“I do solemnly swear that I will ……. ” May 24, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Immigration, Government , trackback|
These are not words to be taken lightly by a man, , especially when that man is the President of the United States of America, the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of our armed forces. When I was growing up, at home I taught the biblical principle of James 5:12″ But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. In school, this principal was reinforced, many times by the urbane saying, “word is bond” or ”let a man’s word be his bond” ; it’s origin from the days of the financial markets that you didn’t have to put it into writing, or put bond money down, you were going to do what you promised you would do, many times sealed by a handshake. The full oath taken by the President is contained in Article II, Section 1: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution succinctly defines presidential functions, powers, and responsibilities. The president’s chief constitutional duty is to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed by virtue of his oath to do so. However, this morning I wake up to read in the news that once again the executive branch has “thumbed their nose” at the Constitution. Uphold the laws? Protect the borders? No, “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday that Republican conservatives (are) working to block an immigration bill risk endorsing a “silent amnesty” by insisting on deportations that are “not going to happen.” according to USA Today
In addition, the president is expected to stump for the bill next week and a “rapid response” team is countering critics, not only in the conventional media but, for the first time, on Internet blogs, said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan. The president’s press secretary, Tony Snow, already has debated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and TV commentator Lou Dobbs, both critics of the bill. Chertoff acknowledged that there is “a fundamental unfairness” in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, “We are bowing to reality.” He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job. Bilbray said his idea hasn’t worked because “there’s been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law.”Bilbray could not have put in more succinctly, because we have failed to protect our borders and turned our heads as American employers have thumbed their noses at the immigration law, aided and abetted by the Bush’s administration failure to enforce it. In light of the attacks of September 11, 2001, this is inexcusable. The article goes on to directly address a position I have written on before: “Chertoff acknowledged that there is “a fundamental unfairness” in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave (enforcing the law)would be impossible, Chertoff said, “We are bowing to reality.” He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job. This argument is answered by “You’re not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they’re currently doing,” Chertoff said.Now follow this line of argument. The administration turns a blind eye to illegal immigration over the past decade. The employers hire these illegal immigrants, receive notices from social security administration on bad social security numbers, do not follow I-9 hiring procedures, and face few if any ramifications for it. I know this to be true because I worked for a national contractor who did this, and in inspecting the personnel files found the majority of our employees to be illegal, no I-9 forms, incomplete personnel files and the lowest rates of pay of any of our units. The same argument. But it is fouled logic, I was able to quickly replace them with legal citizens.The “key” came out later, these workers do not demand raises or benefits and are just happy for a job. In other words screw our citizens and the immigrants who came legally and went through the process to get here properly, they actually want a fair rate of pay and benefits, these people will work for less and who cares about all this legal garbage? The cure is to start placing the onus of responsibility not on the immigrant, not on building new fences, but on the employer. If the employer is cuffed and has criminal charges filed for intentionally breaking federal law, the well runs dry on jobs, which in turn will cause the illegal to return home or come back legally. See not only do they not hire the citizen (their neighbors), they place an extra burden on the them, in the form of food assistance, medical assistance, educational expenses for their children and increased law enforcement costs. And does this bother the employer? No. He is thumbing his nose at the community and the taxpayers of that community as well, laying extra burden on them and not providing relief in the form of jobs. Now why do you think the government has a hands-off policy on this? I mean, we have legislators like Tancredo and Bilbray who clearly state the problem and solution? No, politicians don’t want to cut the campaign funds of major contributors off to their campaigns ! But instead of enforcement we are told, “People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported.”
“The reality is, we don’t have enough people,” said Gutierrez. Hold the phone. Haven’t we been told that our jobs are all going overseas by the democrats? Which is it? Both can’t be true. The spin cycle is so heavy and is planned to play on your emotion and reasoning and avoid the tough facts; as allow the true guilty parties to be held harmless.A few examples, (all of these are linked) I.N.S. Looks the Other Way on Illegal Immigrant Labor , Execs indicted, Tyson Foods, Con Agra, Cargill and Mohawk, There is an old maxim, the risk is worth the fine, so if we fine employers who we arrest, the company pays the fine, the stockholders take a bite, or perhaps a price increase comes to reflect the cost. But the company officers does not go to prison to violating the law. You look at this and it reminds you of the RICO act, except it is the government involved in systemically breaking the law, and then claiming we have to live with the ramifications because these companies who broke the laws won’t have employees. Too bad, is it our problem? Are we supposed to be told by the government that our cost of subsidizing the illegals low wages and the added cost on the infrastructure is ours to keep so Tyson Foods can hire illegal immigrants? Incidentally, In the 2004 election cycle, Cargill and Tyson donated over $300,000 to Bush’s reelection bid. Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution states in his duties (not options) “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. The President and his administration has systematically failed to uphold our immigration laws or protect our border from invasion by noncitizen. Not only has he failed to do so, now he also admits the inability to do so. Further he has made plans and is instituting a plan to silence those who demand that the law be enforced. If that is not enough, he has a new plan, (should we call him the man with the plan?) A powerful think tank chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is in the final stages of preparing a report to the White House and U.S. Congress on the benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one political, economic and security bloc. The final report, published in English, Spanish and French, is scheduled for submission to all three governments by Sept. 30, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies. CSIS boasts of playing a large role in the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 – a treaty that set in motion a political movement many believe resembles the early stages of the European Community on its way to becoming the European Union. So lets not enforce the law, lets change the borders so its not a crime, forget this sovereign nation nonsense! President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9, 2007 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. The “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,” with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator. That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for “National Essential Functions” of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president’s directives in the event of a national emergency. The directive loosely defines “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Now here is where the rubber meets the road, I clearly remember impeachment proceedings of President Clinton for his lying under oath. Republicans were frothing to get Clinton out of office over Monicagate and this crime of untruthful testimony under oath, and wanted to hold him to account. Now we have a republican president who has lied under oath, as he has failed to faithfully execute the office by failing to enforce the laws of the United States, and further, refuses to. He also refuses to hold law breaking employers to account for their actions and says there is nothing we can do. One of the jagging points on President Clinton with me was his profession of faith and then his actions after such profession by trying to justify his actions. But here I see a blatant refusal to uphold our law by a professing Christian who claims God wanted him to be the POTUS! And a planned spin campaign to change the issue Now some questions: Should the interests of employers outweigh the law of the United States? If not, should employers of known illegal immigrants be arrested? In your view is the problem the immigrants or is the problem the employers who lure the immigrants? Is the oath of office a binding oath in your opinion? If so, what should be the ramifications for violating that oath? If not, should it be removed by amendment to the Constitution? Is refusal to enforce the law, the major job description of the President , a cause for removal from office? If not, why ? Should the President have the power to unilaterally ignore the Legislative Branch and pick and choose which laws he will enforce ignoring our sovereign borders? If you are a Christian, can you justify supporting a President who has violated the biblical principal of let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation? What should be the consequences of his actions, if any? |
Comments»
before the wrath of republicans rains down, I have voted for George Bush 4 times for President .
This is not a I hate George Bush piece, this is about his duties he swore to uphold and has refused to do.