Skip to comments.Conservative group targets Bush over immigration
Posted on 10/03/2004 9:47:51 PM PDT by JackelopeBreeder
click here to read article
I agree. This is a test of leadership. We have 30 days to get our point across. Some are waiting until later. As a citizen, I feel I need to express my concerns now, while politicians are actually interested in what I have to say.
Yep. Once this election is over, they'll go back to filing all your emails/letters in the round file cabinet.
I had a letter written and prepared to send to Schwarzenegger about the incongruity between gun control and his professed values for personal responsibility and an unplanned society before his election. Now I regret waiting.
I have the twin demons for senators, and am restricting my letter writing to more local levels. My mayor is running for congress. I think now would be an opportune time to ask him to investigate claims of illegal aliens voting in local elections AND excessive property taxes and and and... BTW, one can't be for gun control and also personal responsibility. Having gun control, makes the government responsible for your life not yourself. Hence that's why I hope my mayor wins and unseats Carolyn McCarthy!
Sakes alive: http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/ she's a handful, isn't she?
Yes. She's well known and well liked.
If it wasn't for the war on teror, Bush would not get my vote.
Thereis no way i can allow Kerry to win, no matter how much I realize Bush is no conservative.
With that said, I personally do not advocate voting for John Kerry but I for one will not vote for Bush either. He's on his own over this until he does a radical 180º on this issue BEFORE the election. I for one believe that we as concerned conservatives and voting citizens need to take away his power in both Houses of Congress starting with this election cycle to get his legislation pushed through on this and other significant socialist issues he is trying to perpetuate on the American people.
If he refuses to stand up and be counted on as a good traditional American then tie his hands to get anything done for the next 4 years.
*shudder* - Carolyn McCarthy.
You have a good point about personal responsibility. It's too bad so many Californians were hoodwinked by Schwarzenegger. It's not like Carry_Okie and kellynla didn't warn us.
Then again, there is a small cadre here of persistent critics who always keep America and Americans first in their thoughts.
It's sad to think we could have had Tom McClintock instead of gun-grabbing Arnie the actor.
Valid points, RB.
Boy, are you already in big trouble here. Slimy scum like those you're criticizing are primary contributors. How dare you threaten the illegal alien Golden Goose! (big-time sarcam implied).
I take a lot of flack for pushing traditional fair trade over piratical Free Trade, so I welcome the inevitable arguments over this rampant use of illegal laborers. Other than being flat-out WRONG, illegals drive down wages and suck our social services net dry. Employers of illegals have been granted an under-the-radar bye and secretive wink by being granted the passive "proof after the fact" position on documentation proof despite harsh laws and penalties legally required for them. It's past time to start prosecuting. Start with the lawless and arrogent Tyson Chicken company.
I don't think McClintock would have been elected. The voting public doesn't seem to like anyone too conservative.
Tom McClintock is probably less "right wing" than the media painted him. But the TV stations and newspapers here are run by Che Guevara's apostles.
I have a question. Why can't the States take care of the borders? Why is it up to the Federal Government?
Nice post. It's wasted on the anyone but those of us who are rational and wish to preserve the sovereignty of the U.S. Everyone else seems to think that illegal aliens are the future of America. I don't get it at all.
They should be contributing from behind steel bars. The sooner that happens, the sooner this problem will solve itself. Blackbird.
You're a smart woman and know Fox's government is in peril of neck-stretching if ours would just close the border. It needs to be done as soon as possible because propping up their bad joke of a government hurts more people the longer we allow it to go on. If we don't slam the gate we consign yet another generation of Mexicans to literal peonage (at our ultimate expense). Closing the border now is the most humanitarian thing to do.
I enjoyed it, too - once raybrbr bumped it to our attention.
Not only what you said but Bushs stance on and strong advocacy for the massive invasion from the South will cause the Republican party to lose decisive seats in the House for sure and possibly even in the ever growing socialist based Senate. This is becoming a divisive and defining issue with each passing day in rural America. More and more traditional tax paying citizens are starting to connect the dots between this issue and their out of control property taxes that is on the verge of driving them into the poor house and jeopardizing their and their children's future.
I too see a coming split of the Republican party caused by the Bush administration and its ineptness, hard headdress and utter stupidity over these kind of socialist stances. He appears to value the support of the neocons, RINO's and Republican socialist's more than he does the base of his own party. The time to elect Bush to a lame duck term is upon us it seems I'm afraid.
If that ever happened, I think we would get an idea of what happened during the French Revolution!
Japan and India belong on the security council, IMHO. Mexico is a backwater and backward hole in the wall, even if the food is good.
Why don't you include this site, which chronicles every member of congress' record on immigration - in your ping lists.
I think people are very unaware of the betrayal perpetrated on them by their "representatives".
Caroyln McCarthy is in the red zone. As if this would be news to me! :(
You mentioned the Bush family, but many of us supported Bush, Sr. until his liberal policies began to outweigh his conservative policies (and I voted for him in 1992). Many of us unequivocally supported the President until his liberal policies began to outweigh his conservative policies (and I will vote for him in 2004 with held nose).
But to blame the messenger and "never forgive" critics is directing your well-deserved anger at the wrong target. In general, your anger should be directed, not at those who insist upon elected officials governing as presented during campaigns, but precisely at those elected officials who present themselves as one thing and govern as another.
Sorry you will never forgive me, but I really didn't ask for your forgiveness. Some of us think that if any forgiveness is in play, it is from us to those who support a man rather than principal, all the way to destroying the party and the Republic.
You do please me by saying that I'm not the kind of conservative you want to know--I feel the same about you.
