3.23.18: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

president bush is helping terrorists
by larry s. rolirad

by Larry S. Rolirad

We have the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and all the rest of the reich wing organizations to infiltrate each one of our lives. And they are not going to stop one terrorist attack. We have tight security at airports where people can have their body cavities searched. But while we are examining the rectum of a 13 year old girl at an airport, Bush and the republicans in congress are allowing millions of people to pour across our southern border with Mexico at will. At least 6000 illegal aliens cross the borders successfully EACH DAY!!!

It only took 19 terrorists to destroy several WTC buildings and part of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. These 19 terrorists also destroyed our economy and wiped out people's stock portfolios. It only took 19 people to cause this much damage. So why isn't Bush doing anything to seal our borders? Why is our military being slaughtered half way around the world when they should be defending our borders? Instead of defending our borders, Bush is using our military as low paid mercenaries to defend republican corporate interests in Iraq, a country which never posed any danger to the United States.

Millions of aliens are coming across our borders every year. And Bush is doing NOTHING to stop them. Remember, it will only take 19 out of those million aliens to do a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. So what if our airports are secure if our borders are being crossed at a rate of 6000 a day???

The reason why Bush doesn't give a damn about stopping illegal aliens crossing the US/Mexico border is because he wants the Hispanic vote. So Bush is saying to hell with the safety of the American population. He is saying "I want the Hispanic vote and to hell with protecting the citizens of America". Bush should be impeached on this issue alone.

When will people wake up and realize that Bush and republicans in congress couldn't care less about protecting America? All they care about is protecting their political futures. As long as they leave our borders wide open for any terrorist to just walk across our border the more chances we have of being attacked. The next terrorist attack will be the fault of GW Bush and the GOP. All they care about is votes and to hell with the safety of Americans. Talk about being UNAmerican traitors.

It is sad, but there will not be one republican who will denounce the Bush Regime on this very important issue. That is because republicans always put their corrupt political party above that of America or American citizens. They are just as guilty as our corrupt republican-dominated government that is doing NOTHING to stop potential terrorists from just walking across our border and committing a terrorist act.

Since Bush has been in office for a total of 1,638 days and there have been 6,000 illegal aliens that have crossed our borders, that leaves 9,828,000 illegal aliens who are now living in the United States since Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Since it only took 19 terrorists to cause such massive damage on 9/11/2001, it can be safely said that Bush is being negligent in protecting US citizens from harm. Since it is Bush's duty as president of the United States to protect the US against any enemy, he has violated the oath of office he sworn to. And for violating his oath of office, which he swore to defend the United States and its citizens, then President Bush has committed an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. Bush should be immediately impeached. And every republican who refuses to bring impeachment charges against Bush for his failure to defend US citizens against potential enemies should also be removed from office.

Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved


more about larry s. rolirad


tracey kelley
1.16.05 @ 10:26a

Didn't I hear that the Clinton administration did this also, only it was more with paid pundits?

My journalist husband and I find this whole affair completely disgusting.

larry rolirad
1.26.05 @ 3:12p

Are you saying that if one person commits a crime than it is ok for another person to commit the same crime? Your position reveals a lack of honesty and integrity. And BTW: I do not recall an incident even remotely matching the crimes Bush and Armstrong Williams.

If Clinton had been guilty of funnelling taxpayers' money to a liberal media jock the right wingers would have been talking about it 24/7, and FAUX news would be calling for Clinton's impeachment.

I am appalled at the widespread lack of ethics and moral compasses in the citizenry of our country. And when you add the dense, the uninformed, and the lame of mind to those without an ethical or moral base it includes almost all of the republican party.

robert melos
1.26.05 @ 6:07p

Larry, you can't just limit a lack of ethics and morality to the republican party, as much as I would like to do so. The truth is, morality is subjective just as beauty is subjective. The same goes for ethical behavior.

Lawyers killed ethics a long time ago, but it's taken the general population this long to catch up. What I find moral may be immoral to others.

Yes, Bush has done a lot wrong, including the FCC violation, but can the democratic party claim the moral high ground when they do things like confirm Condolezza Rice as AG after many of them made statements that they know she misled America on the Iraq issue? If the democrats know she misled them, and then don't even fight very hard to stop her from being placed into another position of authority, then they are just as guilty as she.

A scale of morality would be interesting in this cuontry, because of the diverse views of what is moral.

And Bush has shown the country that our legal system is there to be manipulated. If you don't like a ruling, appeal, or come at the issue from another angle that will help you overturn the first ruling later.

I'm usually disgusted with most of what the human race does.

tracey kelley
1.27.05 @ 12:48p

Your position reveals a lack of honesty and integrity

Hold the fuck up, sparky.

I was merely initiating discussion on the central topic, which is, indeed, lack of morality and ethics in politics and society. But if you'd prefer we not have a civilized discussion, that can be arranged, too.

russ carr
1.27.05 @ 1:29p

I think it's the "fair and balanced" part of your argument to which he objects, sweetie. But then, that's a term that gets batted around a lot these days.

tracey kelley
1.27.05 @ 2:12p

There was no argument posed: the purchase of American media it is a valid subject to bring up. It's not a partisan issue.

russ carr
1.27.05 @ 2:18p

Precisely my point; you suggested that the Clinton administration was also guilty of using pundits for their own nefarious means. You made the point (as did Robert) that it's NOT a partisan issue. That's why, I believe, Larry suddenly put his claws out. He WANTS it to be a partisan issue.

tracey kelley
1.27.05 @ 2:23p

Yeah, and I want a bubblegum lollypop after I visit the dentist. But the fact remains: when the media can be bought, the public will suffer. I don't care what administration is in place.

And unethical "journalists" should remain fiction writers.

robert melos
1.27.05 @ 9:42p

As much as I don't like certain pseudo-journalists/tele-journalists such as Fox types and Ann Coulter, I still believe even though they are championing a cause by slanting their "fair and balanced" reporting styles, they are still more ethical than to accept money to promote one particular agenda.

I would hope the Williams case was isolated. Unfortunately, I don't think it is, although it may not always be the journalist as much as the mucketymucks the journalist works for, the corporate management guys, who are putting the pressure on to endorse certain aspects or angles of a story.

The case mentioned in this article is a blatant abuse of power and position, by all involved. It is just such cases that make for mistrust of journalists, suddenly making all news suspect.

I spoke too soon in hoping this was an isolated case. Bush's anti-gay agenda also had a paid spokespersonCommentator paid off by White House


dan gonzalez
1.28.05 @ 1:09a

Williams took full responsibility for accepting a paid advert for the policy and then journalistically advocating it. And he was paid by a contractor, not Bush and co. So there's really no official legal issue for Bush.

On the other hand, Mapes cooked that Bush national guard story for FIVE years before Rather and co. endorse a known disreputable source to pitch it as 'news' a few weeks before the election and then followed it up with a shameless cover up.

Tracey and Robert are right: bullshit is bullshit, and our media has way too much of it on both sides of this false little schism.

robert melos
1.29.05 @ 8:40p

Apparently a third jounralist has been found out as having taken money to promote a Bush policy. I'll post more info as I get it, but it looks like journalism is gonna be taking a big hit in the credibility department.

dan gonzalez
2.9.05 @ 9:08a

but it looks like journalism is gonna be taking a big hit in the credibility department.

Gonna be? Funny, you'd think after Dan Rather, Peter Arnett, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelley, there would already be serious doubt regarding the credibility of journalism, but I guess their lies were okay because they weren't pro-Bush.

Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash