Editorial: Should Americans celebrate Mexican Independence Day? Ask Jeb

Editorial

In the spirit of multiculturalism, should U.S. citizens celebrate Mexican Independence Day?


Consider Candidate Jeb Bush's take on this.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/why-would-jeb-bush-rather-lose-an-election-than-defend-the-historic-american-nation-because-hes-a-freak


Jeb developed a romantic image of Hispanic culture in his youth. Jeb met Columba in 1971 when he was on a work study trip to Mexico, part of the Man and Society class he was taking at his elite Andover prep school.
As Politico put it in The Year that Changed Jeb Bush Forever, the experience is “How a radical class—part Lord of the Flies, part Peace Corps—introduced a preppy teenager to Mexico and the love of his life” [by Michael Kruse, May 21, 2015]. Jeb himself says of the stay: “My life really began in earnest when I was 17 years old in León, Mexico.” And Politico’s Kruse believes “[Bush’s] stubborn insistence on a doors-open immigration policy in a Republican Party that has moved away from it… can be traced back to León.”

Let’s look at some of Jeb’s peculiar and self-defeating stances.

• Puerto Rican statehood and Puerto Rican bankruptcy relief. How would this help the GOP? And it certainly hasn’t helped Jeb in the primary, but he doesn’t care.
• Jeb says he was “hurt” by Trump’s comments on immigration and says building a wall is impossible.
• And most critically, Jeb has openly come out in favor of a bilingual America.

Jeb Bush has a sentimental, romantic, and passionate attachment to Hispanic culture–and indifference (at best) towards the historic American nation.
Currently, Jeb is trying to say Trump isn’t a “true conservative” because he’s dug up old things The Donald has said and done. And Jeb might be right about some of them.
But with all Trump’s imperfections, he shows concern for working Americans. And he’s sounding better as he goes along–partially because Jeb is inspiring him to defend things like the use of English in America.
Tellingly, Jeb has not attacked Trump’s illogical and inexplicable proposal to bring the “good ones” back after deporting illegal aliens. (Let’s hope he forgets about it.) Any candidate could do it. But not Jeb, because that would be “insensitive” to Hispanic sensibilities.
So, instead, Jeb would rather lose than hurt Latino feelings. While Trump rhetorically positions himself as a defender of the American nation, Jeb welcomes the U.S. becoming a part of the Third World. He would rather go down defending “his” invading Hispanic community—which, remember, does yet not cast even ten percent of the vote in American elections.

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Mexico. This follows this post about Scotland. his follows this post about the Feast of Trumpets. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

World News and Trends: Is Mexico the next threat to U.S. stability?

Download in MP3 Format

article by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder

Mexico's rise in crime, violence, drugs and kindnappings indicate it's headed towards an inevitable downfall. What will this mean for the United States?

Even in terms of annual legal crossings on the U.S.Mexican border, the estimated number of 300,000 makes it the world's busiest. Yet the possibility of a failed Mexican state ranks high among American international worries.
A regular column in the International Herald Tribune asked: "What do Pakistan and Mexico have in common? They figure in the nightmares of U.S. military planners trying to peer into the future and identify the next big threats. The two countries are mentioned in the same breath in a just-published study by the United States Joint Forces Command, whose jobs include providing an annual look into the future to prevent the U.S. military from being caught off guard by unexpected developments " (Bernd Debusmann, "Among Top U.S. Fears, a Failed Mexican State," Jan. 9, 2009, p. 2).
Both of these countries are close to the top in the reported rankings of failed states subject to rapid and sudden collapse. The dangers associated with Pakistan are more painfully obvious. A retired American intelligence analyst said in December 2008 that Pakistan is "one of the single most challenging places on the planet" (ibid.).
Mexico is more of a surprise. One paragraph in the article reflects the gravity of Mexico's plight: "Vicious and widening violence pitting the drug cartels against each other and against the Mexican state have left more than 8,000 Mexicans dead over the past two years. Kidnappings have become a routine part of Mexican daily life. Common crime is widespread. Pervasive corruption has hollowed out the state" (ibid.).
Mexico's governmental infrastructure remains under continual pressure and assault by drug cartels and other criminal gangs. The Joint Forces Command study plainly stated: "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for Homeland Security alone. One minor indication is that the Mexican border town of Tijuana is now off-limits to American marines because of its increasing violence" (Chris Ayres, "You Wanna Die Tonight, Gringo?" The Times, Jan. 23, 2009, p. 2). (Sources: The Times [London], International Herald Tribune. )

