Apparently the big signing ceremony was a sham.
President Bush to the Republican base: “Screw YOU!”
(oops, Golfer1 posted this on another thread in the comments, dang I hate when good stuff gets buried down there and I don’t see it.)
UPDATE:
I stand corrected, for now: It would appear that Congress has not officially submitted the fence bill to the White House yet. Therefore the clock has not started ticking yet. The claim is that they are waiting to sign the bill when it will have the maximum political effect. I sincerely hope that is correct, although since Congress has adjourned until after the elections, I wonder what the mechanism is that would allow the bill to be submitted after Congress has adjourned.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
47 Responses to “Bush Pocket Vetos 700 miles of border fence. (Updated)”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Yup….seems so!!! Sorry if I’m not surprised!!
GW is more interested in making his buddies south of the border happy……what a complete sell-out!!
Vote Libertarian!! Screw the RINO’s!!
Patrick Ruffini says the President will sign the legislation.
$3.2 Million a mile?????? Are they building this thing out of gold or what? I can’t imagine why it would cost so much - why not just a straight-sided concrete wall (with nothing to grab onto) about 12 feet high with broken glass and razor wire at the tope. Or maybe just an electrified chain link fence. Then the “view”wouldn’t be spoiled.
Q: Why does Mexico not have an Olympic team?
A: Because everyone that run, swim or jump, is already here!!!!
O:
Sorry, I’m not PC(politically castrated), so don’t waste your time calling me whatever…….cuz frankly, Scarlett………..
Kev, I hope you (and Ruffini) are right, but I have a bad feeling. Depending on who you listen to, the deadline is either today or Wednesday.
Rorsch:
I’ll bet you a thousand dollar bill, against a mouthful of pi$$….and we’ll let Howard Dean hold the stakes; then we’ll see where GW’s loyalties really lie.
Care to take that bet?
I might be worth it just to see Howard Dean with a mouthful of pi$$!
other than that, nope, no bet.
Well, if Bush doesn’t sign the bill, I take back any suggestion I ever made that the man has any sort of cojones whatsoever…
#7 Rorsch: I can hear him now, in classic Howard Dean fashion:yyyaaaaauuuuuuughghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Frankly, I think it might improve the man’s disposition……LMAO!!!
Do you suppose GWB could get Uncle Dick to ask Halliburton if they could make the fence? I’ll bet they could do it with only half of the over-runs.
Simple
Call for volunteers to bring their own supplies and tools, then get out of the way. It would be finished in no time.
My take:
The senate and house signed the bill because it is election time. Bush will not sign the bill and the congressmen will say, “well, we tried to get the fence built…..” Bush has nothing to lose and our reps will blame it on him.
If Bush does, by the slimmest chance, sign the bill, he will direct HLS to devert the funds or do anything he can to keep it from being built while he is in office. Just my 2 centavos.
Well, I sent off an email to Mr. President, for all the good it will do…
I bet Vince Fox called GWB and said “Jorge, yu beeld the feence, I show yur peekchur weet dee burrow.”
The Mexican Government is very upset over the proposed fence, and may go to the U.N with it.
The last two paragraphs of this story should interest you; it is a quote by Luis Derbez, Mexico’s Foreign Secretary:
The Mexican Government believe the fence is US law.
I recall someone on this blog several weeks ago saying, “Ill believe it when I see it - it still has to get passed by the president.”
#1 PBFloyd
Nuthin’ suprises me anymore… Why should this be any different?
I keep my finger in all the pots to stay current on the country’s political temperature. And believe it or not, the voting majority of Dems want the borders locked down as badly as the Repubs do and are screaming just as loudly.
My stance is DO IT and DO IT RIGHT - whatever it takes, then deal with the problem of the illegals already here. Or if not, quit complaining about it, brush up on your high school Spanish and buy more ammo.
The Mexican government has been smokin’ the good stuff. We can secure our borders with a fence anytime we want, and there’s not a damn thing that the UN can do about it.
#15 ReeC: Ooooh, what a threat that is……the empty suits at the UN couldn’t pour sand out of a boot, with both hands, if it had instructions on it! We’re so sccerreed!
But how do ya like the nerve of these insolent twerps….they act like they have no regard for our laws whatsoever!!
Wonder why that could possibly be……..?
