4 thoughts on “Be heard!”

  1. I think it was the summer of
    I think it was the summer of 1971. The Nixon Administration wasn’t spending enough on nuclear defense to please the editors of National Review. Also, Nixon had just imposed wage-and-price controls. NR and a group of prominent conservatives publicly “suspended” their support of the Administration. Buckley, Burnham, Meyer, et al., plus other national-known conservatives, made their statement in a full page of the magazine. If you regard seriously the comments at NR’s website, a number of their writers are unhappy about Bush’s immigration proposal. Any “suspension” forthcoming? What would it even mean?


  2. Well, the GOP will never get
    Well, the GOP will never get a vote from me!
    Some related links

    Bush’s Bartley Memorial Bill: None Dare Call It…Amnesty?
    By Peter Brimelow


    Stop President Bush’s Proposed Overhaul of Immigration Laws

    Bush Betrays Our Borders – The New American

    New Nation News – “Immigration Invasion”

    American Patrol

    Original Dissent Forum: Bush’s New Immigration Plan






  3. It is extremely hard to
    It is extremely hard to oppose the powerful forces against us. So it is important for those of us that don’t take stress very well to pace ourselves. Some of us need to avoid staying burning mad about the immigration issue even though it is vital to the survival of our culture, race, and country. We don’t want to burn ourselves out and give up as so many people have done. Simply make a commitment to take some step everyday towards immigration reform. (Also, everyone is entitled to time off.) That step serves as a release for our anger and helps us to feel a sense of accomplishment, which will encourage us to continue. One step could be as small as obtaining the address of a congressman or writing the first sentence of a letter. Another step could be checking in here and elsewhere for insights about the issue.

    It seems some of us also must learn to accept the rational idea that our efforts could fail. Some of us that suppress this thought will only aggravate our stress to the detriment of our cause. We will win if we try, but we will be able to handle it if we fail.

    If we know people (relatives and friends) that feel the same way as we do, prepare for them letters and stamped envelops. Have them sign the letters, and put the letters in the mail. This will increase our power by two, three, or thirty-fold. Know that by far the biggest challenge for a petition campaign is getting the petition into the hands of potential petitioners, who we know, based on the polls, are legion.

    I am not a tough guy as the thinkers here and elsewhere are. So don’t think we all have to be tough guys to fight this battle. We need only do what we can. I have learned that I can still make a big difference as a lowly soldier. I have successfully joined in the effort to stop pro-immigration legislation by doing the above.

    I also wish we had a prominent, effective national leader that would get in Mr. Bush’s face. But until such time as a leader emerges, we are limited to fighting a mainly defensive campaign. (Of course, there is also immigration reform legislation trying to get through the legislature.) The founding fathers gave us a legislature, if only people would use it.

  4. [In the spirit as Mr.
    [In the spirit as Mr. Murgos’ encouraging comments at Turnabout and VFR I’d like to post this excerpt from Craig Nelsen’s e-zine “Time Out Project” which is sent by e-mail from “ProjectUSA,” Craig’s immigration-reform organization. Please forgive the length (there’s no simple URL to post), as it’s guaranteed not only to inform but to lift any flagging spirits. Here it is:]

    Issue 177: January 14, 2004


    In an opinion piece in Monday’s “New York Times,” former New Jersey governor Christie Whitman complains that President Bush is “under attack from the right wing of the [Republican] party for his proposal regarding immigration and migrant workers.”

    As a moderate Republican, Ms. Whitman writes, this makes her feel left out.

    We can see why Ms. Whitman might feel left out. Given the intensity and scope of the backlash against the mass amnesty plan Bush proposed last week, it must appear to Ms. Whitman that the right wing of the Republican Party includes just about everybody in America.

    The Administration’s amnesty plan has been greeted by a flood of criticism from all sides. Key Congressional Republicans have already signaled opposition on Capitol Hill to their own president’s plan, while liberal Democratic Senators Diane Feinstein and Robert Byrd will resist the plan on the grounds that it would encourage illegal immigration.

    The plan has even come under attack from a surprising number of editorial pages, where attention to the immigration issue is often little more than sloganeering: “We’re a nation of immigrants,” “Diversity is our strength,” “Immigrants do jobs Americans don’t want,” and so on.

