How can a steamroller be so agile?
I anxiously awaited Ms. Coulter's column yesterday. I knew it had to be about the immigration bill, and I wondered of she would finally unload on Bush. If you haven't read it, she didn't.
But how can a hydraulic press be so deft?
I haven't spoken to Ann in a while, so this is mere speculation, but while she mentioned El Presidente, she chose to focus on the problem, and I reckoned it was because bulldozing a Bush served no purpose. It was overkill, and it would cost way more than Bush is worth. He's virtually untouchable anyway, and intense criticism now only divides conservatives.
Lesson learned, although since my criticism seems to unite conservatives, I may not change course.
In any case, Bush has all he needs, but he doesn't have all he wants – the grand prize – the reason why his big money backers bought him. Our job is to keep him from attaining that goal, but our bigger job is to unite in restoring America and its vision – for Americans.
That means we welcome legal immigrants – from a variety of nations, not tens of million from one, so matter how much we like their food and their music.
"In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner. One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population. "
Too general? Does she presume too much?
How about this:
"If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande?"
Ann Coulter, ladies and gentlemen – accept no substitutes.
Then she quotes Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity:"
"Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics?
So forget Bush. I mean, leave him to me, you have more important things to do. Please just remember the next time you hear him say that deporting 12 million illegals would be "impractical," If that's true, it was he, more than anyone else, who made it so.
In other news, filthy O'Reilly labeled Michael Savage "a hater" today, because he claimed that Savage posted pictures on his website in which he allegedly alluded to the possibility that they were our missing soldiers in Iraq.
I say "allegedly," because The Factor scumbag couldn't be bothered with providing any quotes, nor could he even speculate as to why Savage might have done something like that. This is not the first time O'Weasel has sought to exalt and advance himself as the voice of moderation at the expense of conservatives. It's not even the hundredth.
For my part, I don't like Michael Savage's crude ways, and I don't listen to him, but I'll defend him all day, everyday, sight unseen if I have to choose between him and opportunists like O'Reilly. And if Savage is a hater, I know for a fact that he at least hates the right things.
One more note. I don't think O'Reilly knows how mush he's like Don Imus. Both think (thought) they were more powerful than they are, and when the chips were down with Imus, he was shown to be impotent because in reality, he had no supporters.