SM said:
‘My stance is DO IT and DO IT RIGHT - whatever it takes, then deal with the problem of the illegals already here. Or if not, quit complaining about it, brush up on your high school Spanish and buy more ammo.’
Crap, I took French….
The only Spanish I know is: (forgive spelling)
Uno mas cervesa por favor.
Donde este el bano?
Yo quero alcer el amor contigo…..
Jimb and PBFloyd
Agreed about the UN being ineffective! PBF, the Mexicans DO NOT have any regard for our laws and they have proved it time after time (and worse, we have let them). If only we could elect a real conservative who would make the Mexicans STFU, put our armed forces on the border like Mexico does with its southern border! Let ‘em biotch then!
/pinches herself, wakes up.
Ladies and Gents,
According to THOMAS http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html, the Secure Fence bill (HR6061) has not been enrolled yet. If that is correct, then it means that the bill HASN’T BEEN PRESENTED to Bush for a signature. He can’t sign what he hasn’t been presented.
I would still encourage everyone to keep the heat on until it is signed though.
Anyone want to bet if the fence bill is signed and the U.N. takes it up, will the Republicans grow a spine and stand up to somebody? Anybody?
gtotracker
#22
Ain’t gonna happen. If it comes to the UN, the US will back down and not do it! We would rather piss off the American people than the UN, doncha know!
I have voted republican all my adult life. As I see the two parties NOW their is no difference. WHO DO WE VOTE FOR??????????????????
REL3 USA Ret.
Even if W signs the bill, it will not be built: Border Fence Unlikely
REL3
I have to vote Republican in the national elections. I don’t want dims in charge of national security, taxes or spending. Hopefully if they keep either hall of congresss and put forward a real conservative for president, it will make a difference. If they lose either, I hope it is the senate, as the House is the people’s voice. They need to win 15 seats in the House to take over. Not likely. I believe all Republicans, no matter what they think of the incumbants, will vote their pubbies, just to keep Peolosi, et al out of leadership positions.
Now the state is another matter……………………….. (my impression of Katfish)
REL3
I have to vote Republican in the national elections. I don’t want dims in charge of national security, taxes or spending. Hopefully if they keep either hall of congresss and put forward a real conservative for president, it will make a difference. If they lose either, I hope it is the senate, as the House is the people’s voice. They need to win 15 seats in the House to take over. Not likely. I believe all Republicans, no matter what they think of the incumbants, will vote their pubbies, just to keep Peolosi, et al out of leadership positions.
Now the state is another matter……………………….. (my impression of Katfish)
It will be interesting to see if Mexico goes to the UN on this border fence and gets a resolution for the US not to build it, if GWB and the US will abide by the UN like they insist ever other nation to. I think it will put GWB and our gov in a big bind. On one hand we go to war with Iraq because they ignore UN resolutions, same with Iran and N.Korea and we tell the UN to F off when it comes to us. This will be fun to watch.
oops sorry for the double post! Don’t know how that happened!
# 19 ST
Crap I took German and all I remember of my German is the bad words my dad would always say. I could add to your list of spanish words but those are bad words also. LOL.
May I suggest some one go ask Kay Bailey Hutchenson if she can call President Bush on her Cell to see what he is going to do about this bill. She will be here tomorrow. GaryC
drstereo
#31
Like that is ever going to happen! She is much more moderate than Bush
#20 Neo: I do absolutely agree you that a leader, preferably with conservative values, is needed. My gripe is that every time we elect someone who is supposed to be, their actions bely that claim.
I think it is important to recognize the difference between conservative values,(which I think most in here would are beneficial in general and would advocate), and persons who claim to be. The reason I’m so put out with Bush, Perry, Donothing, KayBaby & especially Corning, is they talked the talk to get elected, but yet betray that trust consistently in their actions.
But what choice did we really have to choose from, a blithering imbecile and freak show wife like Kerry or a complete idiot like Bore? The point is we elected people to do the job, and we have been betrayed. The border should have been closed and immigration stopped for the past 5 years now.
I don’t know about you guys, but if someone can’t recognize that that was a declaration of war we saw on 9/11, then they are, IMHO, a fool. That a lot of people in the GOP, from GW on down, are taking the people who elected them to be just that.
I, for one, am disgusted by these phony sell-outs. And it’s why they I don’t cut them much slack, and is why I have zero confidence they will ever get anything done right on the border until it’s too late.
