Is Bush’s Sombrero Made in China?

opinion | 01/05/2004 | brianbaldwin

[Brian_Baldwin]

Is Bush’s Sombrero Made in China?

Bush said at a news conference in January that he was "firmly against blanket amnesty," or a mass legalization, that what he wants to do is “help match any willing employer with any willing employee" whether citizen or illegal alien, so they can have “legitimacy” and “legalize their presence” (make them LEGAL aliens, not ILLEGAL aliens, per Tom Ridge, who is in charge of our homeland security and protecting our borders and stuff). In other words, if you are a terrorist and an illegal alien wanna’ be, and a “willing employer” on the US side of the border (the DNC for example?) wants to hire a “willing employee”, then Bush is going to help team them up, and then you can be a “legal alien”. And the word “legal alien” is so close to “illegal alien”, the check-pants Bushies figure folks will get mixed up and confused with the terms, or not even notice the difference.

So, Bush isn’t going to give us “mass legalization”, just “legalization” . . . In other words, this isn’t going to be Democratic Party “mass” legalization, it’s just going to be Republican Party “multitude” legalization. Mass is for Massachusetts, multitude is for the lower 48. And, it isn’t going to be “blanket amnesty”, it’s going to be “poncho amnesty”.

The idea is to get the Hispanic vote, politics not borders, and homeland security is soon to be just another word for political correctness. I understand that maybe “poncho amnesty” also means giving the illegal aliens a.k.a. legal aliens, Social Security benefits, just in time for it to go bankrupt after Bush leaves office. It’s “poncho amnesty”, because it means “Hispanic”, in juxtaposition to “Arab”, “Jamaican”, etc.. So, what Bush has to figure out is, how to make it “Mexican’s only need apply” for the “blue card”, because they are the only constituency in sheer numbers to maybe make a difference in California and Texas in 2004 in comparison to, oh, lets say Pakistanis for example.

But you know, in the end, you go down that road, you know the cowards in the Republican Party will end up acquiescing it to everyone, and anyone.

So, I guess on Wednesday we will be told “something” from Bush about a guest workers program, which will “legalize their presence”, and that it isn’t mass legalization, it’s just legalization, it isn’t amnesty, it just a “form of amnesty”. Get it?

So, we can all clap, hurray, Bush will win California. Right?

And all those Mexicans, and La Raza, and all, they are all now NOT going to vote for the Democrats, thanks to the pure genius of Karl Rove.

Am I going to vote for Bush, in 2004?

“Tell me Brian, are you going to vote for Bush, or let Dean take the White House”, you ask?

Well, I am not going to say, because I don’t know yet. I can tell you one thing, if Bush does what I think he’s going to do, no, I will not vote for Bush in 2004.

I am watching two things.

Taiwan. Bush is getting ready to sell out Free, Democratic China, to sell out democracy, the Republic of China, Taiwan, to communism. He’s telling, warning, Taiwan, they “better not have a referendum”. I suppose, if he had his way, he would of made sure California didn’t have their referendum, or a recall, or something shockingly like democracy, too?

So, we are fighting in Iraq, to bring “democracy and liberation” to them, so that maybe they can have referendums or something.

Just, Taiwan better not even think about doing the same. Or else.

Borders. Terrorism. Borders. 911, because we weren’t minding our borders, immigration, deportations weren’t enforced, asleep at the INS wheel, terrorism. Borders and terrorist threat go hand in hand. You can’t have homeland security and “poncho amnesty” – you can’t have both. You have to decide.

YOU have to decide. I am going to decide later this week, when I watch what Bush is about to do.

YOU also have to decide. Borders and terrorism. Do you care?

Maybe this Wednesday, we will know if Bush cares.

And, it’s like Savage says – where is the debate? Who said Bush has the right to make such a dramatic, sweeping (and PERSONAL agreement between him and V.F. of Mexico), without asking us? Without a debate? Without the democratic process?

So, this isn’t worthy of a debate? We don’t even have a say in the matter?

Is this Imperial Rome?

Is Bush’s sombrero Made in China?

You think, it’s going to be so easy for Bush in 2004. Or maybe you think that, maybe not. In fact, if Bush DOESN’T do this poncho amnesty, I predict it will be easy for him in 2004.

And I predict, if he DOES do this poncho amnesty thing, it isn’t going to win him the Hispanic vote. It will be the political bomb that can, and will, really blow up his whole conservative gig et all. It won’t win him votes. It will lose many more than he would gain. And Karl Rove isn’t a genius. In fact, he a danger to our Republic. To our borders. To our national security.

But, I guess, these things, these kind of poncho amnesty things, it isn’t for us, it isn’t for the American people to decide. Communist China takes Free China. Mexico takes California. Heck, who are we to argue? With Bush?

La Cuca RA-cha! La Cuca RAAA-Cha! La Kook-a RAAA-Kah-Feller-Republican!

La Cuca RAAA-Cha! La Cuca RAAAAA-Cha!

La Kook-a Rockefeller Republican!

[dagnabbit]

"Poncho Amnesty" - LOL !

But what will they call the 2007 or 2008 amnesty for those who miss the cutoff for the 2004 giveaway ?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
	District of Columbia						10.00	1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[okie01]

Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers union were against the bracero program. So LBJ and the Democrats killed it.

From the looks of it, you're against it, too.

[trussell]

Place Marker