American Pioneers -- or 'Illegals'? an article from the reliably liberal Washington Post, is yet another example of the War on America's history. Eduardo Moises Penalver's article is somewhat stale, having appeared two weeks ago, but no matter; his 'arguments' and ideas were already stale when the article was fresh. It's the same old moral equivalency argument: 'So are you, and so's your old man'. If the illegal aliens of today are illegal, then so were our 'old men', our pioneer ancestors. I like how Penalver puts the word 'illegals' in scare quotes. Nice touch, Eduardo. Illegal means against our laws; there's no gray area there. One either obeys the laws or one does not.
Comparing our pioneer American ancestors to today's illegal invaders is dishonest. The two situations are not analogous.
Squatters, in the circumstances he describes, were breaking the laws, and were subject to the legal penalties of the time. There may have been considerable public sympathy for them, but they were first of all citizens of this country, and rightful heirs of this country. Their very presence in America was not a breach of any law. And if they were lawbreakers, they did not have a huge lobby agitating to let them continue breaking the law. They were not a threat to the country; they were not a hostile, foreign presence flying an alien flag, and claiming the land for some foreign regime. Penalver is an academic, apparently, yet he does not see these distinctions.
Further, he tries to legitimize the illegal invasion by referring to the " legitimate needs that push them to break the law."
Does he even understand the concept of the 'rule of law'? If we legitimize lawbreaking by saying that people may have 'legitimate needs' which 'push' them to illegal acts, we are in effect justifying anything from burglary, robbery, theft, trespassing, and maybe even rape -- after all, sex is a 'legitimate' human need, is it not? So maybe rapists could be called 'undocumented suitors' or 'undocumented partners'. The idea that anyone purporting to seek a 'better life' or to satisfy a 'legitimate need' can break laws with impunity is absolutely antithetical to civilization. Embracing Penalver's crackbrained 'ideas' would be to embrace anarchy and chaos. Much like Mexico's society, no?.
Penalver and his counterparts who are acting as apologists for their illegal compatriots seem to be simply rationalizing their ethnic solidarity; they have a gut-level loyalty to their own ethnic brethren and they resort to half-baked arguments legitimizing their bias. If they wish any real credibility, some objectivity would be in order.
Meanwhile, I challenge all of the apologists and shills for the illegals to stop attacking our American founders and settlers in order to legitimize yourselves. This is a dishonorable tactic, and it's angering many Americans.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
'Invaded'
Border Patrol to Americans: "You Have Been Invaded" is the title of a piece by Jim Kouri.
Kouri reports the statements from US Border Patrol Agents Local 2544 in Arizona:
"We wish all the illegal aliens would take their May 1 'protest' a step further, and completely remove themselves from the country," say Local officials.
"You have been invaded, America. There are reportedly 20 million illegal aliens in this country now, and the number could be much higher."
Border patrol agents state plainly that these people are not supposed to be here and nobody knows who they are.
"Our president, George W. Bush, is doing nothing more than winking at them and promising them a huge amnesty program," Local 2544 officials said.
..."Border patrol agents have attempted to get their message out to the American people, but the monolithic news media ignore what they have to say about the illegal alien issue."
Anybody surprised by the last sentence? Why, I wonder, have we not seen these comments in the mainstream media, or on our TV news? After all, who knows better than these guys, from Local 2544, what is actually going on on our 'borders'? Why are comments like these not given the attention they deserve? Our ideology-driven media are too busy shilling for the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders demagogues, and too busy cranking out those boilerplate sob stories about Juan and Maria and their ordeals crossing the border into racist America.
Kouri reports the statements from US Border Patrol Agents Local 2544 in Arizona:
"We wish all the illegal aliens would take their May 1 'protest' a step further, and completely remove themselves from the country," say Local officials.
"You have been invaded, America. There are reportedly 20 million illegal aliens in this country now, and the number could be much higher."
Border patrol agents state plainly that these people are not supposed to be here and nobody knows who they are.
"Our president, George W. Bush, is doing nothing more than winking at them and promising them a huge amnesty program," Local 2544 officials said.
..."Border patrol agents have attempted to get their message out to the American people, but the monolithic news media ignore what they have to say about the illegal alien issue."
Anybody surprised by the last sentence? Why, I wonder, have we not seen these comments in the mainstream media, or on our TV news? After all, who knows better than these guys, from Local 2544, what is actually going on on our 'borders'? Why are comments like these not given the attention they deserve? Our ideology-driven media are too busy shilling for the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders demagogues, and too busy cranking out those boilerplate sob stories about Juan and Maria and their ordeals crossing the border into racist America.
A 'Continent of Hope'?
Newt Gingrich on his website weighs in with his own extensive proposals for 'fixing' the immigration problem.(Link via Lawrence Auster's View from the Right blog.)
Newt's plan is detailed and complex, containing a little 'tough talk' and some common sense, but I take considerable issue with his thesis that "America must be a Continent of Hope." This may sound like a glowing ideal, but Newt's comments make it clear that he believes America is somehow responsible for the entire Western hemisphere; hardly a practical viewpoint.
