Raoul Lowery Contreras
January 19,  2004

President George W. Bush has revealed himself for what he is.  He, according to legions of commentators, is a traitor to the United States intent on destroying the United States of America.

In fact, they bellow, true conservatives are bailing out on the President and are cutting off their munificent contributions to his reelection.  Why, at least two contributors didn’t hand over their checks at an Atlanta fundraiser.  Shock and awe! Golly gee.  The world is turned up side down.  How dare he reward lawbreakers!

So carry on a coterie of hard right wing, ultra-conservative commentators, many of them British with names like Brimelow, O’Sullivan and Derbyshire.  They, of course, are not alone.  White supremacists like Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, and the minor league contributors to websites run by people like the Emigration Party of Nevada, and racist branded sites like those of American Renaissance and Vdare.com, have come unglued.

One factor these British and American white Supremacists have is that almost to the “man” they have never served the United States of American in any military service. These so-called men are best defined as SHIRKERS. Psuedo-patriotic women join the shirkers in defaming and insulting the President of the United States (who actually did serve the country as a military pilot) who, in fact, are more vicious than these simple-minded “men.”

It is these people who insult the President and label him a traitor.  At the base of their complaints is that they have never liked the President because he squashed their candidates like bugs in his capture of the Republican nomination and the Presidency. Bush drove pat Buchanan out of the Republican Party, for example.

Joining them, of course, is the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton Black cabal, NAACP leadership, the Congressional Black Caucus and the out of touch Hispanic Congressional Caucus, a 100% left-wing Democratic gang that thinks they represent almost 40-million Hispanics.

There, then, sits the President of the United States, jeered by a few score Blacks (out of a multi-million Black population in Atlanta) while he laid a wreath at the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and defamed and slandered by White supremacists like Buchanan and Francis joined by British racists who wonder in print how Brimelow’s “blonde, blue eyed child” will make do in a country filled with Black and Brown immigrants, not to mention Jews from Israel and Russia.

Throw in so-called conservatives like the two who didn’t contribute to the President and and a drooling and otherwise foaming at the mouth handful of congressmen, we see what normally would be a beleaguered president.  Is he?

No.  We find that his popularity is higher than Ronald Reagan’s was 10 months before he blew Walter Mondale away in 1984; and, that his popularity is higher than President Slick Willie’s was ten months before he waxed Bob Dole.

At the same time, we see phony polls that claim the majority of the people are against Bush’s immigration suggestions.  What we don’t see, of course, is the proper question formulation that directs exactly how the poll will turn out.

Question:  Would you approve of police checkpoints on all major roads and highways in your city, manned 24-hours-a-day by squads of police officers, say 50-checkpoints in a city of 500,000 with 5 police per checkpoint (250 police times three shifts equals 750 officers) to attempt to root out the one in 29 people in the United States that are here illegally?

Question:  Can the city (any city) afford to have 750 police (or 7,500) officers looking for illegals in terms of money and the crime rate?

Question:  Can the City of New York afford to place 10,000 police on a checkpoint hunt for illegals, or, in other words, one fourth of the New York Police Department?

Question:  Can any city afford to frisk, search and question every single person in the city looking for the one in 29 people in the country illegally?

Question: Can any city afford the lawsuits to be filed and judgments to be won by American citizens who will undoubtedly successfully argue that their rights as American citizens (naturalized and natural born, like me) are violated by constant “profiled” searches and frisking by local cops?

Question:  Will the crime rate climb in your city if one-fourth to one-half of the police department is manning checkpoints 24-hours-a-day looking for a handful of illegals?

Question:  If 12,000 Border Patrol agents can’t stop illegals from coming into the country, can 20,000, or 50,000?

Question:  If spending over a billion dollars at the border can’t stop illegals from coming, will two billion, or three billion stop them?

Question:  If only 3.6% unemployment exists in the 3-million person San Diego County (December, 2003, with thousands of farms and nurseries), adjacent to the Mexican border, where are the Americans who claim illegals have stolen their jobs? They are in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, etc., et al—THE RUST BELT STATES. Has no one noticed that steel worker’s union drove up wages so high the steel firms could not compete?  Has no one noticed the predictive words of Lee Iococca a generation ago? It’s $20 an hour or nothing.

Those states have lost jobs for decades to Asia and for the last ten years to trading partners Canada and Mexico. So, why blame illegals working here?  That is the question.

The answer is simple, as simple as the insulting and defaming word arrows aimed at the President by the likes of failed candidate Pat Buchanan, White Supremacist Sam Francis and racists like Vdare.com writer Peter Brimelow (Francis and Brimelow are so labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a White-run organization). As for Black racists, the disgracefully illiterate Black politicians who couldn’t find a White Republican they can like in a thousand years, they are dismissed by reasonable people as just plain ignorant English-mangling racists.

The illegals are mostly Mexican. If they were Irish, we would hear none of this from the White supremacists. If these were Blacks we would hear nothing from the Black racists. 

Reasonable Americans like Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board and President George W. Bush, on the other hand, give credit where credit is due—the boom of the Nineties depended more on immigrants than dot.com flim-flam artists. The world’s highest standard of living for almost 300-million people depends as much on immigrants, legal and illegal, as it does on the sun coming up in the morning.

Framed as an intelligent position, that proposition lacks the simplicity and simple-mindedness offered up by the President’s critics.   

Sometimes one CAN see the forest for the trees.

E-mail: sdraoul@att.net

Raoul Lowery Contreras'
columns are syndicated by the New York Times Syndicate, New American News service.
 

The New American Majority
Hispanics, Republicans & George W. Bush: Accession to The White House

by CalNews.com's
Raoul Lowery-Contreras

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Back to Today's News

Calnews.com News/Politics/and More