This Page

has been moved to new address

Not What I Wanted; Not What We Need

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: Not What I Wanted; Not What We Need

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Not What I Wanted; Not What We Need

President Bush delivered his prime time speech tonight. It was not what I wanted and not what I believe we need at this time. It was a step -- but altogether too tentative and made, in my opinion, only because Bush knows the crosshairs of the National Scope are focused on the bridge of his nose by everyone trying to dethrone not only Bush but all the GOP as well.

With this speech, he further allows the ELECTION crosshairs to be focused BY the Democrats, the DEM (Defeatist, Elitist Media), dissatisfied Republicans and Conservatives on not only himself but the GOP in future elections this year. And that, friends, is not good.

WHY is this such a difficult issue for people to get their minds around?

If we're not serious about OUR security, about securing our OWN borders, then why, I ask, are we even in Iraq? Why is there more security WITHOUT this nation than WITHIN?

Or is President Bush "misunderestimated" once again? He does admit in the speech:

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

President Bush also wants the National Guard on the border. I've thought about this for some time since his recent announcement.

And I've decided that, unless we're going to shoot coyotes and drug runners (and I am convinced we do NOT have the national resolve to do this) then NG deployment is a smokescreen designed to jerk the electorate off under the table. We would be better served to keep NG troops available for foreign deployments, and instead FURTHER increase the number of USBP officers. THEY are the ones who 1) do the work, 2) know the terrain and 3) that's their job!

Will we use the National Guard when elders want to cross streets?

This speech may only please those illiterates who have not been paying attention to the entire issue at all -- to be blunt.

Both parties don't seem to want to do anything about the issue -- and that appears to be the bottom line at this point. A bottom line like this will only hurt the GOP and certainly not the Democrats. And the DEM will, of course, pile on.

Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports issue, the massive budget and now immigration. These are the issues causing consternation with GOP internals. And splitting us horribly whilst the Dems and the DEM rub their hands with glee.

But on the other hand I can understand why Conservatives draw a line and say: "No more. Here, once again, is where the GOP and me part ways."

It is because Conservatives have an actual position and are loathe to eject that position. Above and beyond Republicans. And Bush Apologists. It is why I read A Jacksonian.

Here is a paragraph in Bush's speech that speaks, as I am wont to say, volumes about his thoughts regarding Mexico:
The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Is Mexico truly our friend? Is Fox our friend? Are people providing maps to cross the border our friend? Are drug runners our friend? Is La Mordida our friend? Are armed border incursions conducted by our friends?

I was indifferent regarding a fence. Until today. Now I am a supporter of a fence. And TAX ME for it -- I will GLADLY pay some additional buckage for same. It appears to be working for the Israelis.

I would also ask: if it is such a wondrous thing, why is there NOT a "virtual fence" surrounding the White House? Any answer for that, Mr. President?

This speech reminds me of someone's impacted prostate: dribbling at best.



Blogger TexasFred said...

The Guard troops would mostly serve two-week stints before rotating out of the assignment, so keeping the force level at 6,000 over the course of a year could require up to 156,000 troops.

A 2 week deployment??

Excuse me but in 2 weeks you don't have time to unpack your sea bag...

This is NOTHING but smoke and mirrors, the troops NEVER get the opportunity to know the A.O.

Electronic security is wonderful but what we need RIGHT NOW is a fairly large mobilization, 4 to 6 Brigades and if that's not enough to totally seal the border, call up a few more, and if it's more than we need, scale back a bit... 6K won't make a dent, the ROE are non existent... The Guard is going to be used as OBSERVERS, and that my friend is bullshit and a waste of good troops..

Mon May 15, 08:36:00 PM PDT  
Blogger NEO, SOC said...

I am not happy with the nonsense and what is with this overworking our troops thing going on? Mind you, I love our soldiers, but they signed up understanding that it was for the country. The media is pegging them out to be wimps! I'd like to hear how the soldiers feel about what the media is saying on this issue.

Mon May 15, 08:40:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

I was pleasantly surprised by this speech. You never get everything you want all in one fell swoop especially in politics. This was a great step in the right direction.

I'm concerned about all or nothing thinking because you usually end up with nothing.

I thought he covered all the bases well except I'm not thrilled with the guest worker program. I don't know how anyone would want to return to Mexico after working here for any length of time. But with that said I think its a good step in the right direction.

Mon May 15, 08:46:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Texas Fred: I wholeheartedly concur: this is smoke and mirrors.

Nothing replaces Bodies In Place.

Neo Soc: Our soldiers are NOT wimps but them must deploy to their destination spots. They have no choice in the matter.

LMC: Okay, I can give you that; but what else would you want? He made some concessions but where else would they go?

Let's not hesitate here; let's put all of our cards on the table.

He made a step.

But there are so many, SO MANY, steps yet to be made.

I wanted him to make them.

Right here.

Right now.