The phrase 'Continent of Hope' is from a speech by Pope John Paul II in 1979. Of course it is to be expected that a religious figure like the Pope would see things from a utopian universalist perspective; Pope John Paul was not an American and his views are naturally derived from a 'catholic' (small-c) point of view. But Newt should surely be aware that this idea of America is far out of sync with the country our Founding Fathers created. However, Gingrich tries to give this idea a traditional American veneer by saying
"We, the people of the United States of America, must never lose sight of the self evident truths affirmed at our founding. That we are all created equal – citizen and non-citizen alike, and that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If these truths are to have any meaning, then we must recognize that every person has an inherent human dignity that must be respected, including those in the U.S. illegally. And that these truths morally bind us to create a workable immigration solution so that legal status and legal channels for migration replace illegal ones just as a controlled border replaces an uncontrolled border."
Gingrich uses Jefferson's words liberally (in more ways than one) to lead to a very different conclusion than Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders would have proposed. Our Founding Fathers did not envision America as a kind of messianic country which would be responsible for every human being in the hemisphere, or indeed the world, if one takes that thinking to its logical conclusion. Gingrich goes on to say:
"For the United States, fulfilling this vision means that we must constantly conceive and implement strategies to achieve greater safety, health, prosperity, and freedom for every person in the hemisphere."
This is quite a daunting responsibility he is laying out for Americans here; an open-ended commitment to being the perpetual savior of the entire hemisphere. Now if there was the least hint from history that Latin America was capable of sound government and economic practices, this might not appear such a titanic chore, but the fact is, democracy and prosperity have been elusive in Latin America as a whole. Authoritarian, corrupt governments, poverty, and violence have been the rule rather than the exception. But for the messianic Wilsonians in the Republican party, history and reality need not be deterrents to Quixotic efforts to save the world.
Gingrich, along with other such 'global thinkers' in the Republican party, shows how far from our traditional roots we have come; even those who purport to be 'conservatives' are embracing this kind of utopian, liberal agenda. Worse, they have convinced many Americans that they are true conservatives, and that they represent patriotic American ideals.
Apart from the deceptive nature of the agenda that is at work here, Gingrich seems to be proposing that we admit even more immigrants, albeit legal immigrants. He seems to say that the problem is simply that we need to find ways to make immigration easier, so as to make life better for people everywhere, and that Americans don't take priority over anyone else; this country, it seems, is to be 'of, by, and for the people' -- but not necessarily the American people. To suggest that Americans should be the priority of America is to invite accusations of 'nativism' and 'isolationism.'
Gingrich's underlying message is that we have to unite the whole hemisphere and take care of our disadvantaged brethren.
If this is the best the GOP has to offer, the GOP must go the way of the Whig party; America needs a party that represents the American people, the American majority.
"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson
Newt's plan is detailed and complex, containing a little 'tough talk' and some common sense, but I take considerable issue with his thesis that "America must be a Continent of Hope." This may sound like a glowing ideal, but Newt's comments make it clear that he believes America is somehow responsible for the entire Western hemisphere; hardly a practical viewpoint.
The phrase 'Continent of Hope' is from a speech by Pope John Paul II in 1979. Of course it is to be expected that a religious figure like the Pope would see things from a utopian universalist perspective; Pope John Paul was not an American and his views are naturally derived from a 'catholic' (small-c) point of view. But Newt should surely be aware that this idea of America is far out of sync with the country our Founding Fathers created. However, Gingrich tries to give this idea a traditional American veneer by saying
"We, the people of the United States of America, must never lose sight of the self evident truths affirmed at our founding. That we are all created equal – citizen and non-citizen alike, and that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If these truths are to have any meaning, then we must recognize that every person has an inherent human dignity that must be respected, including those in the U.S. illegally. And that these truths morally bind us to create a workable immigration solution so that legal status and legal channels for migration replace illegal ones just as a controlled border replaces an uncontrolled border."
Gingrich uses Jefferson's words liberally (in more ways than one) to lead to a very different conclusion than Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders would have proposed. Our Founding Fathers did not envision America as a kind of messianic country which would be responsible for every human being in the hemisphere, or indeed the world, if one takes that thinking to its logical conclusion. Gingrich goes on to say:
"For the United States, fulfilling this vision means that we must constantly conceive and implement strategies to achieve greater safety, health, prosperity, and freedom for every person in the hemisphere."
This is quite a daunting responsibility he is laying out for Americans here; an open-ended commitment to being the perpetual savior of the entire hemisphere. Now if there was the least hint from history that Latin America was capable of sound government and economic practices, this might not appear such a titanic chore, but the fact is, democracy and prosperity have been elusive in Latin America as a whole. Authoritarian, corrupt governments, poverty, and violence have been the rule rather than the exception. But for the messianic Wilsonians in the Republican party, history and reality need not be deterrents to Quixotic efforts to save the world.
Gingrich, along with other such 'global thinkers' in the Republican party, shows how far from our traditional roots we have come; even those who purport to be 'conservatives' are embracing this kind of utopian, liberal agenda. Worse, they have convinced many Americans that they are true conservatives, and that they represent patriotic American ideals.
Apart from the deceptive nature of the agenda that is at work here, Gingrich seems to be proposing that we admit even more immigrants, albeit legal immigrants. He seems to say that the problem is simply that we need to find ways to make immigration easier, so as to make life better for people everywhere, and that Americans don't take priority over anyone else; this country, it seems, is to be 'of, by, and for the people' -- but not necessarily the American people. To suggest that Americans should be the priority of America is to invite accusations of 'nativism' and 'isolationism.'
Gingrich's underlying message is that we have to unite the whole hemisphere and take care of our disadvantaged brethren.
If this is the best the GOP has to offer, the GOP must go the way of the Whig party; America needs a party that represents the American people, the American majority.