    As one example of the intensity of opposition to the Bush plan, Fox News, whose viewers are generally considered to be pro-Bush, posted an article written by “ProjectUSA” Director Craig Nelsen on the day following the Bush announcement:


    The response to the article, which denounced the Bush amnesty, was enormous, dwarfing anything in ProjectUSA’s experience, and overwhelmingly supportive of our position—not the President’s. (See “Email of the Week” below)

    The tone of the messages, indeed the sheer number of them, suggests the United States is entering a new political era.

    There seem to be only about nine people in the entire country who feel the President’s proposal isn’t anti-borders enough. Unfortunately, they are all running for the Democratic nomination to replace Bush, and disgusted voters are left with no place to turn (though a write-in campaign for Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado seems to be popping up on the Internet with increasing frequency).

    The political strategists in the White House are undoubtedly counting on the Republican base, however enraged by the Administration’s irresponsible immigration policy, to vote dutifully for Bush in the end. Meanwhile the Administration would be free to pursue unpopular policies that reward Wall Street with a cheap labor/mass consumption bonanza, and, at the same time, score a few cheap political points in the Spanish-language press.

    Such a strategy might work, but only if the immigration issue fades away between now and the November elections. We can’t let that happen.

    ProjectUSA’s 2004 campaign to make immigration a top issue in nine targeted Congressional districts is an excellent and achievable way to ensure that irresponsible actions on immigration policy in Washington draw political consequences. (Go here to pitch in: https://www.donation-net.net/donate/gift1.cfm?dn=1039&source=8&id=21159&commid=1337065&CFID=4447337&CFTOKEN=97836814 )

    [Articles Which May be of Interest:]

    “Bush Amnesty Most Radical Proposal in American History,” http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002068.html (L. Auster, “View From the Right”);

    “Bush Amnesty Plan Raises Immigration Concerns,” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107692,00.html (C. Nelsen, “ProjectUSA”);

    “Voodoo Economics from the White House,” http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krikorian200401070923.asp (Krikorian, CIS);

    “What Is Bush Thinking?,” http://vdare.com/sailer/bush_thinking.htm (S. Sailer, Vdare.com ).


    While it remains to be seen whether the Bush amnesty proposal is a political blunder, it is beyond question that the proposal would be a major national blunder.

    Bush’s plan essentially turns U.S. immigration policy over to Wall Street, allowing American business interests to import as much cheap labor and new consumers as they “need.” In other words, there is no limit to the size to which this plan would allow U.S. population to mushroom, nor the depths to which it would cause wages and working conditions to sink.

    And, as far as we know, no one has even bothered to do a study to determine what the long-term consequences of this radical new policy would be.

    If that weren’t bad enough, not only does the proposal include an amnesty, it allows amnestied illegals to bring in spouses and children.

    Using Mexico as a benchmark, if the average illegal alien brings in his wife and her 2.53 children, and if all ten million illegals in the United States are amnestied, Bush’s scheme could mean a massive addition to our population of some 45 million people.

    (And it’s important to remember that previous amnesties have seen about three times as many more illegal aliens take advantage of the amnesty than was predicted. In other words, when all is said and done, we may end up importing over a hundred million people as a consequence of Bush’s irresponsible “compassion” agenda and self-serving ethnic pandering.)

    And there are other problems: Bush has tied our Social Security fund to the guest worker program, a move that would likely inflict enormous damage on a system that is already headed toward insolvency. And what about “birth right citizenship?” What do we do with “guest workers” who bear children in the United States? And who will pay for the health care costs and education costs of this cheap labor and their offspring?

    The Bush amnesty has to be stopped in its tracks, and here are three quick, easy, and (believe it or not), effective ways you can help.

    First, call the White House and leave a message for the president: 202-456-1111.

    Second, send an email message to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose opposition is pivotal to the defeat of the Bush Amnesty, [email protected] .

    Third, a conservative website has put up a petition on our behalf demanding President Bush drop his amnesty plan. Please sign the petition, http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=255#tag_body?PID=57fc39648b847095a2b48af692a9e831 .

    “President Bush’s new immigration plan would lead to stunningly broad changes for our laws and our labor market, without being candid about its real-world effects and operations—much less about how to address them. This lack of seriousness verges on the irresponsible.” —David A. Martin, former general counsel for the INS, Washington Post, Jan 12.


    Bush should be very concerned: [here are just] some of the hundreds of emails we received in response to our article on Fox News:

    http://projectusa.org/Resources/letters.html .


Leave a Comment