Mon May 15, 09:09:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

05 16 06

Hey BZ: I see you are on fire again. Gooooooood!!! I totally agree with you about Bush's speech. I watched part of it and left with a bad taste in my mouth. Basically I DO feel as though he is sacrificing our national security by using the Natl Guard and I don't think that makes much sense. However, given the fact that some military troops are being called back to service we have a populatio n issue. We may have to go to the draft pretty soon!

I don't feel as though Mexico is our friend. I DO think they have the capacity to be our friends in the future, after the government rids itself of all the internal corruption etc (snowball's chance in hell maybe!:)) At times I wonder if the cultural divide is too great for us to truly be friendly with one another. And one thing is for sure, I think GWB consistently tries to be all things to conservatives, but all things to the Hispanic vote as well. He has very strong Hispanic support in Texas and he may be afraid to lose that. Whatever the case may be, he needs to come up with something stronger and more forceful than what we have now...

Tue May 16, 11:27:00 AM PDT  
Anonymous Jorg said...

Don't worry there will come a better day.

To help you relax:

I have just written about TEXAS LIGHTNING, a German country band, which will represent our country at the Eurovision Song Contest.

Contrary to popular belief, many Germans love cowboys, country music and Texas! And more and more Americans love soccer and will watch the World Cup next month. => German-American relations are finally improving again.

Since you are part of the Texas Connection, I thought you might be interested in my blog post, which includes the Texas Lightning music video:

Please share with your friends in Texas.

Tue May 16, 03:47:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Revka said...

I have a question no one has asked. Why now? Why hasn't this been discussed and dealt with 20 years ago? Why is it now BUSH'S deal? Because of the upcoming election, and the 'no-plan' libs are using it to try and regain power.
Be careful, because the libs have set the trap and we are getting caught up in it.

Blo, you are right about most everything you said, but I wonder why everyone is putting the onus on Bush to fix it NOW? WHere is congress? WHere are the Dem's answers here? WHere have the answers been all these years.
WHy was the illegal's incursion passed off and not dealt with all these years under Reagan AND Clinton?
It is curious to me that all of a sudden this seems to be Bush's problem, and will soon be portrayed as HIS FAULT. I know it is more of a concern because of 9-11, but the problem was there before 9/11.

Yes, Bush has to do something, but this is the problem of centuries of 'no action' that has created a huge 12 million or more illegals in our country and given us pourus borders.

Why is everyone expecting Bush to fix it RIGHT NOW? Sure we all want a solution right away to ensure against another attack, but that is not realistic.

It can be done, but in time, and not by one man but by our congress and by the people. I agree that we should build a fence, but do not charge me more taxes for it, instead USE THE MONEY THEY ALREADY WASTE AND USE THAT!
The conservatives are the only one with answers at this point so I give them and Bush credit for that at least.. :-)

Wed May 17, 01:04:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Revka said...

O.K. i just read some stuff on how the illegals are responding to Bush and the guest worker program, and that Mexico will sue if the National Guard detains illegals.. I renig what I said. My emotions have kicked in now!!
No compassion here,I say haul them outta here, and quit kissing up to Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wed May 17, 05:12:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...


Excellent question! The issue, at least in Fornicalia, has been brewing for many years. And yes, other presidents have had the chance to address the issue. But like most other humans, if people (particularly politicians) don't HAVE to deal with an issue, they WON'T deal with an issue.

In Fornicalia it began under a man named S.I. Hayakawa, who was a large advocate for English only in the schools. He became a Republican US Senator, 1977 until 1983. He was an English professor at San Francisco State and then president of that college from 1968 to 1973. He founded "US English," which is a lobbying organization (to which I contribute) what advocates, simply, English as the only language of the US. Taking that stand, at that tumultuous time, in a, shall we say, "left wing" college in a "left wing" area was, ahem, turbulent. But the issue was on the table in Fornicalia.

Fornicalia also passed Proposition 187, in 1995, by a 59% margin. California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced by assemblyman Dick Mountjoy (Republican from Monrovia, California) as the Save Our State initiative. A number of other organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

Proposition 187 included several additions to the law, falling into two categories.

All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Local governments are prohibited from doing anything to impair the fulfillment of this requirement. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.

No one may receive public benefits until they have proven their legal right to reside in the country. If anyone applies for benefits and is suspected by government agents of being illegal, those agents must report in writing to the enforcement authorities. Emergency medical care is exempted as required by federal law but all other medical benefits have the same test as above. Primary and secondary education is explicitly included.

This started a secondary push and there was, of course, massive resistance from the Left -- despite the clear stance of the People.

Then-Governor Pete Wilson supported 187; State Senator Art Torres referred to Prop. 187 as "the last gasp of white America in California."

Battle lines were being drawn already. In southern states the issue was on the table for a number of years. It simply took the national fire time to make the pot begin to boil over.


Wed May 17, 10:15:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home