"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Gulliver subdued: What's at stake for America
The image of Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians seems a very apt picture of America at this moment in our history.We are supposedly the lone great superpower in the world, and yet we seem to be at the mercy of lesser powers: not just the illegals who are entering our country at will, 24/7, but also seemingly thwarted by the Islamic fanatics, both abroad and here in America.
Do we lack merely the will to assert our power, or have we been rendered helpless by our liberal ideology? Are we still the strong people who subdued the wilderness and built this country, the same hardy people who fought both World Wars and won? Or are we now a helpless, effete giant, unable or unwilling to assert our strength?
And if we are still the giant, the superpower, holding back from showing our true strength, the practical result is the same as if we were truly an impotent has-been of a country. Our enemies seem emboldened by our reticence; they seem to go from strength to strength, while we lie, immobilized, like Gulliver at the mercy of the Lilliputians. And our enemies abroad surely are taking note of the situation. Many of our 'leaders' announce to the world that we 'can't' take control of our borders; that we 'can't' deport 12 million aliens. 'Can't ' - this portrays the image of a helpless giant to our enemies.
Blogger 'Fjordman', posting over at Little Green Footballs, has this to say about the crisis America is facing:
"You Americans need to understand just how much is at stake here. We are in the early stages of a world war with Islam, Muslims are working to get nuclear weapons and are openly calling for the physical destruction of the West. Your enemies are watching the way you are handling the illegal situation, and they are not impressed. Do you think the North Koreans or the Iranians are scared of a country that allows itself to be intimidated and held hostage by a bunch of Mexicans who shouldn't even be in the country in the first place? When you're a supwerpower, the line of separation between domestic and foreign policy hardly exists. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was impressed by the way Ronald Reagan handled the blackmail by the air trafic controllers. He simply fired them. This signalled to your enemies abroad that you were not going to give into black mail anywhere.
What is at stake here is your credibility as a superpower. In the longer run, it could be your physical security from nuclear attacks, perhaps even your very survival as a coherent nation state.
DO NOT give in to Mexican intimidation. Build the fence, and deport the illegals. Yes, ALL of them. No amnesty.
We are facing decades of what could potentially become the deadliest war in human history, where the very survival of Western civilization and perhaps human civilization in general hangs in the balance. We cannot win this without you. You are the indispensible nation, and if you break down, the rest of the planet is basically screwed."
Friday, April 28, 2006
The taboo on questioning immigration
"I have no objection to any number of immigrants from any nation, if they enter the United States by following the rules."
So says Thomas Baffy in his article, The Mexicanization of America, at American Thinker.
This is a good example of a currently popular Politically Correct code, almost universal across the political spectrum. It seems to be an essential disclaimer whenever anyone criticizes any aspect of immigration: one has to say 'I'm all for legal immigration; legal immigrants made America great', and so on. We all know the required formula. The idea behind this compulsory phrase is that it is a shibboleth which deflects any suspicion of 'racism' or xenophobia.
Now it might well be that everyone who uses this phrase, despite the ring of defensiveness that accompanies the statement, is in fact sincere. Maybe all these people really do support any and all legal immigration, regardless of the number of immigrants, irrespective of their motives in immigrating. We certainly live in a world which is heavily conditioned to be all-inclusive and all-tolerant. But somehow I suspect that many people who eagerly praise all legal immigration simply have not thought the issue through.
Suppose our level of legal immigration was tripled, quadrupled. Why stop there? The world is full of poor people who would come to America in a hearbeat if they could. Suppose we legally welcomed 10 million legal immigrants per year? At present we supposedly admit 1.3 million, along with 3 million estimated illegals. How many is too many? How many is enough? It's obvious that the numbers we receive at present are causing considerable social disruption and conflict, as well as costing us billions in social programs and other costs. Can any sensible person support ALL legal immigration? Can we safely welcome immigrants who come from hostile countries and cultures? If they are legal, then I suppose it doesn't matter; welcome them all.
The theme of Baffy's article, linked above, is that America is being Mexicanized, not so much culturally but in our political system; in our increasing tolerance of corruption and lack of respect for law. But these trends don't arise in a vacuum: they are part and parcel of Mexican culture, of Latin American culture in general. Whenever we import masses of people from a differing culture, we import their ways of life with them. Removing Mexicans from their homeland to America does not remove their culture from them; they do not magically think as Americans once they cross the 'border' onto our soil. Cultures do not make the people, but people make cultures. Once we transplant millions of Latin Americans into our country, especially when assimilation is no longer practicable and the immigrants themselves are unwilling to assimilate, we inevitably transplant their culture. And the greater the number of immigrants, the stronger the cultural influence. Once a critical mass is reached, their culture may indeed be the dominant one.
Supporting unlimited immigration, even if it is according to the rules, guarantees the transformation of our country and institutions.
Political correctness is clouding our ability to examine the situation honestly, to discuss it coherently, and this is a danger sign.
So says Thomas Baffy in his article, The Mexicanization of America, at American Thinker.
This is a good example of a currently popular Politically Correct code, almost universal across the political spectrum. It seems to be an essential disclaimer whenever anyone criticizes any aspect of immigration: one has to say 'I'm all for legal immigration; legal immigrants made America great', and so on. We all know the required formula. The idea behind this compulsory phrase is that it is a shibboleth which deflects any suspicion of 'racism' or xenophobia.
