June 3, 2007

A Reverse Revolution

I think the term reverse revolution pretty much defines a situation in which the United States Government mutinies against We, The People for whom, according to the Constitution, the government works.

My case in point is the ongoing immigration kerfuffle.

To simplify what politicians tell us is a complex issue, it’s really quite simple; There are upwards of 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States, most of them from Mexico. One reason they are here is that the government failed to do their job, over a long period of years, of securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws concerning those criminal aliens already here in any way that can be called anything but lackluster. However, that’s moot, what’s done is done and we are now paying the price in terms of legal U.S. citizens being displaced in employment markets by the under the table coolie wage crowd, by our tax money funding social services provided these felony trespassers, by copious criminal activities on the part of same, by quality of life degradation that devalues property in neighborhoods across America and by illegal laborers sending large portions of their untaxed incomes to their families back home, thereby taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the U.S. economy rather than recirculating the money to keep the economy strong.

Most Americans want our southern border secured, the continuous influx of illegals halted and those already in the country deported and compelled to apply to enter, work in and achieve citizenship in the U.S. through legal means.

Most of our elected government officials, however, are pushing a different solution: Amnesty. Many label it under other names and provide transparently false justifications for doing so. This includes the bulk of the Democrat majority in Congress, a truly sickening number of their Republican colleagues and even the President.

Despite the majority of Americans giving a strong “thumbs down” to any version of amnesty, the government is intent upon going through with it. They are, in effect, and again, this includes President Bush, telling We, The People to go to hell.

Mutiny? Reverse revolution? We, The People no longer control the government, they have in effect established themselves, on a bipartisan basis, as rulers, rather than representatives of, the citizenry.

A column from 20 May by Mark Steyn pretty well describes, with that columnist/author’s famous wit, the whole enchilada of government intent.

In more recent days, President Bush himself has resorted to shameful rhetoric aimed at his detractors, including many who have been staunch supporters of both his political campaigns and most of his other policies.

“If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people.”


Washington Times Editor-In-Chief Wesley Prudin weighs in.

Peggy Noonan has written an OpEd piece, rather strongly worded, condemning George Bush for what she considers his sellout of his conservative base and the Republican Party on the issue, which can be read in a link from this excellent post by Old Soldier.

In my personal opinion, in this battle of the Reverse Revolution, the government, by sheer force of Congressional votes and Presidential support, is going to defeat We, The People, no matter the volume of telephone calls, emails and letters we flood their offices with.

Trackback URL for this post:

10 Responses to “A Reverse Revolution”

  1. Ken Taylor Says:

    Our voice still works. Here in SC the voice of the people compelled Governor Mark Sanford to introduce tough legislation against illegals that passed last week. It i now a felony to harbor or transport illegals, no contractor with illegals employed or hiring illegals after the fact will be considered for state projects, employers who hire illegals will now pay a fine, be frced to replace illegal workers and pay all back payroll taxes for the time the illegal worked for the company.

    We still have a chance to stop this bill. It has much less support in the House and the Blue paper deal that House GOP members are planning on invoking which follows Cpnstitutional grounds that all legislation that involves revenue must originate in the House will stop the bill if all else fails.

    We have a voice and though at times it does not seem so it is still being listened to especiall on the House side because they HAVE to face us every two years!

  2. Seth Says:

    Ken –

    There is a lot more determination coupled with the numbers on the left and on the right as well as Potus’ than usual propelling this agenda. One way or another, they will push this through.

    There is a 2010 agenda that requires an amnesty bill to pass, and it has bipartisan origins. :-(

  3. Gayle Says:

    Great post and sentiments, Seth. I agree, it does appear to be a “reverse revolution.” I don’t know what to think about Bush. I mean, the man does have a ranch in Texas, and so many ranchers in Texas are suffering because of illegal immigration. Yeah, I know. Bush’s ranch doesn’t sit close to the border. I wish it did. Perhaps then he’d have a more realistic view of things!

  4. Seth Says:

    Gayle –

    I see two different forces at work here.

    One is the simple fact that too many politicians see the ever-increasing volume of the Hispanic vote as too significant to alienate, perhaps expecting the acquisition of votes from that bloc to offset whatever votes they lose by supporting amnesty — this is what happens when we allow people to make a career of a political office or of politics in general. They become distanced from the reality of public thought and base everything they do on the illusion of polling figures and wishful-thinking oriented statistics, all geared toward perpetuating and/ or furthering their political careers.

    The other is the increasing awareness, if not intricate knowledge, by many politicians, of the intended direction of the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In its final stages, the power of our Congress would be diminished as we necessarily permit the introduction of Mexican and Canadian lawmakers into our own Congressional process (witness the EU’s “government”). Like film actors at the approach of their twilight years, our federal politicians want to remain “relevant” if and when such a time of political change comes. Good of self wins out, unfortunately, over good of country. Still other politicians, those whose substantial business interests would benefit from the SPP (once fully outed as the NAU), are also thinking of themselves and their families rather than of the voters who keep them in office. These latter politicians, including Bush :-(, are rich enough that they wouldn’t likely be adversely effected, as would the rank and file working American, by the opening of our borders to “fellow NAU citizens” and the loss of sovereignty, both territorial and Constitutional, that fruition of the NAU would bring.

    As I’ve opined before, intentional neglect of border security and the push for amnesty make sense if one considers that insiders of the above agenda see any enforcement of previous immigration laws as being moot in light of their plans. In less than four years, these same criminal aliens will only be carrying IDs naming them as citizens of North America, anyway.

    I may well soon be one of those “I told you so!” types, though there definitely won’t be any joy in it.

  5. wordsmith Says:

    Peggy Noonan has written an OpEd piece, rather strongly worded, condemning George Bush for what she considers his sellout of his conservative base and the Republican Party on the issue,

    In terms of “selling out”, didn’t President Bush campaign on this very attitude toward immigration reform in 2000? In a sense, we shouldn’t have been surprised by what we got.

  6. Seth Says:

    Wordsmith –

    You speakum truth, but in the final analysis, a politician at any level needs to remember that when an issue comes to the fore, he needs to make the will of his constituency the deciding factor.

  7. Always On Watch Says:

    Yes, GWB spoke of immigration reform in 2000. But I didn’t hear much about that immigration reform in the three years following 9/11.

    Now we’re seeing the true GWB: a one-worlder. Not that Gore and Kerry weren’t the same in that regard, of course.

    This administration and Congress are going to cram down the abrogation of our national sovereignty. And the Dems are the same. Where the hell are our CHOICES???

  8. Seth Says:

    AOW –

    Evidently, we have none. The current crop of leaders in this country seem to feel that by electing them, we have waived our right to any say in decisions that will have lasting and tragic impact on this nation for generations to come, or forever.

    Sure, we can vote them out of office in the next election, but we can’t undo all the damage they’ll have done by the time that election comes up, and it’s a long way to November, 2008.

  9. Angel Says:

    hiya Seth..as yes..we the people..somehow it doesnt seem like we
    have much a voice anymore my friend….sigh.

  10. Seth Says:

    Angel –

    I believe this country is en route to a political and civil metamorphosis that we will not like. We are being deluded in extremis by our media and our politicians, and the latter are not, for the most part, even listening to the people.

    It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where things began to come “unglued”, but comparing today to, say, 40 years ago seems like a 180 degree proposition.