Don't Come Back Now, Y'Hear?

North Carolina perma-candidate Vernon Robinson - who prefers to be known as "the black Jesse Helms" - is ramping up his attacks on Rep. Brad Miller (D) by writing eliminationist parodies of 1960s TV show themes. I'm really quite serious. Robinson earned a little fame this year with an ad portraying modern America, with its Mes'kins and homosexers, as the Twilight Zone. Andrew Sullivan blogged that the ad seemed to shoot straight out of "Michelle Malkin's id."

Well, whose id wants to take responsibility for this?

Come and here me tell about a politician named Brad
He gave illegal aliens everything we had
Gave 'em Social Security and drivers' licenses too
Free, health care, free lawyers, free lunches at the school
Well the next thing you know old Brad's a congressman
With all the sneaky aliens eating from his hand
Sugar Daddy Miller's what they call him in DC
Givin' them the taxes he stole from you and me

All this in a Democratic seat so safe it's not ranked in the top 50 most competitive races by National Journal. Pity.

Comments

[Larry the Cable Guy]

That's just funny right there, I don't care who you are.

[John]

That is not only funny, it is true. I keep waiting for the libertarian revolution in entitlements to catch up to the libertarian revolution in immigration. I am not holding my breath.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Another good one:
http://www.vernonrobinson.com/twilightzone.shtml

[SR]

"All this in a Democratic seat so safe it's not ranked in the top 50 most competitive races by National Journal."

That's probably exactly why he's doing it. Call it the "Bulworth Effect" - he knows he'll die (metaphorically) come election day, so why play it straight.

[SR]

BTW, according to Joseph Farah, NAFTA is part of a conspiracy to flood America with illegal drugs. No, really: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51680

[Larry A]

If it wasn't for the Democratic party, the Republicans wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning the next election.

[Floyd]

Advocating against government programs and entitlements, how dare he! I share your outrage!!

[Evan!]

Floyd,

Oh, right, he's advocating against "government programs and entitlements". Is that honestly how you ready that? What, with the "sneaky aliens" bit? Please. That wasn't a screed against government programs and entitlements, that was a screed against letting the brownskinned folks from down Meheeco way get their grubby, dirty, sneaky fingers on any of said programs/entitlements.

Only someone so blinded by hatred could fail to see the difference between:

1) "Government programs and entitlements are bad",

and

2) "Letting those dirty Mexicans get any of our government programs and entitlements is bad".

Let's take our heads out of our asses for a moment, folks. Just because someone says something about not giving out entitlements doesn't mean he's instantly a libertarian hero of smaller government.

[Floyd]

Well, this is why it's so hard to talk about illegal immigration - because people against it get accused of racism on the flimsiest of pretexts. Apparently just the word "sneaky", by itself, is evidence of deeply-held bigotry. Who knew? Not only that, but anyone who doesn't see that is obviously blinded by hatred.

"Sneaky", to me, implies that the people in question are sneaking around border patrols and into the country... that's it.

Just as with those who argue for affirmative action, it looks like charges of racism against the other side here are a crutch for people who'd rather not do the extra work to defend their position.

[Andrew Young]

Rookie! The guy forgot the jews, Koreans, and arabs.

[APL]

Apparently just the word "sneaky", by itself, is evidence of deeply-held bigotry.

What if the jingle had instead been about "watermelon and fried chicken-eating black people"? I don't see much wrong with either eating watermelons or fried chicken.

Not that you can really argue that "sneaky" isn't a perjorative term, since the synonyms include "decietful" and "dishonest."

It seems that this jingle, which negatively stereotypes illigal immigrants as dishonest people who are here simply to mooch off the system would meet a reasonable definition of bigotry.

[Floyd]

Well, now, stereotyping people based not on their ethnicity or nationality but on their actions (in this case, entering the country illegally)... that's as broad a definition of "bigotry" as I've ever seen.

[joe]

Floyd,

Rich capitalists like to sit up there in their big houses up on the hill smoking cigars and driving shiny cars with the money they accumulated by paying their workers minimum wage.

How dare you accuse me of hating rich people? I've got nothing against big houses, cigars, or shiny cars. And saying they pay their workers minimum wage is simply a statement of the facts.

This is why it's so hard to talk about America's inadequate social welfare system - because people who are concerned about it get accused of economic hatred on the flimsiest of pretexts.

[MikeP]

Well, now, stereotyping people based not on their ethnicity or nationality but on their actions (in this case, entering the country illegally)... that's as broad a definition of "bigotry" as I've ever seen.

Indeed, while some people are anti-immigration because of race or because of nationality or because of language or culture or politics or education or any of a host of mostly irrelevant collectivist classifications, being anti-immigrant based on legality versus illegality is much more clear-cut...

"We hate them because the government tells us to."

[Floyd]

joe - your analogy's weak because what your hypothetical narrator denies doing (hating an economic class) is exactly what he/she does. In the real-life case, the man is being accused of hating a group (Mexicans) that's different than the one he actually attacks (illegal immigrants). It's also different in that accusing someone of racism is, in 21st-century America, a very serious charge.

MikeP - could it be that it's not just based on illegality, but on the aforementioned use of government payments and services that some of them engage in?

[MikeP]

could it be that it's not just based on illegality, but on the aforementioned use of government payments and services that some of them engage in?

And yet the ditty doesn't decry all people or even all classes of people who disproportionately receive government payments and services: It decries illegal aliens who receive government payments and services.

Also, with regard to your "some of them"... Are there other classes of people so deserving of collective guilt?