Now it might well be that everyone who uses this phrase, despite the ring of defensiveness that accompanies the statement, is in fact sincere. Maybe all these people really do support any and all legal immigration, regardless of the number of immigrants, irrespective of their motives in immigrating. We certainly live in a world which is heavily conditioned to be all-inclusive and all-tolerant. But somehow I suspect that many people who eagerly praise all legal immigration simply have not thought the issue through.
Suppose our level of legal immigration was tripled, quadrupled. Why stop there? The world is full of poor people who would come to America in a hearbeat if they could. Suppose we legally welcomed 10 million legal immigrants per year? At present we supposedly admit 1.3 million, along with 3 million estimated illegals. How many is too many? How many is enough? It's obvious that the numbers we receive at present are causing considerable social disruption and conflict, as well as costing us billions in social programs and other costs. Can any sensible person support ALL legal immigration? Can we safely welcome immigrants who come from hostile countries and cultures? If they are legal, then I suppose it doesn't matter; welcome them all.
The theme of Baffy's article, linked above, is that America is being Mexicanized, not so much culturally but in our political system; in our increasing tolerance of corruption and lack of respect for law. But these trends don't arise in a vacuum: they are part and parcel of Mexican culture, of Latin American culture in general. Whenever we import masses of people from a differing culture, we import their ways of life with them. Removing Mexicans from their homeland to America does not remove their culture from them; they do not magically think as Americans once they cross the 'border' onto our soil. Cultures do not make the people, but people make cultures. Once we transplant millions of Latin Americans into our country, especially when assimilation is no longer practicable and the immigrants themselves are unwilling to assimilate, we inevitably transplant their culture. And the greater the number of immigrants, the stronger the cultural influence. Once a critical mass is reached, their culture may indeed be the dominant one.
Supporting unlimited immigration, even if it is according to the rules, guarantees the transformation of our country and institutions.
Political correctness is clouding our ability to examine the situation honestly, to discuss it coherently, and this is a danger sign.
First our flag, now our anthem
The latest outrage by the illegals and their minions: the Star-Spangled Banner 'translated' into Spanish.
Here is a link to an Associated Press article, written by Laura Wides-Munoz.
Apparently the idea for this travesty was that of a British music producer, Adam Kidron, who wanted to honor the illegal immigrants 'seeking a better life.' A later version to be released will have lyrics denouncing 'mean' immigration laws, and praising the 'hard workers' who can't help where they were born.
By what right does a Brit steal our national anthem and use it for agitprop in favor of illegal immigrants from yet another country? Whose anthem is it, Adam? And whose country is it?
I think I'll write new lyrics to 'God Save the Queen', and why not rewrite the Mexican national anthem, 'Mexicanos, al grito de la guerra.' I wonder how that would be received by Mexicans?
Not content with one country, the illegals and the reconquistas want our country too, and just as an added 'in-your-face', they are hijacking our anthem and making a mockery of it, using it, just as they used the American flag as a cheap prop in their most recent demonstrations. A few days earlier, their marches featured the Mexican flag and likenesses of Communist revolutionary Che Guevara, then voila, they were born-again American patriots, real yankee-doodle-dandies flying the stars and stripes. What a quick transformation. Forgive my skepticism, but it looked mighty unconvincing, And this Star-Spanglish Banner is not about to win friends and influence people, either.
Como se dice, 'get a clue' en espanol?
Here is a link to an Associated Press article, written by Laura Wides-Munoz.
Apparently the idea for this travesty was that of a British music producer, Adam Kidron, who wanted to honor the illegal immigrants 'seeking a better life.' A later version to be released will have lyrics denouncing 'mean' immigration laws, and praising the 'hard workers' who can't help where they were born.
By what right does a Brit steal our national anthem and use it for agitprop in favor of illegal immigrants from yet another country? Whose anthem is it, Adam? And whose country is it?
I think I'll write new lyrics to 'God Save the Queen', and why not rewrite the Mexican national anthem, 'Mexicanos, al grito de la guerra.' I wonder how that would be received by Mexicans?
Not content with one country, the illegals and the reconquistas want our country too, and just as an added 'in-your-face', they are hijacking our anthem and making a mockery of it, using it, just as they used the American flag as a cheap prop in their most recent demonstrations. A few days earlier, their marches featured the Mexican flag and likenesses of Communist revolutionary Che Guevara, then voila, they were born-again American patriots, real yankee-doodle-dandies flying the stars and stripes. What a quick transformation. Forgive my skepticism, but it looked mighty unconvincing, And this Star-Spanglish Banner is not about to win friends and influence people, either.
Como se dice, 'get a clue' en espanol?
Thursday, April 27, 2006
The big taboo
Jim Walsh, a retired Immigration Service officer, in this article from the Springfield, MO News-Leader, breaks one of the unspoken rules of the immigration debate, He actually dares to say that we need to limit legal immigration, not just stop illegal immigration. Good for Walsh; it takes a brave man to violate the PC taboos limiting our speech.
Walsh gives sound reasons why this is true, and yet his statements will probably earn him the inevitable accusation of 'racism'.
It's striking how so many people, when the subject of immigration is being discussed, will say emphatically that they are all in favor of any and all legal immigration, opposing illegal immigration only. After all, they say, 'I'm not a racist!' Somehow, it's become accepted that supporting limits on legal immigration, either by number or quality of immigrants, is by definition 'racist'. No one seems willing to examine this presupposition; everyone seems content to accept it, and to restrict their own speech -- and perhaps even their thoughts -- to avoid the 'racist' label.
