And he didn’t stop there; he just asserted that our limits on current legal immigration are too low and need to be extended!!!

WIDENING the Path to National Suicide.

I’m watching him right now and it really is disgusting. TREASON! BETRAYAL!

American citizenship isn’t worth spit. There is more value in the prize in a box of Crackerjacks.

Indeed, this is a Race Against Time:

The Federal government is electing a new citizenry.

I’ve said before that I want Bush to lose in ‘04, but never remotely entertained the idea of voting for a Democrat. My idea was simply that I wouldn’t vote, or would vote for a third-party candidate such as the candidate of the Constitution Party. But, right now, I’m thinking the unthinkable—I’m thinking that I might actually vote for the nutcase Dean, in order to help defeat Bush.

You’ve got to hand it to him, he’s a good salesman. He makes it sound so plausible, sensible, and humane. But does he think people won’t see through this? Even if he thinks they will see through it, he must figure that the increased votes he gets from liberals and minorities will make up for any loss in the Republican base. We must strive to prove him wrong.

Yes, this certainly feels like the “last straw”.

For some time now I have thought that it would be impossible for me to vote for Bush, and was comforted by Mr. Auster’s sensible arguments. This insanity is indeed the last straw. It takes an effort of will for me NOT to use the language I am tempted to use about Bush. It will take some doing, however, to convince me to vote for Dean. What a ghastly choice we face.

I have contributed to this fine blog a few times in the past, but have been out of action recently as I broke my ankle in mid November and had to have major surgery. Consequently, I had to drop my classes at Auburn University for the semester.

Let me say this about Mr. Bush: I couldn’t vote in 2000 because I was only 17, but I campaigned adamently for him, although my true beliefs were better personified by Mr. Buchanan. (Mr. Buchanan had no chance of being elected, so I wanted to at least defeat the liberalism Mr. Gore represented.)

Mr. Auster is correct in stating one should, possibly, vote for the third-party Constitution Party.

While going off attempting to nation-build in the Middle East and elsewhere, Mr. Bush is busy buidling a funeral pyre here for the nation he was elected to defend.

At 21, I haven’t seen the changes to this country the majority of the contributors and readers of VFR have, but this day has to rank high among the many sad days America has seen in the past 50-75 years.

Remember, Bush often announces extremely ambitious policies that he’s not entirely serious about, e.g., his big speech on democracy last fall, which if you take it literally means the U.S. is going to impose democracy on every country in the Mideast, à la Norman Podhoretz’s proposal of 2002. But Bush made that speech even as our speeded-up handover of sovereignty in Iraq was being announced!

Ditto Bush’s West Point speech of June 2002 on the Mideast, in which he said we would never again deal with the Palestinians as long as they were headed by terrorists. He then proceeded to deal with Palestinians in the “road map” farce even though the Palestinian Authority was still headed by Arafat.

So one possibility is that he knows this won’t pass, but he thinks his proposing it will win votes among certain constituencies.

Remember, however, that he also signed the McCain Feingold law, thinking that the Supreme Court would overturn it. Instead, the Court approved it.

I’m sorry to hear about Mr. Thompson’s injury and surgery, and wish him a speedy recovery.

For some reason I am thinking of Gorbachev’s speech at the end of 1991 announcing the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

But that speech was made when the USSR was collapsing anyway; Bush dissolves the U.S. at the time of its greatest power.

And when the USSR collapsed, Russians found themselves living in Russia; when the U.S. collapses, we will find ourselves living in Latin America (at best).

Are there any historical parallels for this stunning folly which our ruling class is unanimously in favor of forcing upon us? Even the clueless elites of pre-revolutionary France and Russia at least kept their nations intact. Perhaps we would have to search all the way back to the policies of some deranged Roman emperor to find anything to match this.

President Bush has shown himself to be a worse and infinitely more destructive enemy to the American people than that musty zealot bin Laden could ever have been. One teeters between utter bafflement and cold rage.

To Shrewsbury,

While the sheer chutzpah of the Bush scheme is stunning, I find nothing baffling, or at least surprising, in the basic direction he’s taken. He’s been completely clear, from the 2000 campaign onward, where he stands on these issues. In this area, at least, one cannot accuse him of dishonesty. The only thing that prevented him from announcing this plan two years ago was the 9/11 attack, and then Mexico’s hostility to us during the Iraq war debate. Bush has simply been waiting for the right moment to take out his “precious.”

Encouraged by Bush’s amnesty proposal, what happens if four or five million mexicans and other latins show up at the US/Mexico border tomorrow and start to cross en masse? This is similar to the scenerio envisioned in Respail’s CAMP OF THE SAINTS, where an “armada” of millions of Indians unloads its Third World cargo on the shores of the French Riviera. Respail, in 1970, predicted that the West would simply collapse, the hordes would come in and claim everything for themselves. Does anybody really think our government would do anything to stop them?

To PaulCC: It’s even worse than the scenario from “Camp of the Saints.” I have relatives who live in Arizona who tell me that the few ranchers and concerned citizens trying to defend their own property from the ongoing invasion are being targeted by Federal and state police agencies - who do nothing at all abut the invaders. US citizens cannot visit Organ Pipe National Monument safely due to the large number of heavily armed (with fully automatic weapons forbidden to US citizens) “coyotes” and Mexican military actively patrolling in the area.

Mr. Auster is right. No one has reason to be surprised. Those of us who foolishly voted for Bush because we wanted to vote against Gore should have paid more attention to Bush’s mass immigration inclinations and his strong identification with Latin Americans (driven, I think, by his Mexican family connections). Bush is a liberal and pursues liberal boondoggles, but I doubt he would be pursuing this particular boondoggle (at least not of such scope) unless he felt a special kinship with Mexico. With the demographic threat that Mexico next door poses for the United States, an uncritically Mexiphile president of the United States is a danger to America, as Bush has just proved.

Given that this sellout of Americans and American citizenship is the most dangerous betrayal of the United States that I can remember a president proposing, I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off with Gore in the White House (gag, choke). Gore would be selling us out, but - not having Bush’s Mexi-obsession - he probably wouldn’t be engaging in this Mother of All Sellouts. HRS

Carl: Amazingly, Raspail (oops, I spelled his name incorrectly above), has a passage that foretells the the fate of Arizona’s ranchers. CAMP presents a small group of Frenchmen who take up arms to repel the invaders. But the French government intervenes and napalms the Frenchmen. Here is an interesting paraphrased interview with Raspail I just ran across: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=412

I believe that Bush is a cooked goose if Wesley Clark continues to rise and overtakes Dean to become the Democratic nominee. I will certainly vote for him to toss Bush out on his derriere.

It’s good to see all of you native americans gathering forces to keep those foreigners out of this country.