Posted on 11/28/2006 7:38:20 PM PST by Aetius
And with loudmnouth tancredo leading the "charge", be prepared for more losses, IMO.
Lucky for her.
Once upon a time before Charlie Reese lost his mind and went over to the "dark side", he was quite sensible.
It all started, back then, with Pat Buchanan and Samuel Francis. Suddenly, Samuel Francis' columns became so bitter and bordered, truly bordered on anti-Hispanic. Pat and Sammie got involved with... BORDER Bots and Jared Taylor, and the European American Issues people who were involved with David Duke's operation who were involved with W.A.R. Then, Paul Craig Roberts and Charlie Reese began sounding like the late Samuel Francis.
Did you know there are Aryan sympathists and activists in all terrorist and neighboring countries? Did you know they all sound like FR border bots do?
David Duke attempted to insert himself into HEADLINES during Prop 209's run-up to vote. He, obviously, was on the Willie Brown side of the spectrum in this regards quotas. Willie Brown suggested there should also be quotas for WHITES. Duke didn't think that was a bad idea at all.
And David Duke was a precursor to this last election. He has pretended for years that he was a Republican. Do you think he went to Syria and met with Syrian leaders and told them he was "just kidding" about the Republican part?
David Duke and Jesse Jackson/Louis Farrakhan agree on many issues.
And I haven't even started on V-Dare and the American Patrol.
Darned near every single conservative ally I've known (education, language, civil rights, etc.) who has involved themselves with "border botism" networks -- changes. They are not civil. But of course, now that the Border Bots on FR accomplished the goal of their "leadership" -- in electing Democrats to office, those FR leaders have sort of disappeared leaving only the lesser bots to take the flak.
Howlin' ain't whistlin' Dixie when she brings up STORMFRONT in connection to FR's Border Bots. Sure, sure, there's some folks who have no knowledge of the past and simply think "controlling our borders" is what the "play is about".
Charlie Reese is no friend to the country of America nor its citizens, writing crap such as he has. I'd say "shame on him" but I think he's beyond the point of "shame" or even knowing what it is. The "border" fascist indoctrination machine is one of the most sophisticated I've seen. And I've studied some lulus (large and small cults) over the past 35 years.
The "minutemen" should have been honest from the onset in asserting they were "collecting funds" to purchase fences for Friends of the Minuteman Movement -- INSTEAD of quipping that they were going to protect "Americans" from invasion. They knew in advance they could only build a fence on private lands.
So, the useful idiots have helped elect Democrats to office.
I've decided to adopt the linguistics of the FR Border Bots whenever I come across 'em. Rude, uncivil, hijacking threads -- When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
A most excellent post, Alia!
I agree with you. However, follow this logic, which will result from CIR: By legalizing millions, the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants will be dramatically reduced. Ha!
Where was I rude?
At least that form of racist isn't marching in the streets by the hundreds of thousands. If they were I am sure you "civil" open-borders types would demand that they stop.
Howlin' ain't whistlin' Dixie when she brings up STORMFRONT in connection to FR's Border Bots.
Show some proof. Actual proof. Not posts that are opinions.
The "minutemen" should have been honest from the onset in asserting they were "collecting funds" to purchase fences for Friends of the Minuteman Movement -- INSTEAD of quipping that they were going to protect "Americans" from invasion. They knew in advance they could only build a fence on private lands.
They never hid that fact. In fact, I remembet their being quite open about it. If I owned land on the mexican border I would invite them to build a fence.
So, the useful idiots have helped elect Democrats to office.
This is the part I don't understand. The dems are going to give amnesty and allow the millions of illegals a chance to become citizens and you are complaining. Is it that except for this issue, you are against the dems?
Speaking of losing, your Steelers sure did have another week to be proud of, eh?
R also stands for Rule of Law, something the sovereignty sellouts care nothing about.
I don't deny that the election results are bad news for those opposed to amnesty and massive increases in permanent legal immigration hidden under the guise of 'guest worker' programs. Since the GOP House was the only thing stopping such GOP-destroying policies from becoming law, then obviously the chances of them passing are now much greater. On immigration, we now have a very liberal President and a very liberal Senate. The House remains to be seen, but again, chances are that it has moved left on this issue as well.
What I take exception to is the absurd and false claim that it was a refusal to embrace 'comprehensive' reform that led to, or contributed to, the GOP rout. Unlimited immigration enthusiasts like Jacoby are putting forth the ludicrous idea that passage of 'comprehensive' reform would have helped or even saved the GOP on election day.