So we see the spectacle of otherwise hard-nosed 'conservatives' submitting to the dictates of Politically Correct respectability by enthusiastically saying all legal immigration is good, only illegal immigration is bad.
When, and by what authority was this unwritten rule decreed?
Before the fateful year of 1965, it was an accepted truth that not all immigration was good, and that our immigration policy should serve America. The idea was to welcome people who would be a good fit in America; people with useful skills, good character, healthy people, and people who were not hostile to America or the American system. Communists, for example, or anyone supporting the overthrow of our government, were not desirable immigrants. Of course there was an altruistic effort to welcome genuine political refugees, people whose lives and freedom were endangered in their home countries. But even these people were not indiscriminately admitted without regard for their suitability to our country.
Now, in our post-1965. topsy-turvy, through-the-Looking-Glass world, it seems we welcome immigrants, including legal immigrants, who are from hostile regions and cultures (example: the 9/11 hijackers), and others who have little ability or desire to become part of America. We seem to perversely select those who will be the most unassimilable and probably the most dependent economically. Our legal immigration system is insanity in action. Yet pragmatism and American interests are not as important as 'diversity' and social engineering when choosing immigrants.
We currently welcome 1.3 million legal immigrants each year. Most of these people are third-world people, non-English speakers, from very dissimilar cultures, who are almost guaranteed to have adjustment problems in America, and who will be heavy users of social programs. Our system of 'chain migration', in which family members are welcomed, assures a constant flow of people from the 'old country' who help to create ethnically isolated enclaves and subcultures, and further balkanization in our country. Why is our country pursuing these destructive policies? It's hard not to conclude that there is a conscious effort to change the face of America, to dilute and undermine the traditional culture of America, the Anglo-Protestant American culture, and to create some kind of multicultural crazyquilt, a congeries of conflicting ethnic groups.
Suppose we stopped all illegal immigration tomorrow (unlikely, I know) and then subsequently doubled the number of legal immigrants, as some Congressmen are proposing. As of now, it's estimated by some that we get 3 million illegals each year; doubling the present legal immigrant numbers would produce about that many legal immigrants. Would 3 million legal immigrants from third-world countries be any less disruptive to our economy, our environment, our culture, and our standard of living than the current 3 million illegals?
Legal immigration is part of the problem. It may be politically correct to deny this but we do so at our peril.
Walsh gives sound reasons why this is true, and yet his statements will probably earn him the inevitable accusation of 'racism'.
It's striking how so many people, when the subject of immigration is being discussed, will say emphatically that they are all in favor of any and all legal immigration, opposing illegal immigration only. After all, they say, 'I'm not a racist!' Somehow, it's become accepted that supporting limits on legal immigration, either by number or quality of immigrants, is by definition 'racist'. No one seems willing to examine this presupposition; everyone seems content to accept it, and to restrict their own speech -- and perhaps even their thoughts -- to avoid the 'racist' label.
So we see the spectacle of otherwise hard-nosed 'conservatives' submitting to the dictates of Politically Correct respectability by enthusiastically saying all legal immigration is good, only illegal immigration is bad.
When, and by what authority was this unwritten rule decreed?
Before the fateful year of 1965, it was an accepted truth that not all immigration was good, and that our immigration policy should serve America. The idea was to welcome people who would be a good fit in America; people with useful skills, good character, healthy people, and people who were not hostile to America or the American system. Communists, for example, or anyone supporting the overthrow of our government, were not desirable immigrants. Of course there was an altruistic effort to welcome genuine political refugees, people whose lives and freedom were endangered in their home countries. But even these people were not indiscriminately admitted without regard for their suitability to our country.
Now, in our post-1965. topsy-turvy, through-the-Looking-Glass world, it seems we welcome immigrants, including legal immigrants, who are from hostile regions and cultures (example: the 9/11 hijackers), and others who have little ability or desire to become part of America. We seem to perversely select those who will be the most unassimilable and probably the most dependent economically. Our legal immigration system is insanity in action. Yet pragmatism and American interests are not as important as 'diversity' and social engineering when choosing immigrants.
We currently welcome 1.3 million legal immigrants each year. Most of these people are third-world people, non-English speakers, from very dissimilar cultures, who are almost guaranteed to have adjustment problems in America, and who will be heavy users of social programs. Our system of 'chain migration', in which family members are welcomed, assures a constant flow of people from the 'old country' who help to create ethnically isolated enclaves and subcultures, and further balkanization in our country. Why is our country pursuing these destructive policies? It's hard not to conclude that there is a conscious effort to change the face of America, to dilute and undermine the traditional culture of America, the Anglo-Protestant American culture, and to create some kind of multicultural crazyquilt, a congeries of conflicting ethnic groups.
Suppose we stopped all illegal immigration tomorrow (unlikely, I know) and then subsequently doubled the number of legal immigrants, as some Congressmen are proposing. As of now, it's estimated by some that we get 3 million illegals each year; doubling the present legal immigrant numbers would produce about that many legal immigrants. Would 3 million legal immigrants from third-world countries be any less disruptive to our economy, our environment, our culture, and our standard of living than the current 3 million illegals?