#29: No worries, Neo, happens to all us mere mortals.
And thx for the invite from the other thread; I will make it a point to be at the next one, and meet this rabble.
BTW: Is it possible just to crash Matt’s hiatus and invite ourselves out to the islands for BrewHaHa(sorry, don’t know how to make that little symbol!)
Haven’t been to Hawaii in a few years, it is usually real nice ’bout this time of year. But if not, I’ll take a rain check ’til next time….(:
Maybe Pat B was right. If you break your oath of office, you need to be impeached.
As Kinky says, politics is just that - poly (many) ticks (blood sucking insects). That’s the only thing they know to do is sucker us in to their beliefs with their smooth talking or as some put it “political eloquence”. Don’t be fooled by a smooth talker…they are usually sneaky, lying, and egotistical individuals. We will have more of the same if we keep up this game of charades with the people in office.
PBFloyd
#33
We conservatives feel your conservative pain. I guess what I was talking about was a conservative President (maybe Tancredo or Newt). We can’t help who is already in congressional office and has no opponent except a democrat (i.e, Hutchison & Coryn. You and all conservatives, of course, vote for the pubbie, even if they are not doing their job. Pathetic. It is time for a change.
I told you so long ago………
Slick Jorge Bush may not be the devil, but a tangled web he does weave as he practices to lie and deceive. Doesn’t the Bible say that Satan appears as an angel of light, only to lie and deceive?
Let’s take a look at Slick Jorge’s actions? He pretends he is on our side while he allows border ranchers to suffer destruction of property, killing of their livestock and bodily harm, while he lives protected better than Fort Knox. His Crawford ranch is pristine and will never be touched by the very evil he lets happen everyday to good Americans in Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona. Isn’t that what a liar and deceiver would do?
He came on TV and promised 6000 National Guard would be put on the border. To date only a few are there and they are not allowed to do anything to protect the border. They can’t even carry loaded guns. Slick Jorge’s whole premise was to make you think he was going to do something, all the while he knew he really wants to do nothing to secure the border. Isn’t that what a liar and deceiver would do?
9,500 Americans annually fall victim to crimes committed by illegal aliens yet Slick Jorge lets the onslaught continue. It does not affect him or his family so he does not care. He swore on the Holy Bible and took an Oath to protect this country. It is his number one duty, yet he violates his Oath everyday as he welcomes the invasion from Mexico. Isn’t that what a deceiver would do? Isn’t that what a liar would do?
It’s been reported he made secret backroom deals to merge the USA with Mexico and Canada. All the while he smiles and winks in the camera, deceiving America about his real intentions. He uses his Aw shucks shtick and his good ole boy down home vernacular saying “just trust me” as he stabs America’s sovereignty in the back. He will not look us in the eye and tell us his real agenda. Isn’t that what a liar and deceiver would do?
So while Slick Jorge may not be the devil he spins a tangled web of lies and deceit as he sells America out.
PBFloyd
#34
I think Matt is already back. Haven’t heard about a BrewHaHa™ for this month. Maybe Matt is just too tired from his Hawaiian trip! Hope you make the next one,wherever it is.
You are in Fort Bend, right? Maybe we can make one out in Katy, which many folks have been requesting.
Bed is calling. Night all!
#35: plonker & #38 phil; While I haven’t seen anything from GW that I would call impeachable on the surface; on the other hand, lying to a Grand Jury, AKA perjury, AKA felony, is. But not to digress.
But he has been derelict in his duty, on many issues. I think he is more interested in pleasing his buddies, the Saudi’s, Mexican’s and Chinese, than the people who elected him. While I still think the world is safer place now that Saddam is a puppet, IMHO Rumsfeld should resign for the errors prosecuting this war.
#37 Neo; I agree, we need someone who looks out for America first, like Reagan. President Tancredo or Gingrich, yeah, I think that would be a positive thing.
Personally, I think it’s going to be Guiliani, the only real leader I have seen in many years. I don’t care about what stories they make up or dredge up; seeing him in action on 9/11, he’s my choice to get this country turmned around.
#39 Neo: Yep, former Tom DeLay country here. Katy would be fine, or if I could possibly suggest, Sugar Land. Lots of good watering holes in the area.