Ask yourself the following questions, and try to be honest in answering;
If there had been no Iraq war (or if the war still polled well), and had there been no corruption scandals, do you think Hayworth still would have lost? Do you really think that it was his enforcement-first approach that lost the race for Hayworth? At most, Hayworth may have been guilty of focusing too much on immigration. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, as I've never claimed that immigration is a reliably top-tier, vote-deciding issue. There are almost always other issues that matter more, and this year was clearly no different. It may indeed be true that a tough line on immigration failed to save Hayworth and others like him, but what you and Jacoby are guilty of is forgetting (intenionally so on her part) that they were in a position of having to be saved. Again, why was that?
The same questions go for two dozen or so other soon-to-be former Republican House members, as well as Senator Talent, and maybe even Senators Allen, Burns, Chafee and DeWine. Chafee and Dewine, it should be noted, were supporters of the 'comprehensive' approach, so why did they lose? If we use the same rules utilized by Jacoby (that all races are a referendum on immigration), then we must conclude that they lost because they championed comprehensive reform...right? I'm sure you'd say 'no' to that, and point out that there were other factors accounting for their loss, like Iraq and Corruption. And you'd be right, but to then argue that those other factors can only be used to account for the loss of a 'comprehensive' reformer and not a 'restrictionist' is ridiculous, and dishonest.
Going back to Arizona; as to Graf, that was always going to be tough as it was a conservative Republican trying to replace a liberal-moderate one. And of course the fact that the national party chose not to help made it even harder. But if his and Hayworth's loss showed the overewhelming rejection of tougher policies, then why did Arizonans overwhelmingly pass several hardline immigration ballot initiatives? Why did Senator Kyl defeat Pederson, when it was Pederson championing the McCain-Kennedy amnesty/comprehensive bill?
Some other questions you should ask yourself are;
Do you think that most Americans would support the various 'comprehensive' bills if they knew how they would result in massive increases in permanent legal immigration? If so, then why is it that McCain, Kennedy, Hagel, Reid, et al never saw fit to inform us rubes that their bills would do just that? Why would they choose not to brag about such a huge part of the bill? Why were they so silent on this?
Read it more closely. Jacoby refers to opponents of 'comprehensive' (i.e. amnesty plus enormous increases in permanent legal immigration) as 'xenophobic grandstanders'.
Her analysis is not correct because she is saying or implying that the victorious Democrats won because they supported 'comprehensive' reform, and that the vanquished Republican incumbents lost because they favored a tougher, enforcement-first approach.
That is complete nonsense. Its garbage. I know I'm repeating myself here, but it apparently needs to be done -- factors and issues other than immigration led to the GOP rout. The GOP didn't get its clock cleaned in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and New York because they refused to embrace Jacoby's far-left views on immigration. They lost because of Iraq, corruption scandals, particular state dynamics, and particulars of individual races and candidates. Its as though Jacoby wants us to forget that other issues were in play, and instead pretend the election was a referendum on comprehensive immigration reform versus enforcement-first.
The overall environment was poisonous for the GOP this year. Do you really think ANY Democrat challenger can attribute his or her victory in any significant way to support for 'comprehensive' reform?
And the Democrats did not make support for 'comprehensive' reform a part of their agenda. At most it was an afterthought, fleetingly mentioned after pounding away on Iraq, the culture of corruption, manufacturing job losses, the defecits, etc etc etc. Several Democrat winners explicity rejected the amnesty/comprehensive approach. And how often does the media allow a politician to get by with stating support for a 'guest worker' program w/o pressing them on the details? Can you recall an instance where a candidate was pressed and asked if they think the program should be comprised of actual guests -- i.e. people who will eventually go home -- or do they think the guests and their families should be granted permanent legal status and eventual citizenship?
Why did Pelosi and Reid not list passing immigration reform as one of their priorities after the election? Why did Pelosi leave it to President Bush to broach the subject?
And its really hard to take seriously any claim that the public wants 'comprehensive' reform when the champions of it and their media allies never bother informing the public of exactly what their reform entails. They never, for example, tell us how it would result in massive increases in permanent legal immigration. Its easy to garner public support for something when one is dishonest and misleading in describing and promoting that something.
Finally, and as I mentioned earlier, the media is fully on board with the 'comprehensive' reform approach. They are hoplessly biased on immigration. So the question I put to conservative supporters of unending mass immigration is this;
What does it feel like to have the mainstream media on your side for a a change? Does it feel good? Is it empowering? Is there a sense of validation? Or does it kind of make you feel dirty? Does it feel wrong somehow? Does the fact that the leftwing mainstream media is so fully on board with you on immigration make you at all doubt your position on this issue? Does it give you pause?
And you couldn't provide a profile page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.