Legal immigration is part of the problem. It may be politically correct to deny this but we do so at our peril.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Not just another country, but an enemy country
Should future archeologists find and read today's histories of early America, they could reasonably conclude that our country had been conquered by an enemy, and that the histories had been rewritten to discredit the founders of our country. Considering the hostility exhibited by many of today's historians to the American past, this would not be too far off; in essence, America has changed hands. Once, American history was written by those who actually felt a connection to the past, and who knew themselves to be a part of it, and indebted to it. Now, our academics and writers are mostly alienated people who consider themselves sophisticated citizens of the world, above naive patriotism and petty national allegiances. My recent post, 'The past is another country' dealt with revisionist history as purveyed by Simon Schama, whose revisionism is his stock-in-trade. Another such history seems to be 'Mayflower' by Nathaniel Philbrick. David Gates in the May 1 Newsweek writes a review of this book, (via MSNBC). In his piece, entitled 'Pilgrims' Bloody Progress', Gates says, in describing early conflicts between settlers and Indians, "[t]his is about how American history went during the next three centuries, and white Americans haven't felt a lot of shame."
Now Gates (and presumably Philbrick) seem to think that white Americans should feel a lot of shame. Much as the Puritan preachers of old instilled a sense of guilt and shame in their congregations, today's writers seem to feel ordained to preach guilt and the need for repentance to modern Americans. Americans, so goes their refrain, are a racist, bigoted people, and must confess their sins and submit to punishment, must atone endlessly for not only their own sins, but those of their fathers, back many generations.
Now I'm the descendant of many of those English settlers of Massachusetts, as well as Jamestown colonists. My Massachusetts ancestors came with Winthrop's fleet in the 1630s. So no doubt they are the sinners of Philbrick's narrative. And I as their 7th-generation descendant am as guilty as they are, apparently, and ought to feel appropriately guilty, And so, good reader, should you, if you are a white American.
One of the charges Philbrick apparently makes is that the English colonists were guilty of 'ethnic cleansing'. How, I ask, can we apply 20th and 21st century concepts like 'ethnic cleansing' to the 17th century? The English colonists, like their Indian adversaries, knew that their interests were antagonistic and that they both fought for survival and for a way of life. Unfortunately only one side could prevail. Multiculturalism or two disparate cultures existing in the same space was no more realistic then than now. They fought for themselves, their families and homes. Is this 'ethnic cleansing'?
Apparently in the liberals' parallel universe, it is.
Why, incidentally, are only white European people held to an impossibly high standard of behavior, while the Indians and other such Rousseauian 'noble savages' are held to a very low standard? Do liberals secretly think that non-Europeans are not capable of the same high standards of behavior? Such must be the case, because Indians committed atrocities for which they are not held accountable; Indians practiced slavery, and they practiced 'ethnic cleansing', in Philbrick's terms. Yet they are blameless, and the English settlers are guilty. Double standards are a liberal specialty. And the double standards employed by liberals betray a condescending attitude, a paternalism.
Since so many of our modern 'historians', with their noisy axe-grinding, give only one side of the story, I will share an account involving some of my ancestors, my 7th great grandfather, Samuel Varnum, who came from Dracutt, England to Massachusetts:
" On March 18, 1676, two sons of Samuel Varnum were shot and killed by Indians while crossing the river with their father and sister in a boat to tend their cattle on the other side. One of them fell back dead into his sister's arms. Samuel shouted to the stupified soldiers who accompanied them, "Don't let dead men sit at the oars!" The young men were buried by the river, on the Howard farm. The guard of soldiers with them were so taken by surprise that the Indians escaped." See "Indian Wars of New England": Sylvester, Vol. II, p. 293. Undoubtedly he was ready to avenge their deaths in a war which was destined to break forever the Indian power throughout New England. He enlisted in the famous campaign against King Phillip, and is credited in the accounts of the Colonial Treasurer, John Hull, 24th of April, 1676, for military services..."
I suppose Samuel Varnum, after the tragic killing of his two young sons, was guilty of 'ethnic cleansing' when he took up arms against their killers.
Now, I have Indian ancestry as well as English; but as an American, the air that I breathe, and all that I hold dear, the traditions I honor come from my colonist ancestors; they founded this country as we know it, and bequeathed us the enlightened ideals America is known by. Let the revisionists do their worst, they can't destroy the accomplishments of our forefathers.
Now Gates (and presumably Philbrick) seem to think that white Americans should feel a lot of shame. Much as the Puritan preachers of old instilled a sense of guilt and shame in their congregations, today's writers seem to feel ordained to preach guilt and the need for repentance to modern Americans. Americans, so goes their refrain, are a racist, bigoted people, and must confess their sins and submit to punishment, must atone endlessly for not only their own sins, but those of their fathers, back many generations.
Now I'm the descendant of many of those English settlers of Massachusetts, as well as Jamestown colonists. My Massachusetts ancestors came with Winthrop's fleet in the 1630s. So no doubt they are the sinners of Philbrick's narrative. And I as their 7th-generation descendant am as guilty as they are, apparently, and ought to feel appropriately guilty, And so, good reader, should you, if you are a white American.
One of the charges Philbrick apparently makes is that the English colonists were guilty of 'ethnic cleansing'. How, I ask, can we apply 20th and 21st century concepts like 'ethnic cleansing' to the 17th century? The English colonists, like their Indian adversaries, knew that their interests were antagonistic and that they both fought for survival and for a way of life. Unfortunately only one side could prevail. Multiculturalism or two disparate cultures existing in the same space was no more realistic then than now. They fought for themselves, their families and homes. Is this 'ethnic cleansing'?
Apparently in the liberals' parallel universe, it is.
