Posted on 05/20/2006 1:52:58 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
After an emotional debate fraught with symbolism, the Senate yesterday voted to make English the "national language" of the United States, declaring that no one has a right to federal communications or services in a language other than English except for those already guaranteed by law. Continues...
==================================================================
Ambien sleep-driving Dems crash car into Sheriff Bush's barrier
Anyone still wondering how the humble man from Midland managed to do in the last election what no White House candidate had been able to do in 16 years -- win a majority of the popular vote -- Tuesday night's Oval Office address will have resolved any lingering confusion.
It's easy to see why this unpretentious, plain-speaking fella drives Democrats up the wall. With the MSM almost daily trotting out yet another "poll" which curiously always has Bush hitting a "new low" -- the "low ratings" magically achieved by having Democrats and liberal-leaning "independents" represented in disproportionately large numbers in the "randomly" selected sample -- the prevailing myth among the all-knowing Commentariat is that Bush in his speech was attempting to stem his hemorrhaging popularity and to mend fences with his 'alienated' base which is miffed over his stance on immigration.
Since the earliest days of his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush had run on his proposal for a temporary 'guest-worker' program, had delivered dozens of speeches advocating a temporary 'guest-worker' program, appealed to Hispanic voters in '04 by advocating a temporary 'guest-worker' program, but we're supposed to believe his conservative base -- which had voted for him overwhelmingly in 2000 and 2004 -- had not known his stance on immigration until this year (Bush just broke the news to his base!) and is now smoldering angry at him for fulfilling yet another campaign promise.
Paraphrasing the media headlines in the days and hours before his speech: Bush under fire. Bush in trouble. Bush under pressure. Bush careening to disaster. Bush in trouble. Bush's goose is cooked. Bush all but finished. Bush in trouble. Bush speech last-ditch effort to save his bacon. Stick a fork in his bacon, it's done.
Against this friendly cacophony of gloom-and-doomery from his girly men critics in the lead-up to his televised address, Bush appeared poised, self-assured, upbeat. To the media, shooting spitballs from the peanut gallery, it was important during this lead-up that the public perceive Bush as a much diminished figure, politically adrift, frail and fatigued, but that Bush was a no-show Tuesday night.
If Bush's gutsy speech was somehow a desperate, headlong rush to shore up "sagging" approval ratings, you'd never know it from his calm and assertive, cool and unruffled manner of delivery. It was vintage Bush.
For a politician ostensibly sliding irreversibly into oblivion, not bad. The unflappable, take-charge air about him was difficult to square with the media depiction of Bush as aimless, disconnected -- if not out-and-out political roadkill. Bush was forceful yet graceful, emphatic yet dignified, self-assured yet down-to-earth.
Judging from the fawning reaction, Bush hit a home-run. The New York Times, part of the open-borders fringe of the debate, lovingly wrote that the speech "was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate." Bush "last night specifically -- and shamefully -- urged that the (path to seek citizenship) be denied to temporary workers." The hate-Bush pitch-forkers: 'Impeach Jorge Arbusto for not enforcing our laws!' The hate-Bush anti-pitch-forkers: 'Impeach Bu$Hitler for enforcing our laws!'
As part of his secret plot to sponsor an invasion, "El presidente Jorge Arbusto" called for adding 6,000 Border Patrol officers, erecting "high-tech fences in urban corridors," building "new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas," employing "unmanned aerial vehicles," infrared cameras and motion sensors at the border; ending "catch and release" by constructing new buildings to keep illegals in custody. He laid it all out with specificity in his speech.
The press, which doesn't give squat about border security, had seized on the immigration issue as a means to split the GOP base, in hopes of reaping a windfall this November. Like mice running on the hamster wheel, they thought they were getting 'traction' on this issue. After Bush's speech, they felt frustrated and baffled. Some lapsed into a childish snit. Yet another issue had been seized by this commanding figure, who breezily took center stage as only a powerful leader can, sweeping aside the oodles of media lies, nailing his enemies chapter and verse, reshaping the political landscape and debate on his terms. Bush would not be stampeded. His tone deaf windbag critics, showing yet again what little grasp they have of the Man from Midland, had been dealt another cruel blow.
If displaying their inexhaustible supply of ignorance was the goal of Bush's detractors, they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. Congratulations!
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
The same critics of the Bush are complaining about how much money he is spending without making a distinction with regard to the money spent on security versus the money spent on frivolous programs.
One of the reasons we don't hear about more foiled terrorist plots in the US is that some of the fiends have indeed sneaked in over the southern border. Bush couldn't afford to keep it wide open if the news got out. (There's more to this than meets the eye, Watson.)
I have decided that I trust President Bush more than these critics, and while I read a lot about "teaching the GOP a leson" on FR, I am doing my part to teach pundits and talk-show hosts a lesson, although I am just a drop in the bucket.
I spent yesterday evening reading, and I didn't miss Fox News or FR one bit. I will check things here today, but if the same negativism is still in force, I will answer a few posts then go work in the garden.
Yeah--what makes them/us different from every lib who wants "THEIR" programs well-financed?
I thought it was about work smart, but when Bush "only" added $1.9 billion, you'd have thought he asked for two twenties and a box of donuts to shore up the border patrol.
We had this debate about immigration without Bush and Congress, whose only hope was that the country keep on sleeping. (Thanks to the internet and sites like FR.) It's the Boston Tea Party all over again.
