would offer a one billion dollar cash bribe payable from the U.S. Treasury directly to President G.W. Bush for the purpose of providing him greater financial enrichment to perform his duties as president than he is evidently currently taking in order to fail to perform and prevent the enforcement of America's existing immigration laws.
I would offer this legislation on the televised daily (actually they usually occur at night) "Minute Orders" (I think that's what it is called) on every day that the Congress is in session, and on weekends I would stand on the marble steps of the U.S. Capital building.
Perhaps a television news camera crew, who were not entirely supportive of President Bush, would consider putting such discussions onto the evening news.
Our House of Representatives is supposed to be composed of citizens who intend to serve in office for just a short period (one or two terms, each term being two years long). But instead we have gutless guys who won't "risk" actually serving the nation, instead they are "better than Stalin" or "better than Dracula" as the basis for their RE-election.
The Republicans really are too clever by half.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-16 2:16:38 PM
President Bush is very disappointing on the border issue. I hate to say this, as I have been a big supporter.
However, our situation is actually one of our House of Representatives holding firm with a conservative agenda against a Senate which has far too many liberal Republicans willing to compromise.
So the polarity is really the House holding firm against the Senate.
Both will meet in conference committe to work out a compromise solution, and conservatives are hoping the Senate will be the body that blinks.
Americans need to support our valiant House Republicans and conservative Democrats as they work out an agreement with the Senate.
We must, at all costs, hold the House.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2006-05-16 2:50:07 PM
This is just a quick thought. Why is someone being criticized for closing thier border to illegal border-crossers? I thought that society was based on rules,not emotions. Sure, there is a lot of immigrants(illegal) that contribute and will be a plus to society,but why do we allow them the same rights as those who follow the rules? What does that say about our rules,are they useless? Why should I line up for a movie when I can scam my way to the front? Because that is society's way and if you cannot or will not follow the rules of my society,well,f**k you.
Posted by: wallyj | 2006-05-16 7:43:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.