Welcome aboard BlackbirdSST. You'll find that most of us aren't Bush haters but rather law-of-the-land and the Constitution boosters and supporters! We believe in being governed by the 'Rule of Law of the Land' and not the 'Rule of any single Man'. But bring your flame retardent suit when entering here.
The thinking is that by ousting GWB the electorate sends a powerful message that it was pro-border former supporters that cost politicians the election. Then, politicians might actually get the message and be more like Representative Tancredo in viewpoint, and less like Vincente Fox.
Let's take a little assessment of the War on Terror. Despite rollbacks in defense spending and intelligence gathering abilities during the Clinton administration, our preparedness to fight a war was surley better in 2001 than it was in 1940. Yet three years has passed. When will the Battle of Midway in this war occur? When will D-day happen? Not anytime soon. We're talking about a generational conflict -- again. If we resolved to win this war in six months, it could be done, starting today. Let that be our October Surprise.
Much to the shagrin of some of the more ardent bots around FR these days, I don't hate Bush either, just his Socialist ways, WOT/WOsD's rhetoric with open borders, and the like. I too, will "likely" hold my nose because of the weak opposition, but it WILL be the last time I do it for this RINO Party. I'm a divided gubermint leaning kind of guy these days. I'll tell myself, it's only in support of our men and women in Uniform, which is the only reason I voted for him the first round. Good day! Blackbird.
This is an outrage. With all that is at stake in this election, these people are encouraging voters to oust the President? Are they insane? What kind of country do they think they will get with Kerry as President?
40 posted on 10/04/2004
When ILLEGALS vote they CANCEL OUT the vote of a legal citizen.
Even if Bush wins he will not shut the borders.
If Kerry wins, then the Republicans will finally move to address this problem.
With all due respect....GWB is not doing that well on the WOT. The borders are wide open. It is only pure luck (which might very soon run out) that a determined group of terrorists have not let loose their mayhem in the US (again).
How can one be doing well on the WOT when he actively leaves us open to attackers slipping through our borders?
Had conservatives voted their preference instead of falling for the "Arnold can win" crap from the GOP, McClintock would have won.
I think its important for all of us to remember kerry said W's plan didnt go far enough!...point to consider in this time of war.
Nice ad hominem attack. Can't logically debate your point, so you have to resort to personal attacks.
Another great thread, JB!
The 'Bots' really got lathered-up over this one. Prince and Ramirez must be doing something 'RIGHT'. ;^)
|"Are there contradictions in our Worker's Paradise oppressing workers? Yes, but those contradictions are a good thing, since they will ensure that there will be a glorious dialectical materialist leap to a future golden utopia!"|
What else do you call it when people see things that aren't there? ("amnesty") Perhaps "hallucinations" or "dementia" would have been better words.
We saw it. He told him there are now about 3 *million* pouring into our country every year and President Bush paused, and responed, "Well, it is getting better".
We couldn't believe he said that.
In time, we are going to have to give up California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Hopefully, we can "save" those states immediately to the north. It's coming, and it won't be long, folks. California is close to - or past - the "tipping point" now. The whites and "productive people" are already packing up and leaving, along with their businesses.
I don't see any other possible future for the southwest, myself. In this case, it will be a matter of "demographics uber alles". Neither party seems interesting in stemming the flood of illegals streaming in across the border. It's a case of "open borders", or "open borders, lite" - take your choice.
And there's no point in denying that the overwhelming majority of them are Mexican or otherwise Central or South American. In time, we will have to deal with a "new flood" of South Americans coming over (more than do now). This will be almost guaranteed under the next Democratic administration, for, when she comes to power, the borders will be all but "erased" as a functioning line of national demarcation.
The "latino map" is interesting, because there _are_ some sections of the country that continue to exist _without_ a measure of the illegal influx. I recently spent some time in an Eastern state (I will not say where)... where I specifically looked for illegals, as I'm considering relocating there. I found none to speak of... didn't see _any_. My reasoning is there is no financial benefits for them to be there - no opportunities for "cheap labor", other than the farm harvest season. Out that way, folks mow their own lawns and hire other anglos for the home repairs.
Eventually, Atzlan will come to be. I'm of the mind that by the time its reality looms, Anglo-Americans will not fight to retain it in the Union. If anything, white America will be _relieved_ to let Atzlanians have their "freedom"....
You do realize that if President Bush loses reelection social conservatives will also lose a measure of their power, likely forever. A Bush loss guarantees a Giuliani '08 nomination and win, and since the short-sighted, 'sit at home 4 Jesus', 'I'm so pure I wouldn't even vote 4 myself', perennial spoilsports once again threaten to destroy the party's election chances because they haven't gotten 110% of what they wanted, then the GOP will simply shift towards the middle on a few social issues. The result will be a econ conservative/social moderate to libertine alliance that will provide a solid and more stable majority, leaving social conservatives on the fringe with nowhere to go.
Be careful what you wish for.
I really don't want to see Kerry win. But like I have told the poll folks that call my house, now and then. With Texas being 50% over run with illegals, 50% illegal, 50% American citizen, I'm not feeling like I want to vote for promoter 1 or promoter 2.
The only thing that could pull the stats in Bush's favor would be to take that illegal immigrant subject they shoved under the rug, out from under the rug. Until that happens, I don't feel motivated. Because a vote for Bush really does not insure a two party system.
With illegals getting the vote in state after state we are heading for a one party socialist system, get use to it.
I don't understand why so many Republicans not only support but promote the immigration of illegal Democrats.
Because Master Bush said so...
Most American latinos don't go for these illegals either.
The Azlan radicals are not the norm among American Mexicans at all. Yet, they get power because they have a Mexican last name to get a vote.
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.