• Conflicts and War
• Governments
• Mexico
• Middle East
• Pakistan
• World Regions
• Good News Magazine
• North America
• United States
• News and Prophecy

Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

Login/Register to post comments

Editorial: Contact your Representatives about Tahmooressi on Mexican Independence Day!!!

Editorial




An update of a previous post based on information from www.HelpSaveMaryland.org.


Please contact your House Representative Here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

As you know, the Mexican Government has been illegally holding American Marine SGT. Andrew Tahmooressi for mistakenly straying across the border.  He now sits in a jail cell while our government does nothing for his release.

Keep in mind the Keystone Cop Mexican Border Guards Organization makes the Obama Administration border security plan actually look legitimate. 

 

For a few pesos, anyone can cross the border heading north to get a piece of the American welfare state - Mexicans, Central Americans (especially 60,000 plus children, MS-13 and Latin Kings from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.), Iranians, Chechens, and the like.  

 

These so-called immigrants are the clientele of the National Council of La Raza (The Race) and Attorney General Eric Holder. 

We have about 20 million illegal aliens in this country who "strayed" across the border.  Rather than sitting in jail, they are encumbering American jobs, using American schools, social services, welfare, in-state college tuition, and driving with licenses on our roads with impunity from the law.

But one American, Marine SGT. Andrew Tahmooressi, makes one mistaken turn driving near the Mexican border and somehow those sleepy, corrupt Mexican Border guards grab him. 

Tahmooressi, a Marine who  actually served with "honor and distinction" in Afghanistan, now sits in a Mexican prison.   

Why Isn’t Chicano Comedian George Lopez A Loyal American?

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about a comedian named George Lopez. This follows this post about the Burning Man concert.  This follows this post about some of the music that was poplular during 2011. This follows THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself.

Memo From Middle America

Assimilation Fail: Why Isn’t Chicano Comedian George Lopez A Loyal American?

http://www.vdare.com/articles/assimilation-fail-why-isn-t-chicano-comedian-george-lopez-loyal

By Allan Wall


“…Sheriff Joe in Arizona, f--- you, you f---in’ puto. [Loud applause] How about that? F--- you, you fat motherf---er f--- you. I said I was gonna talk some sh-t, f--- you, Sheriff Joe, you f---in’ puto [Spanish-language profanity]. F--- you.” [Loud applause].

—George Lopez, “It’s Not Me It’s You” HBO Special



This angry, and very unfunny rant, was recently uttered by Mexican-American comedian George Lopez to a large audience which applauded loudly. ).

Hear it here—language warning.

Why is George Lopez, a professional comedian, so angry at Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, fighting the illegal invasion of his county?

Lopez is a successful Mexican-American entertainer who has based his career on being Mexican-American. Born in 1961 in California, and eventually abandoned by both his parents, George was raised by his maternal grandmother who provides many of the anecdotes in his stand-up routine.

Besides his long career in stand-up comedy, Lopez has hosted a radio show, been an NFL commentator, acted on television and in movies. From 2002 to 2007 he was the producer, writer and star of the “George Lopez” sitcom, which was followed by hosting TV talk show Lopez Tonight, from 2009 to 2011. George Lopez has published his autobiography, Why You Crying? co-written by CBS’s Armen Keteyian and has a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame.

So George Lopez is a celebrity in today’s celebrity-crazed society. And he’s richer than most of us will ever be. And yet, like Eva Longoria and other prominent Mexican-American celebrities, there is something in George Lopez’s soul that doesn’t identify with, and even seems to resent, the historical American nation.

For example, unlike most Americans, George Lopez opposes Arizona’s SB 1070. Why is that?

