Posted on 10/05/2006 2:58:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Republican congressional candidate Van Taylor may have broken a record for a campaign commercial. Category: crowding the most brown faces into one frame of TV time.
True, they are sort of bled of their brown in the picture, bled also of their humanity. They represent the hordes invading our land to clean our hotel rooms, make meals for us, harvest our crops and in general make our lives, um, livable.
Not to dismiss the problem of immigration reform. It's serious business Congress has left undone too long.
But to judge the election-year offensive about illegal immigrants, you'd think we were all making their beds now.
Now, really, folks.
Look at any broad-based survey of concerns and you won't find illegal immigration registering anywhere near the war in Iraq, the deficit, energy woes and congressional corruption.
But narrow your survey. Narrow it to: "What makes angry white men angry this year?"
And you've got it. Illegal immigration.
Twelve years ago when Republicans took over the U.S. House, the GOP struck gold in appeals to angry white males, AWMs.
It had a smorgasbord to offer: welfare, gun control, taxes. This year, with the threat of hordes of Democrats moving into a majority of offices in the House and the Senate in Washington, the Republicans dispatched focus-group SWAT teams to find out what has AWMs riled.
And so we had a GOP state convention in Texas that seemingly couldn't huff and puff enough about illegal immigration.
And we had the president talking about that threat to liberty: a Spanish rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
And we had the House congressional leadership pushing for 730 miles of border fence that would cost $6.6 billion in American currency we don't have.
In other words, the Republicans went looking for a new Willie Horton. They came up with Wilfredo.
In an appeal that is echoing across the nation, the Republican for Congress in the 17th District is trying to tar the Democrat with the claim that he's soft, soft, soft on illegal immigration.
The first arrow in Van Taylor's quill is the claim that Rep. Chet Edwards voted to give food stamps to illegals. The charge is true, and false.
Edwards voted to allow citizens to receive food stamps. The citizens in question are those who were born to noncitizens when in the country. That's the way it works. Congress could take away that path to citizenship. Or it could take away such citizens' food.
Taylor's ads also assert that Edwards has voted to protect illegal immigrants accused of crimes from being deported. That would include people who have "committed heinous crimes, including rape and murder." That's when all those bled-white brown faces from central casting get shoved before our eyes.
Well, the issue isn't exactly deporting criminals.
It's about withholding Homeland Security funds from cities such as Austin, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth that operate as so-called sanctuary cities. They don't ascertain citizenship status in making police stops.
Edwards said denying them Homeland Security funds would endanger Texans far more than current immigration policies.
Hardliners want to require local communities to enforce border laws, even to deny such things as housing and access to local services to undocumented individuals.
What next? Bust Burger King for serving them fries?
Yes, illegal immigration is a serious problem.
Congress must address it and, it is hoped, provide a path to citizenship for those immigrants who have been making our lives livable for many years.
Serious though the immigration problem might be, it's also a pretty nifty thing for certain politicians.
It allows them to distract voters from Iraq, the deficit and corruption.
Businesses who hire illegals also make us angry.
Angry white men are to be laughed at and made fun of.
Angry Muslims are to be surrendered too.
Angry feminists are to be given everything they want.
Angry minorities are to be apologized too.
Not that the left is a bunch of racists or anything. They care .....
Illegal immigration . . . welfare, gun control, taxes.
Yes, all of the above. And @$$hole liberals like Mr. Young calling me an angry white man and making fun of my beliefs.
Has anyone from the pro-illegal alien lobby even suggested a plan to separate the wheat from the chaff? No, they are the ones confusing the issue by trying to lump all immigrants into the same category.
This is not fair either to law-abiding citizens, immigrants who follow the law and come here or aspire to come here legally or even those who come here illegally to do honest work.
A guest worker program offered to the last of these three categories is operational only serious enforcement is shown against the predators, criminals and moochers.
Too bad for this punk no one cares enough to listen.
The whole article is crap, but its especially funny to hear this guy (and others) bemoan the few billion dollars that the border fence would cost. For one thing, $6 billion dollars is nothing for a govt that spends over two trillion dollars a year, and for another, it would most likely pay for itself if successful in stemming the flow of illegals.
Darn good thing men of color are so uniformly even-tempered.
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc. and then there are Just Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me "White boy," Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" and that's OK.
But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towelhead, Sand-nigger, camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink you call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" our lives, we'd be racists.
You have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US, yet if there were "White colleges" that would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to
society, you call him a racist.
I am proud. But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?
It always struck me funny that the media stuck the "angry white male" label on us because 62%, a 12% disparity, didn't vote Democrat. Polls during the same time period showed journalist voting 88%, a 38% disparity, for Democrats, but they didn't give themselves a label or even acknowledge their favoritism at all.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
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.