Why, incidentally, are only white European people held to an impossibly high standard of behavior, while the Indians and other such Rousseauian 'noble savages' are held to a very low standard? Do liberals secretly think that non-Europeans are not capable of the same high standards of behavior? Such must be the case, because Indians committed atrocities for which they are not held accountable; Indians practiced slavery, and they practiced 'ethnic cleansing', in Philbrick's terms. Yet they are blameless, and the English settlers are guilty. Double standards are a liberal specialty. And the double standards employed by liberals betray a condescending attitude, a paternalism.
Since so many of our modern 'historians', with their noisy axe-grinding, give only one side of the story, I will share an account involving some of my ancestors, my 7th great grandfather, Samuel Varnum, who came from Dracutt, England to Massachusetts:
" On March 18, 1676, two sons of Samuel Varnum were shot and killed by Indians while crossing the river with their father and sister in a boat to tend their cattle on the other side. One of them fell back dead into his sister's arms. Samuel shouted to the stupified soldiers who accompanied them, "Don't let dead men sit at the oars!" The young men were buried by the river, on the Howard farm. The guard of soldiers with them were so taken by surprise that the Indians escaped." See "Indian Wars of New England": Sylvester, Vol. II, p. 293. Undoubtedly he was ready to avenge their deaths in a war which was destined to break forever the Indian power throughout New England. He enlisted in the famous campaign against King Phillip, and is credited in the accounts of the Colonial Treasurer, John Hull, 24th of April, 1676, for military services..."
I suppose Samuel Varnum, after the tragic killing of his two young sons, was guilty of 'ethnic cleansing' when he took up arms against their killers.
Now, I have Indian ancestry as well as English; but as an American, the air that I breathe, and all that I hold dear, the traditions I honor come from my colonist ancestors; they founded this country as we know it, and bequeathed us the enlightened ideals America is known by. Let the revisionists do their worst, they can't destroy the accomplishments of our forefathers.
Adversarial media
The idea that the media are supposed to be aggressive and adversarial in relation to our government and the established powers is not necessarily a bad idea, even though many pro-adminstration conservatives see it as traitorous. Certainly it's necessary for a free press to take a skeptical approach and keep our government honest, at least in theory.
The problem is, our media carry this idea of the adversarial approach to an extreme, and tend to treat our own government as the enemy. But beyond that anti-government or anti-administration bias, there is an open antagonism to the American people. The American people, especially the majority, are also the enemy, judging by the content of the major media.
Read any American newspaper, or watch the cable news channels. The anti-majority bias is palpable. Points-of-view are heavily weighted in favor of marginal groups; illegal immigrants are the new heroes of the mainstream media. Each and every day, there is almost certain to be at least one story, written to tug at the heartstrings, about some poor illegal. The moral of each such story (and there is always a moral being presented, as in every sermon) is that our laws are unjust, and that America is racist and heartless. Similar stories are presented every day, and sometimes the suffering heroes are Moslems who are wrongly 'profiled' ; the moral of the story is always the same.
Now why, if the news business is a business like any other, would those in the business make it a practice to denounce the majority of their customers? Surely if one wants to attract and keep customers, this is not the way to do it. Are the media simply trying to appeal to the 'new markets' of various immigrants and other 'outsider' groups? Even so, doing so while alienating the majority seems illogical.
It's hard not to conclude that most of those in the media are 'true believers', who in a quasi-religious fashion, are devoted to the liberal agenda. They simply believe that they are more enlightened than the unwashed masses that make up the majority of Middle America, and they believe that their job is to re-educate and enlighten the ignorant public. Their condescension is evident.
The hard fact is that the media are not on our side, not on the side of the American majority.
At this moment, our country is at a crossroads; our uncontrolled borders, and the betrayal by our political leaders on this issue may well be the undoing of America. If we had an honest, free, objective media, we would have a better chance to turn things around. As it is, the media and our politicians are working against our interests, towards an agenda of their own. Too many Americans have little understanding of the seriousness of our situation, or how precarious the future of our country, and it's thanks to the media's pointed avoidance of the truth that this lack of awareness exists. Some of us, who have learned not to rely on the mainstream media, are awake and aware, but can we alert other people in time to avert disaster? We have to try; the Internet is the last bastion of free speech and free thought. The 'Net truly is democratic in that it allows for participation of all who are motivated enough to speak their minds and inform others. Our media can no longer be relied upon, being mostly in enemy hands.
Note: Here's an informative discussion from a forum of a few years ago, from the Center for Immigration Studies, on the media and immigration:
The problem is, our media carry this idea of the adversarial approach to an extreme, and tend to treat our own government as the enemy. But beyond that anti-government or anti-administration bias, there is an open antagonism to the American people. The American people, especially the majority, are also the enemy, judging by the content of the major media.
Read any American newspaper, or watch the cable news channels. The anti-majority bias is palpable. Points-of-view are heavily weighted in favor of marginal groups; illegal immigrants are the new heroes of the mainstream media. Each and every day, there is almost certain to be at least one story, written to tug at the heartstrings, about some poor illegal. The moral of each such story (and there is always a moral being presented, as in every sermon) is that our laws are unjust, and that America is racist and heartless. Similar stories are presented every day, and sometimes the suffering heroes are Moslems who are wrongly 'profiled' ; the moral of the story is always the same.
Now why, if the news business is a business like any other, would those in the business make it a practice to denounce the majority of their customers? Surely if one wants to attract and keep customers, this is not the way to do it. Are the media simply trying to appeal to the 'new markets' of various immigrants and other 'outsider' groups? Even so, doing so while alienating the majority seems illogical.
