The wetback AG sent packing
Wetback Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today. See story. Partisan Democrats have been attacking Gonzales on a purely partisan political basis for months, but it was the heart of the Republican Party that finally convinced President Bush to ask Gonzales to resign. Bush used Gonzales to stop illegal immigration enforcement on the Mexican border. In his Inauguration speech Gonzales bragged about his wetback parents who swam the Rio Grande illegally and worked hard to support Gonzales’ career. He bragged about his wetback parents again while announcing his resignation. During Gonzales’ administration the US Attorneys prosecuted border guards for enforcing the border, handed out free passes to drug smugglers for testifying against border guards, and effectively prevented enforcement of immigration law on the Mexican border. See Wetback Gonzales Again.
Finally in the early summer of 2007, President Bush’s “Immigration Reform” amnesty agenda was soundly defeated. During the political push for amnesty, millions of American citizens and just about every Republican spokesman in the nation loudly demanded enforcement of the border before any amnesty could be considered. Finally President Bush began listening to the American people instead of his kitchen staff that he brought from Texas. In open disagreement with Wetback Gonzales, Bush announced that labor laws will be enforced to prevent employment of illegals. Bush is starting, at last, to start enforcing border security. He finally got rid of his Wetback Attorney General who he had put in charge of the Border Patrol.
It’s a good day in Washington. Maybe we will see border enforcement. Maybe we will see pardons for Border Patrol agents wrongly convicted by Gonzales‘ Department. Maybe we will see construction of the wall that Congress demanded years ago.. Maybe…..
Finally in the early summer of 2007, President Bush’s “Immigration Reform” amnesty agenda was soundly defeated. During the political push for amnesty, millions of American citizens and just about every Republican spokesman in the nation loudly demanded enforcement of the border before any amnesty could be considered. Finally President Bush began listening to the American people instead of his kitchen staff that he brought from Texas. In open disagreement with Wetback Gonzales, Bush announced that labor laws will be enforced to prevent employment of illegals. Bush is starting, at last, to start enforcing border security. He finally got rid of his Wetback Attorney General who he had put in charge of the Border Patrol.
It’s a good day in Washington. Maybe we will see border enforcement. Maybe we will see pardons for Border Patrol agents wrongly convicted by Gonzales‘ Department. Maybe we will see construction of the wall that Congress demanded years ago.. Maybe…..
Labels: Gonzales. Amnesty
posted by Bob | Monday, August 27, 2007
10 Comments:
We can hope.
(found the following on the web)
The Southwest is running out of water, but Pres. Bush is helping the situation with his surplus of wetbacks! John
Note to Dee: You make some good points in your comments but you violate Bob's rules for polite discourse. Please read Bob's rules for comments on the left margin before posting comments.
Bob Dear, Why do you call Alberto Gonzales a "wetback"? He was born in TX. It looks like his parents were citizens as well. So at a minimum, he is 2nd generation. The immigration laws impacting his grandparents would have been prior to the 1924 Immigration bill so that is a moot point as well.
I am not saying I support AG, however it appears he fell on his sword for W as so many stooges do in Govt and Corporate America.
I just think it is inaccurate that you term him a wetback.
Gonzo Bio
Big Bob Dear,
You have to comment on Craig (R-ID). Please.
Please let me know your thoughts about him.
He is on your side. What do you say?
GOP Calls For Craig To Quit Get Louder
Note to Dee: You are sadly mistaked if you think that any pervert who fucks strangers in the ass in public restrooms is on "my side."
To Bob and Dee,
Have you heard the Craig tape? The openly stated deal was:
Confess to disorderly conduct, pay a fine, catch your flight today, and it'll all disappear.
OR:
Go to jail now, miss your flight, and sit through a very public trial.
I'm not stupid. This guy was trolling for a blowjob. But the fact that he's guilty doesn't alter the fact that he was railroaded. Though he was probably ABOUT TO, he hadn't yet actually broken any laws. Most of the laws we have are bad enough to begin with. If ALMOST breaking them is now a crime, then we can all just move in to the prisons today.
This whole thing is a perfect example of why plea bargains were historically looked down upon. They lead to a never ending cycle of longer sentences, and lower burdens of proof.
50 years ago, a man who robbed a bank would be charged with robbing a bank, and face perhaps 10 years in jail. Today, they charge him with robbing the bank, conspiracy to rob a bank, carrying a gun while committing a crime, intimidation, brandishing a weapon, trespassing, violating the civil rights of everyone even remotely connected to the bank, FDIC fraud, and a dozen other pointless "crimes." These will easily carry a total of more than life in jail, so the courts offer him 10 years, on the condition that he shuts up, and kisses the judge's ring. They get the conviction through intimidation, instead of evidence.
But it doesn't stop there. Soon, some politician who wants to appear "tough on crime," notices how many "criminals" are out in 10 years, when they faced life. He leads a crusade to double the minimum sentence for every one of those pointless add-on charges. Since a plea bargain doesn't work unless they can offer you a lesser sentence, they just offer lesser charges to whoever kisses the ring.
The loser, of course, is anyone who still believes in the system enough to fight. With today's wishy-washy, everything must be a compromise attitude, juries usually end up giving the persecutors something, whether there's any evidence or not. They think, "We can't reject ALL 47 charges. He must be guilty of SOMETHING, or there wouldn't be so many." In reality, only 1 actual crime was committed.
That's where this ties back in to Craig. Maybe he was guilty of the disorderly conduct he pled to. But even the cop agrees Craig didn't have sex in that bathroom, at that time. They only accused him of that to intimidate him into bowing before a judge. It happens every day, in thousands of cases that don't involve public homosexual sex. Craig's status as a scumbag doesn't make it right.
Note to Anonymous: You are right of course. The really horrible criminal in the "Craig" case was the blue gun thugs who work every day to destroy men. While a man who's getting blown in men's restrooms should not be our Senator, the lying scum blue gun thugs on that tape ought to be impaled.
Bob and Anon,
I thought the cops took you in the room with the 2 way mirror and the light and persuaded you to confess by any means necessary. They read him his rights. He could have called a lawyer. Anything he said (or hand gestured) was held against him. I do not feel sorry for him, just his poor wife who was standing behind him when he was holding the press conference. Poor Lady!!
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/
Dee,
You clearly haven't heard the tape. You can find the transcript here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/craig.transcript/index.html
BEFORE the officer reads his rights, there's a clear offer of a deal. While not explicitly stated, the terms of that deal seem pretty clear: He could plead guilty to a meaningless charge, and be on his way, or he could call his lawyer from jail. The fine Craig paid was almost certainly less than the price of the plane ticket he would have forfeighted if he'd tried to fight. Then there's sitting in jail, possibly overnight, and an absolute guarantee of a very public, and very embarrassing trial. And whether there's any evidence or not, the mere accusation of gross perversion would seriously damage the reputation of anyone, especially a politician. When presented with this choice, the most pragmatic response is to simply accept the disorderly conduct fine. That's what EVERYONE does. That's why the officer didn't even bother to wait until a law was actually broken. No one had EVER refused the deal.
I offer no defence for Craig. In addition to being a pervert, he's shown himself to be an all around jerk. But that doesn't alter the fact that the entire concept of plea bargaining is in direct opposition to the fifth amendment, and to the spirit of the fourth and sixth amendments. It's not by random chance that over 90% of the people sitting in jail today have never seen a trial.
Post a Comment
<< Home