If Lopez weren’t a Mexican-American, he wouldn’t even be famous. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t his whole shtick based on his identity as a Mexican-American?

When the George Lopez sitcom was cancelled in 2007, Lopez made a racial case out of it, bellyaching that “TV just became really, really white again.” (According to DNA testing, George Lopez is 55% white, but of course he doesn’t identify as white). Complaining about another program entitled “Caveman”, Lopez reasoned that



So a...Chicano can't be on TV but a...caveman can?" "And a Chicano with an audience already? You know when you get in this that shows do not last forever, but this was an important show and to go unceremoniously like this hurts? [Lopez apparently can't stop swearing for ten minutes--The three dot ellipses are the LA TIMES’s for what they call “ colorful language that cannot be printed in a family newspaper”.]

”TV just got a lot 'whiter,' says a canceled George Lopez ,' says a  LA Times, May 14th, 2007



Well, I’ve never had my own sitcom, nor have most white Americans, yet Lopez had one for five years. So who’s being discriminated against?

Some might say, “Lopez is just a comedian, don’t take it seriously.” But there’s a Spanish proverb that says “Entre broma y broma, la verdad se asoma”—“Between joke and joke, the truth is shown”. Comedians have agendas too.

I did some random listening to some of Lopez’s work on YouTube. It’s sometimes humorous, but it can get old. And some of it would certainly get a white Anglo into trouble—for example, this routine here, about a limited-English Latino employee in the drive-through of a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant, with the accent and everything.

A common theme running through Lopez’ work is that Latinos are vibrant, exciting, spontaneous people, while white people are effete and uptight.

In this video of It’s Not Me, It’s You, Lopez boast of Latinos stealing warning signs for mopped floors to be used as soccer goalposts, about Latinos drinking in front of their children, and about stealing from the White House. When asked what kind of American would steal from the President, Lopez replies “a Mexican-American”.

Lopez boasts about Latino kids not being spoiled and contrasts them with white kids who are “entitled” and all on Ritalin.

Lopez says “Latinas are beautiful. The problem is you got to get ‘em before they get fat. “

Another Lopez line: “You can’t get 25 black and Latino people together unless you have drugs and alcohol.”

Lopez talks about his grandmother being racist against blacks and jokes about Sonia Sotomayor getting injured and collecting worker’s comp before entering the Supreme Court.

Near the beginning, Lopez indignantly declares:



“We [Latinos] get blamed for so much sh-t and we take it. I’m telling you tonight, we don’t have to take that sh-t anymore. It’s our time.” At the end of the video he cries “Viva Mexico, Viva la La Raza!”



In another video, Lopez begins with some Latino triumphalism:



Let me say this about immigration so you finally hear it from a Latino. We ain’t going nowhere… The stupidest thing to do is to assume that we’re all from Mexico. "Well, what part of Mexico are your ancestors from?” Los Angeles, bitch. I got a breathtaking view of the King Taco, it’s lovely, I watch people get shanked every weekend.

George Lopez - America's Mexican  (2007)



Indeed, Lopez almost speaks proudly of Latino crime:” We don’t go for extreme sports, you know, walking in our f---ing neighborhood is an extreme sport.”

The comedian ridicules deportation, depicting an illegal alien saying to his aunt “I gotta go back to Mexico, I’ll be right back, though, watch my plate. “

(Of course, he has a point here, with our ridiculously low deportation rate and lack of punishment for repeat offenders).

In the same video, Lopez ridicules California’s then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s accent, saying that it makes him a hypocrite to support “English Only”. Lopez curses both Schwarzenegger and President Bush with a “F--- that, puto!”

After all that pandering, this is the thanks Bush receives!

(See my Adiós to Presidente Bush: - A Retrospective on the Pandering President).

Now, getting back to the “It’s Not Me, It’s You” show, which includes the anti-Arpaio rant: the entire show is here, Lopez' comments on Romney and Arpaio are here.

Near the beginning, Lopez goes off into a “Hispanics Decide the Election” riff:



This is an election year; we all know it’s an election year. Latinos have the most powerful vote in this country. [Applause building] The Latino vote is very powerful. We have to realize that our vote can change the course of this political campaign. We can elect the president. We!



