Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Our Government Or Theirs?

Several shocking items lately indicating that "our government" doesn't see itself as representing, you know, us.

It acts more openly as a representative of some weird world-wide constituency.

I never believed the "one world" conspiracy theorists until seeing so many Senators in so many different cases openly side with the interests of foreigners against American citizens.

Item: Democrats are trying to get the border fence subjected to approval from the Mexican government:
The number two Democrat in the Senate is urging the House of Representatives not to repudiate a provision in the immigration reform bill that would force the U.S. to consult with Mexico before building a border fence.

"To think that we would build a fence without any conversation or consultation with Mexico - that doesn't make sense," Sen. Dick Durbin told "Fox News Sunday."

Asked why he felt such consultations were necessary, the top Democrat explained: "Good fences make good neighbors, too. And remember that when it's all over there will be cities across the border from one another in the United States and Mexico. And you'll find in most instances they'll try to find a level of cooperation.

"We ultimately want to have the cooperation of the Mexican government," Durbin insisted.

An amendment slipped into the Senate bill at the last minute by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) mandates consultations with Mexican officials before any fence construction begins.

It reads:

"CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT -- Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern."
Item: the dead immigration "reform" bill nearly was made in the interests of foreigners, only stopped by a depressingly small margin.

Item: the "John Doe" amendment to protect citizens for being sued for reporting suspicious activity was killed by Democrats in favor of terrorists.

But blogger-generated outrage might just be working. See here and KEEP ON THE PRESSURE! Make these clowns do their stinking job!!! They're all in knots over "profiling" and "bigots" that they can't see hurt feelings aren't as bad as being dead.

And now, Sen. Specter says any military action against Iran to stop its atmoic bomb program which threatens countless numbers of American citizens simply cannot take place, because the cost in civilian casualties -- IRANIAN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES -- would be "too high"!!!
Dear Sen. Specter: I'm writing today because I didn't get a chance to respond to your parting comment as you left the train last week in Philadelphia. If you recall, we were both riding the Acela out of Washington; I was the columnist sitting across the aisle from you (both literally and in a Washington way, often, figuratively). I introduced myself and offered you that day's column for your reading pleasure.
Nodding at intervals, you asked questions, mainly about my personal tolerance for civilian casualties -- theirs, not ours. You asked me something like: At what number do civilian deaths -- theirs -- become intolerable? How many people -- not ours -- have to die before I (me) say it's too much? So now I ask: Was that Diyala, or Pennsylvania you represent? Uppermost in your mind were Iraqi (or, for that matter, Iranian) casualties, a likely consequence of the aggressive actions under discussion -- since this was, in fact, war we were talking about. Another likely consequence of such actions -- warfare, right? -- is the achievement of American war goals, which strikes me as preferable to just bleeding our nation to death. But maybe I've been reading too much history. Somehow, American war goals have become a secondary consideration when America wages war.
That's who we are -- socially humane, expendable and increasingly impotent. It's not who our fathers and grandfathers were. The men who decimated German and Japanese cities as part of the effort to win World War II as quickly as possible would have been perplexed by descendants who now send American troops house to booby-trapped house and expect to achieve anything but more war, "limited" though it may be.

Talk about waste.
You rose to go. I asked whether anything I said had made sense. Your conclusion: "I don't think we're prepared to take the kind of [IRANIAN] civilian casualties that you describe."

And you were gone.
Because he apparently represents Iranian citizens now and must protect them just the same as the citizens of Pennsylvania.

How about that?

Your children must die so that Iranians may live, according to this traitorous (but feeling "virtuous") "U.S." Senator.

Specter, by the way, though now a nominal Republican (In Name Only), used to be a Philly Democrat, which explains a lot.

They all need to be removed.


This is disloyalty to America.

This is treason!

Who do they think they work for?

Tell them how you feel about your government worrying about foreigners' lives more than those of your children.

Put in leaders who ARE prepared to "take" those kinds of casualties!

Or surrender.


Post a Comment

<< Home