Posted on 06/02/2007 7:10:36 AM PDT by Travis McGee
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
So said Jefferson. It would appear to be time again for a little rebellion in the Grand Old Party – this time against George II.
For President Bush has attacked his own loyalists for a lack of patriotism. "If you don't want to do what's right for America," he said of opponents of the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, "if you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens."
But if the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens are instantly legalized, what other term is there to describe that than amnesty?
Not only are opponents not doing "what's right for America," their courage is in question: "People in Congress need the courage to go back to their districts and explain exactly what this bill is all about. The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place?"
Where, one wonders, was "Bush's Brain," Karl Rove?
For, worse than a crime, this attack on his base was a blunder. The people Bush is savaging – columnists, commentators, talk-show hosts, congressmen fighting his bill – have been the frontline troops in his fight to sustain funding for the war.
And if there were any doubt whom Bush had in mind, his surrogate, Linda Chavez, cleared it up:
"Some people just don't like Mexicans – or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans. ...
"Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors – most prominently, Lou Dobbs – and a handful of public policy 'experts' at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project."
Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan cites other attacks by Bush surrogates on the conservative base: "Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, 'We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up.' ... Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want 'mass deportation.' Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are 'anti-immigrant' and suggested they suffer from 'rage' and 'national chauvinism.'
"Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives?" asks Noonan.
Because, Peggy, down deep where they live, they don't like the right, never did and have always sought to be seen by the Big Media as the progressive children of a dysfunctional and retarded family.
Bush's attack on the motives and character of conservatives tell us it is Goldwater-Rockefeller time again – time to split the blanket. Conservatives need to declare their independence of Bush and to repudiate Bushism as the philosophy of their movement and party.
While Bush's court appointments, setting aside the Harriet Miers mess, have been superb, while his tax cuts have been Reaganite, while his stand on traditional values is courageous, beyond is a vast wasteland as far as the eye can see.
His free-trade zealotry has led to five straight record trade deficits. While America's economy is now growing at under 1 percent, China's is booming at 10 percent. His refusal to defend and secure the borders is well-nigh impeachable. His compromises with Teddy Kennedy on No Child Left Behind have doubled the size of the Department of Education without any appreciable gain in test scores. His "Big Government Conservatism" marks him as his father's son, not Reagan's heir. In Ward Connerly's courageous battle against reverse discrimination, the Bushes have all been on the other side.
His bungled war of choice on Iraq has left us with 3,400 dead, 25,000 wounded, hundreds of billions deeper in debt and an Army on the point of breaking. Relations with Europe, Russia, and the Arab and Muslim world are worse than they were when he took office.
His clandestine drive to merge Mexico, America and Canada in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" – a North American Union modeled on the European Union – entails the loss of sovereignty and end of the republic as we know it.
The damage Bush has done to his party is beginning to rival that of Herbert Hoover. If the Clintons were doing this, would conservatives be mute? Time to lock and load.
Check the internet for ammo, at last look several months ago, there were two suppliers (one in Florida, don’t remember the other east coast source). Granted, 1000 rounds of Belgian corrosive primers at about $200 may not be your thing, but I am sick and tired of paying $20-27 for a box of 20 at my local gun stores.
Later read BTTT
Your right. It is another form of intimidation, degradation and humililation via name-calling. The poster "theFIRMbss" is doing just that, by lumping those of us (the majority BTW), who love our country and oppose amnesty for illegal aliens with the likes of David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh. That is a common tactic of supporters of illegal alien amnesty, to call opponents of amnesty racists, nativists, zenophobes, fanatics, etc.
Yes, you are also right about Hitler and the Nazis using the same tactics. It was Joseph Goebbels, who served as Reich Propaganda Minister under Hitler, who masterminded this tactic, I believe
elPresidente Boosh and his followers are causing much of the anger we are feeling toward illegals, because they are calling us racists and bigots. Making statements like Chavez just made only fuel the fire and could not be further from the truth.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. Great Post!
I'll go through the gun magazines in the bathroom, lots of ammo in them.
Thanks
I'm so glad to know it's only Buchanan that's beating the Republicans like a pinata full of American dollars.
Maybe you haven't noticed nearly the entire base of Republicans have had it with this once great party and this president. Maybe you failed to notice what is happening right in our *own* backyards, that has totally escalated during a period of years the Republicans held power.
Just how much concern should Americans have about countries 7000 miles away, while they watch as America and their own towns become part of a third world, socialist country?
Thank you, sir. Or should I say, "muchas gracias, senor?" LOL! IF I even said that right. I suppose I should learn, because the way things are looking, I'm going to need to know it. ;o)
Part of this is the power of organized lobbies - Linda Chavez's voice typifying the sort of thing that resounds within the Beltway like received truth. Part of it is the desire of a politician to leave a "legacy" that is contrary to the political currents outside the Beltway. That is the final result of the seduction of power, the temptation to lead rather than represent and the resulting necessity to use prod and whip when the led don't like where they're going.
It is lock-and-load time? I don't think so (and in any case I won't be sharing a foxhole with Pat Buchanan however correct he is on this topic), but it certainly is time to start stashing ammunition when we hear this sort of stuff from Bush's side of the aisle and "We're going to take things away from you for the common good" from the other side of the aisle. When we see Bush and Kennedy and Clinton all smiling together at the podium we are forced to admit that the problem's a real one.
The Republican party will survive this to the degree to which its adherents manage to reject Bush as its titular leader. I'm sorry to say that because I have a genuine affection for the man, but he's a lost cause now, IMHO, and I'm tired of defending him while hoping otherwise. If the D.C. political echo chamber manages to bully conservative - not just Republican - Congressmembers into acceding to this the Dems will be laughing all the way to the White House. About all we can do at this point is to insist repeatedly that our own representatives know where we stand on the issue. Violence is a last, horrible resort and we should quite rightfully be reluctant to employ it unless forced to in self-defense. Inside the Beltway that's a laughable fantasy. Outside the Beltway it isn't.
What does the empirical evidence show?
Look at California. Was life there better under the gringos, or is it better now under the Latinos/Mexicans? And how does the future look?
California isn't going to remain a part of "America" (at least the America I grew up in) for long. Nor will the rest of Atzlan. When they've destroyed that part of our country, they'll come to destroy the rest of it.
Pat's essay hits another one out of the park. And as usual, he's right, again.
- John
Way too late for that. This invasion is a violent invasion, and that violence has only escalated dramatically in the past decade. As a matter of fact, the numbers of dead and injured Americans number into the tens of thousands now.
A very astute observation. It is a "cultural cohesion" that holds, that binds, people together (usually people of a like ethnicity and culture). When that cohesion evaporates, so does the sense of nation, of culture.
But, tell me: the "tipping point" you describe - are we there yet? or even past that point?
I'm beginning to think that we have just passed such a "tipping point", perhaps irrevocably.
Whether we can ever "get back to where we belong" will hinge on the fate of "immigration reform" (makes me cringe just to think that).
Honestly, it doesn't look good.
- John
“Just for the record, Pat is a POS.”
Is he wrong here?
“A tale of two invasions”
Outstanding.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm reminded of the leadership detachment in France in the 1770s, or Russia around 1916.
As we know, this level of detachment from the reality outside of the palace is not often followed by a happy time. Not for the rulers, or the ruled.
That comment was so VERY uncalled for.
BTTT!
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.