Later, he makes fun of Mitt Romney:



Mitt Romney wants the Latino vote. He ain't gonna get it. (BOOING) He ain’t gonna get it. And you know why? Because Mitt Romney is a f---in' Latino and he won’t admit it. His father was born in Chihuahua, México. Mitt Romney is a Chicano but he won’t admit it. "I’m not, I’m Danish, I’m French." [imitating Romney]

[Directed to Romney] If you want our vote, puto, come out of the closet. Get a hairnet and lean back and say,”My llamo Mitt pero me puede llamar guante.” [“But you can call me ‘guante’—Spanish for mitt, in the sense of glove.]



As for the Arpaio rant, there is no nuance to it, no explanation, it just burst forth. It isn’t even funny. Lopez seems genuinely angry.

Bu his audience loves it, as the angry comedian curses a man many Americans admire, a man who takes seriously the charge he has been entrusted with.

Joe Arpaio has served as sheriff of Maricopa County for twenty years, having first been elected in 1992, then re-elected four times.

How many elections has George Lopez run in? Why is George Lopez so angry that Sheriff Arpaio is trying to enforce the law?

Why is George Lopez so angry about our immigration law being enforced?

What does this say about Mexican assimilation?

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A in 2008, after many years residing in Mexico. Allan's wife is Mexican, and their two sons are bilingual. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

Farrakhan's Eloquence on the Southwest and Impending White Minority Status

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about Mexico's continued attempt to steal territory that the U.S. paid for after being attacked in the Mexican American war. This follows this post about American nationals being attacked by officials in Mexico (Would it be a hate crime if it was reversed?)  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE.

Farrakhan's Eloquence on the Southwest and Impending White Minority Status


http://www.vdare.com/posts/farrakhans-eloquence-on-the-southwest-and-impending-white-minority-status



By Allan Wall


The Blaze reports a speech delivered by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in San Diego, California, the day before Memorial Day . The title of the article sums it up: Farrakhan Laments: ‘Sad That Mexico Lost California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico‘ Through American ’Trickery’; Soon Whites ‘Will Be the Minority’ In the Country They ‘Took’ (Benny Johnson, The Blaze, May 29th, 2012.)

Here are some excerpts:



That‘s terrible that Americans can call Mexicans ’aliens.’ You know, we ought to be praising the Mexicans because we living on land that was once theirs, San Diego.

Brothers and sisters, it’s sad that Mexico lost California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado — all of this was once Mexico. And through trickery, a war was started.



Here's my article on how the U.S. gained the Southwest: On Guadalupe Hidalgo Day, Here's Why the U.S. Has Title to the Southwest.



A racist, white supremist [sic] must be going crazy, you know, because for the first time, Hispanic, black and Asian babies outnumbered white babies. An ominous sign for the future. Now listen now, in the next 30 or 40 years, white people will be the minority in their own country that they took from the native people.



Actually, it's not correct to say that white people took this country from the native people. This country, this entity now known as the U.S.A. was founded by white people and wouldn't have existed without them.



That must be a terrible feeling, to know that in just a few short years, the majority’s gonna be the minority. And one man, one vote. So, we become governor of every state — ah, we give ‘em a few.”

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

An interesting take from www.vdare.com about an evangelical view of immigration.

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

[Peter Brimelow writes: For some reason, it is much easier to get Catholic immigration reformers to write about their faith and their preferred policy, even though it means arguing with their bishops. But recently Jim Antle wrote about Methodists and here Rev. Barnwell offers an Evangelical perspective.]