And I can travel if need be. I assume everyone is legal drinking age, (especially since Neo is now 29.95!), so all systems are go.
But Time to plug on this day, I hear the rack monster calling me too…………outta here!!
GW calls himself a fan of Reagan, yet a lot of what he does denigrates Reagan conservatism. We need a leader to stand up and take action. One that will stir us into fervent action. So, we can one day tell all those that would tear apart the fabric of our nation, our families and our way of life that “You counted on America to be passive; you counted wrong.”
This may be the answer as to why Bush will not stand up for the U.S.A.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Read it all at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/07-17-2000/vo16no15_bush.htm
George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his father on the road to the White House and, like the elder Bush, is proving himself to be every inch the Establishment’s man.
In the post-World War II period, the Republican-Democratic rivalry for the Oval Office has been little more than a spectacle of competing summer blockbuster performances long on high-budget, crowd-pleasing special effects and short on differentiating ideology and moral principle. By all indications, this season’s edition of electoral commedia dell’arte promises to be little different.
This year, many conservatives have put their trust in George W. Bush, apparently hoping that this “compassionate conservative” will muzzle special interests, rein in government spending, and put an end to the interventionist foreign policies of the Clinton administration. In truth, it is difficult to conceive of any administration that wouldn’t be an improvement over Mr. Clinton’s sordid pageant of sellout and scandal. Yet, as we shall show, Bush is unlikely to pose any serious challenge to the ongoing bipartisan effort to railroad us into socialism and world government.
CFR Surroundings
On May 23rd, George W. Bush gave a press conference in Washington, D.C., where he spoke at length on contemplated foreign policy measures during his administration. Accompanying him was an entourage of advisors from America’s foreign policy establishment:
* Condoleezza Rice, the head of George W. Bush’s foreign policy team and a former member of President Bush’s National Security Council;
* Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to President Bush;
* Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense under President Ford;
* Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton;
* Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford; and
* George Shultz, former Secretary of State under President Reagan.
All of these political heavyweights, except Rumsfeld, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based organization that is the most visible exponent of America’s Insider establishment. Regular readers of THE NEW AMERICAN know that this establishment has worked for decades to submerge the United States in a one-world government ruled by (you guessed it!) the elite.
A revealing article in the December 23, 1999 issue of the New York Times listed 10 members of Bush’s foreign policy brain trust. In addition to Rice and Shultz, this list included:
* Richard Armitage, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration;
* Robert Blackwill, a former member of President Bush’s National Security Council;
* Richard Cheney, former Secretary of Defense under President Bush;
* Stephen Hadley, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney;
* Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration;
* Paul Wolfowitz, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration
* Dov Zakheim, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration; and
* Robert Zoellick, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration.
The Times portrayed the team of foreign policy experts as “conservative” and “hawkish,” thereby casting Governor Bush as a hard-line conservative on foreign policy in contrast to President Clinton and his liberal-left foreign policy team. But the Times failed to point out that nine of the ten Bush advisors it cited are CFR members (the lone exception being Armitage), and that internationalist-minded CFR members have shaped U.S. foreign policy for decades, regardless of whether the president in power happened to be a Republican or a Democrat. Bush’s own connections with this same Insider-Establishment club means that it would not be realistic to hope for a radical change in policy under a Bush administration.
Put simply, in the arena of presidential politics at least, America’s power elite has been very successful in controlling both sides of the street while creating the appearance of competition between opposing political parties. The late history Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University — whom Bill Clinton praised in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention — outlined the game plan in his monumental work Tragedy and Hope (1966): “[T]he two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…. But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
In this same book, Quigley described the CFR as an American front for an “international Anglophile network” dedicated to establishing a world government. Quigley said that he had “no aversion” to this network or to “most of its aims” and had, for much of his life, “been close to it and to many of its instruments.” But he disagreed, he said, with this network’s “wishes to remain unknown” in spite of the fact that “its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
I wonder what the mechanism is that would allow the bill to be submitted after Congress has adjourned.
I presume that House offices don’t stop functioning during recesses. The printing and official transmission of passed legislation to the executive branch should be a clerical matter that isn’t dependent upon the legislative branch being in session.
Then I WILL say it. SCREW YOU. An overpriced fence on a few piddly miles of border. What a statement.
One more time…build it along the NORTHERN border of Texas and I am with you.
It is a sham!