I used to get irritated with some of talk radio, but now I am full-blown ignore. I wonder when the next Arbitron ratings come out? It will be interesting to see how many people are reacting the same way we are.
I somehow view it as rather like the reaction to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.
My daughter, on the other hand, was pleased with the speech because she thought that the President would totally go with the hysterics, and was quite surprised that he seemed to have a good plan.
While everyone is puffing out their chest about "the base", they are ignoring the fact that much of this rhetoric is driving new Republicans back into the fold of the democrats.
He's another one on my "ignore" list.
The net has changed things. Thats for sure. Informations just moves so faster and all these different groups have to react to it. I think in many ways the NEt has been a much more powerful force in this debate than talk radio n molding opinion.
Of course most came here to work, for a better life, etc.. What they left behind is the result of their inability to change conditions in their own countries. Is this their fault? Yes. How many millions of unhappy people is the US prepared to take in...because the rest of the hemisphere is headed our way. Mexico is being depopulated and this same dynamic will be repeated in every other country below the border. That this has enabled Mexico to speed up ethnic cleansing, that US employers have created a new slave class is almost beside the point. The true nature of the debate is whether the US will control its borders, sovereignty, character, laws, culture and mores. If not, then no amount of terrorist bombs will matter. We're done.
There's a big difference between a guest worker program in which we allow 200,000 or whatever foreigners to work temporarily in the US each year, and GIVING A PASS (AMNESTY) to the 12-20 million illegals already here.
I know you've heard it before, but forgiving the illegal act of border jumping will simply encourage three times that many to flood the US again.
Consider that in 1986 there was THREE MILLION illegals in the US, and once we granted amnesty (REAGAN's BIG MISTAKE) and now suddenly we have TWELVE MILLION illegals, 4 times as many, and even that is a low estimate.
In other words, I don't believe the claim that conservatives "knew" that Bush would propose amnesty. Maybe we (I) heard him talk about a guest worker, but somehow I didn't consider that to be encouraging even more illegals.
I like America the way it is, and I refuse to have my kids, grandkids, and great grandkids fighting to speak English, and fighting to keep America the Eurocentric country that it is today.
So, it is all right if somebody breaks into my house and lives off of my labors as long as they help you. I see your point.
After re-reading JohnHuang2's comments, I am stunned at how much I disagree with every single point he made.
As a conservative who loved George W. Bush, as a citizen who would have walked the earth over broken glass to elect George W. Bush, as an American who was proud as could be of George W. Bush, I am now so disgusted at his completely assinine defacto amnesty plan that I suddenly see him as a dupe.
In fact, I am so mad at Bush I could spit.
Not only have I quit the GOP, I have returned every single request for donation letter with warnings that Republicans would pay dearly for turning America into a THIRD WORLD NATION by passing this open borders legislation.
This (sudden conservative hatred of Bush's amnesty plan) is NOT the media's fault, as you say, JohnHuang2. It is because Bush is being obstinately hard headed, and for some reason has a blind spot when it comes to illegal immigration.
I believe it is because he is insulated from the real world, and is not subject to the hoards of illegals who I see filling up apartment buildings where I live. I see blocks and blocks of Guatemalan's and El Salvadoran's stuffed into flophouses, man of them fighting, knifing, selling drugs, etc.
I see police departments suddenly forced to hire translators just to process the surge of suspects who "no inglais" after getting caught.
I see schools being overwhelmed, and I see an American society which is slowwly being dragged into the third world.
It will not do anyone any good to drag down the US.
The right thing to do is demand, and possibly HELP, Mexico build up its middle class so millions upon millions of unskilled workers do not flood and overwhelm America.
You are wrong, JohnHuang2, and if I'm not mistaken, that is the first time I can remember thinking that on any issue.
Apply for a job at Kraft in Littleton, MA, and be told you're 'over-qualified'. Say you'll wash floors, get the same answer. Then drive by and watch the shuttle bus from Lowell unload all the illegals hired at coolie wages. Read in the paper that cops raided one apt. house in Lowell to find 900 illegals and a fake US I.D. factory that would stand your hair on end. Check your credit and discover someone's stolen your I.D., try and get your life back after that! It's a nationwide problem. Local hospitals close because they're swamped with illegals, school systems overburdened.
This 'they only want to work' is nonsense. Mexico didn't want its native Indian class, the peasants. It's ethnic cleansing and it's wrong on any level. They figured out a way to dump them and get billions in return. What's not to like from Fox's point of view? We've been invaded. China refused to take back 68,000 illegal Chinese apprehended in the US. God knows where they are now, but you can be sure they're working hard and they won't show up in court anytime soon. (San Francisco has millions of illegal Asians, who 'only want to work'.)
Fox told Canada to take in his citizens, they're 'cheap labor'. How long before Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, Costa Rica, etc. do the same? Cheap labor, slight disruption of cultures, laws, sovereignty, national character. A few potholes along the road to the paradise of One Hemisphere, free trade, travel. And all this done illegally. My, my. Oh, well, Fox has said if we don't like matters we can 'invest in rebuilding Mexico's infrastructure so Mexicans will want to return home'. His very words. Sounds like extortion.
The truth is we have many more than 11 million illegals. The figure is double that and probably closer to 30-40 million.
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.