By Bill Barnwell

The mainstream Christian Right has long been divided on the issue of immigration. Since Evangelical Protestants view the Scriptures as the basis for their worldview, both sides appeal to the Bible to support their position. Christianity Today has run several pieces recently, featuring different angles on the Evangelical response to the immigration crisis. [For example, On Immigration Issue, Big Evangelical Groups Conspicuously Mum, G. Jeffrey Macdonald, January 20, 2006]
The debate raises several questions: How do Evangelicals reach their divergent opinions? Is there any hope of a consensus on what the Bible “really” says on this issue for 21st century Americans? Is the Bible even a valid source for evangelical immigration debates?
While the Scriptures do not directly address this modern policy debate, there certainly are some overriding Biblical principles that can help a Christian reach a conclusion. I believe that while Christians who support mass immigration may be well-intentioned, they are simply missing the mark by overlooking some key facts both in the Biblical text and in the modern debate.
First, it must be pointed out that current political and social conditions are very different than in Biblical times. The nation-state as it exists today does not reflect the ancient kingdoms of Israel or Judah, or the Roman Empire of the New Testament.
After the Israelites left Egypt, they settled in the land of Canaan and functioned as a theocracy. There was no king, and most surrounding people groups belonged to what we would basically call “city-states.” Eventually the nations of Israel and Judah became established states with their own kings (the unified kingdom split after Solomon).

The book of Deuteronomy makes provisions for the selection of a king (I Deut. 17:14-20). One of the instructions was that the king himself be from the Israelite community. The people were instructed not to put a foreigner over themselves.

Likewise, after the Israelites returned to their land from national exile, they were forbidden by their priestly leaders from intermarrying with foreign persons (Ezra 9).
The appeal here in the Old Testament is not one of racial purity, but spiritual purity. Foreigners were indeed allowed into the Israelite community. Ruth the Moabite is a prime example of this.
These instructions were given when the Israelites were under the Old Testament law and were to be a holy people, set apart. They were not to conform to wicked customs, morals, and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. The Israelites were supposed to be a shining city on a hill to which the rest of the world would take notice and ideally worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was part of the promise to Abraham, the father of Israel, when God told him, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ( Gen. 12:3).

According to the New Testament, this promise reached its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The first chapter in the New Testament spells this out by showing that Christ was the promised descendant of Abraham and David ( Matthew 1). Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).
So if the emphasis is not, in fact, on race and ethnicity, is there anything here that can be applied to the discussion of immigration? In short, yes.

As I’ve shown, the Israelites were supposed to welcome foreigners who believed in their spiritual ideals and wanted to freely become a part of the Israelite community. To speak anachronistically, they were not supposed to welcome foreigners who would come in and burn their flags and sing the national anthem of the Canaanites.

Christians, therefore, should be advocating an immigration policy that welcomes those who seek to willingly assimilate and become a part of their national culture and heritage.

Foreigners who became a part of the Israelite community were obligated to forsake their old ways and assimilate to their new culture. While for the Israelites this transformation was primarily spiritual, it surely carried many secular connotations as well. Christians should not have a racial focus, but a values focus.
However, Christians need to recognize that the purpose of immigration policy is not to invite more potential converts into our churches.
But what about highly spiritual illegal immigrants who come to America seeking a better life? Surely they should be welcomed into the American community with open arms, even if they break the law, correct?

Well, not so fast.
In general, the Bible supports the idea of obeying the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). However, when the authorities are rebelling against God’s will ( Revelation 13), the Christian has the obligation to “obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29). We must ask ourselves then:
Is a nation-state protecting its borders and seeking to assimilate its citizens into its culture really engaging in an egregious offense against God?

Are these laws so offensive towards God that they permit a Christian to break American laws and thumb their noses at other foreign Christians who are seeking to enter the country legally?
Unless it can be proven that the law or authority in question is in direct violation of God’s revealed will, we cannot conclude that illegal immigrants (including Christian ones) are pursuing a righteous cause. Why is it seen as immoral or unfair for America to actually enforce its already lax standards on immigration? Immigration policy certainly does not rise to the level of an offense against God.

The biblical verses most commonly used by Christians who support liberal immigration laws appeal to the Israelites to treat fairly the “strangers in the land.” Leviticus 19:33-34 supports this notion: “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
[VDARE.COM note: Or in the King James Version: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” This gave John Higham the title of his famous book on nativism, still cited by many who do not realize he subsequently changed his mind.]

There are several ways in which these verses are misinterpreted:
First of all, these verses were most probably primarily referring to foreigners who sought to become a part of the Israelite community. It certainly cannot be referring to the pagans in the land who sought to lure the Israelites into sin and rebellion against God. Therefore, these passages were certainly not directed towards aliens who were breaking laws and causing mayhem in the community.
Second, these passages say nothing about modern democratic nation-states establishing their own guidelines about what is and isn’t the appropriate number of “aliens” living in their lands.
Third, is it treating an illegal alien unfairly by punishing him for breaking the law? When our own legal citizens clearly violate the law, are we being unjust as a society by punishing them? No. Rather, it is more unfair to the rest of the society when we ignore the rule of law and turn our heads away from the lawbreakers.
It is true that both the Old and New Testaments are very harsh in their assessment of those in God’s supposed community who turn a blind eye to the needy or permit social injustices. However, Christians who support mass immigration usually make two errors of judgment about this:
First, they assume that the Christians who want a more controlled immigration policy are the ones who are promoting a more unjust or faulty society.

The "injustice" contention has many problems outlined in such books as Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency. There is plenty of evidence that both illegal immigration and mass legal immigration have created far more problems than benefits in society. This is evidence that some Evangelicals do not want to hear.

Secondly, immigration enthusiasts assume that restrictionists do not care about the welfare or well-being of illegal immigrants.
That is far from the case. Any person who calls himself a Christian should of course demonstrate love to the less fortunate both in word and deed. But there are other ways to love immigrants than sanctioning their law breaking. It takes more sacrifice for a Christian to do a short-term missions project or to donate financially towards impoverished areas of Mexico than it does for them to cheer on illegal immigration.
Rather than just applauding faceless illegals—whom they may never actually meet—Evangelicals would do better to actually meet these people where they are and donate their resources (time, money, etc) to help improve their lots in life. Christians could also support Mexican churches in their efforts to provide relief to their countrymen and women.
Whatever route is chosen—and there are plenty of other possibilities—we should not act as if the only way to show love and compassion to immigrants is by promoting or condoning illegal behavior.
A grander goal for the global Christian community, and Americans on a whole, is to help impoverished Mexican communities empower themselves to better care for their hurting people. This of course takes more work and sacrifice than just promoting open borders.
The Evangelical must ask himself which side in this internal debate ultimately demands more love and sacrifice and is more closely aligned to the Scriptures.
It is hard for me to believe the side that promotes law breaking, and ignores the very real social problems and risks this entails, is doing more justice to Scriptural principles.

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer in Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog at www.billbarnwell.blogspot.com

A Day Without...?

Click on the blue links below

Bring It On!
There's a new propaganda film called "A Day Without a Mexican," [Trailer] by Sergio Arau, based on the offensive idea that Americans are unable to function without Mexican help.Ruben Navarrette [email him], another professional token media Hispanic in the Roger Hernandez mold, claims in his syndicated column that:
“Mexican immigrants could bring America to a standstill by not picking up a hoe, washing a dish, swinging a hammer or doing any of the multitude of tasks for which foreigners are now responsible on an average day.
“So the filmmakers asked: What if there were suddenly a day without Mexicans?
“We get the answer after a mysterious fog sweeps across California, removing all Latinos and leaving behind economic distress, food shortages, work stoppages and civil unrest. The fog also leaves behind scores of helpless Anglos who have grown so accustomed to being catered to by their Latino maids, gardeners and nannies that they have forgotten how to take care of themselves." [A day without Mexicans is like — Oh, my God, May 26, 2004]This is nonsense, of course. The United States got along fairly well without a massive invasion of Mexican peasants for two hundred years. But, like the similar films [The Day After and The Day After Tomorrow] made as anti-American and as environmentalist propaganda, it will convince many of the its more gullible viewers to believe things that aren't true.The title obviously leads to the following game, which you can play at home, if you like. Complete this sentence:"A day without Mexicans is like a day without …."?Here are some of VDARE.com's answers: "A day without Mexicans is like a day without …."
Unemployment
Higher Taxes
Armed Robbery
Diplomatic Intrigue
Welfare Fraud
Sprawl
Street Gangs
You try it! It might give you some ideas