It's hard not to conclude that most of those in the media are 'true believers', who in a quasi-religious fashion, are devoted to the liberal agenda. They simply believe that they are more enlightened than the unwashed masses that make up the majority of Middle America, and they believe that their job is to re-educate and enlighten the ignorant public. Their condescension is evident.
The hard fact is that the media are not on our side, not on the side of the American majority.
At this moment, our country is at a crossroads; our uncontrolled borders, and the betrayal by our political leaders on this issue may well be the undoing of America. If we had an honest, free, objective media, we would have a better chance to turn things around. As it is, the media and our politicians are working against our interests, towards an agenda of their own. Too many Americans have little understanding of the seriousness of our situation, or how precarious the future of our country, and it's thanks to the media's pointed avoidance of the truth that this lack of awareness exists. Some of us, who have learned not to rely on the mainstream media, are awake and aware, but can we alert other people in time to avert disaster? We have to try; the Internet is the last bastion of free speech and free thought. The 'Net truly is democratic in that it allows for participation of all who are motivated enough to speak their minds and inform others. Our media can no longer be relied upon, being mostly in enemy hands.
Note: Here's an informative discussion from a forum of a few years ago, from the Center for Immigration Studies, on the media and immigration:
The amnesty that wouldn't die
Our President and a group of senators are now, according to a piece by Stephen Dinan in the Washington Times, in agreement on a bill which includes a 'path to citizenship' (otherwise known as amnesty) for illegals.
Path to citizenship, earned citizenship, all euphemisms for amnesty. No matter how they dress it up, it's still the same old idea: legalizing the illegals, rewarding them for breaking our laws.
There is incredible frustration building in the country; 'our' politicians cannot continue to flout the will of the American people forever, and not face a backlash.
This was utterly predictable; obviously, the fix is in; this idea will not be abandoned by those who seem hellbent on pushing it through. Such wanton disregard for the citizenry of this country is staggering.
Path to citizenship, earned citizenship, all euphemisms for amnesty. No matter how they dress it up, it's still the same old idea: legalizing the illegals, rewarding them for breaking our laws.
There is incredible frustration building in the country; 'our' politicians cannot continue to flout the will of the American people forever, and not face a backlash.
This was utterly predictable; obviously, the fix is in; this idea will not be abandoned by those who seem hellbent on pushing it through. Such wanton disregard for the citizenry of this country is staggering.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The past is another country...
“The past is another country, they do things differently there”. - L.P Hartley, 'The Go-Between'
Oddly, the very same people, liberals, who moralize to us about not 'judging' other cultures and countries devote a lot of time and energy to judging the past. According to their bizarre worldview, we are not only free to impose our present-day standards on the past, but in fact morally bound to do so. And in doing so, we inevitably weigh our ancestors in the scales and find them wanting. Now this should simply show us that human beings are flawed; we are imperfect. Our Christian ancestors knew that we humans are a fallen race, and not perfectible. But liberals hold our ancestors (and our own modern Western society) to an impossible standard of perfection, thus they are perpetually scolding and moralizing and preaching and warning and denouncing.
When there are not sufficient outrages in the present, our busy liberal neighbors exhume corpses from the past, dredging up some past wrong as a moral object lesson for us. According to the liberals among us, we, or more accurately they themselves are the epitome of human moral development. They are the first enlightened generation ever to grace the planet, while our ancestors were benighted, backward, and bigoted. Such were the 'dead white males' they favor as whipping boys, those same dead white males who somehow founded our country. On the one hand, they quote phrases like Jefferson's 'all men are created equal', while denouncing Jefferson for his supposed moral lapses, a slander which has somehow become accepted as truth.
Liberals, especially those whose lives are dedicated to historical revisionism, never rest from disparaging our Founding Fathers, and it seems that Simon Schama, a British-born transplant to the US, has been busy writing yet another of his revisionist morality plays. This time, it's about race and the American Revolution. The book is called '"Rough Crossings" and H.D.S. Greenway at the Boston Globe writes a column about it.
Schama apparently thinks, according to Greenway, that his 'daring' revisionism makes him some kind of heroic dissident, at risk of being put in irons and whisked off to Guantanamo for his less-than-respectful views of our history. Somehow this is laughable, and pathetic at the same time.
Revisionist histories, slandering our Founders, are a dime a dozen these days; scribbling yet another such work is hardly likely to put anyone in a gulag. Do Schama and Greenway really believe we live in such a country?
Greenway implies that we Americans read mostly worshipful biographies of our founders. I don't know what he is reading, but I am aware of far more hit pieces on the Founders than hagiographies. But he solemnly concludes,
''Do we, as a nation of immigrants, need whitewashed founding legends to unite us? Do Americans, in these morally ambiguous times of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the secret prisons into which our prisoners disappear without trial or hope, long for heroes and heroic times? Perhaps Americans feel the need to hang onto the glory days of our national youth, when all our leaders were brilliant, brave, and beyond reproach, even if it is not always entirely true.''
Yes, Mr. Greenway, we do need founding legends to unite us. Whether our traditional images were 'whitewashed' as you say is a matter of opinion. Why should I choose to believe Schama's work over the work of the traditional historians, especially knowing that he is a leftist with a definite axe to grind? And where does this revisionism and deconstructing of America's past lead us? To a country full of self-doubt if not shame, to a country which disdains its past and has no confidence in its future. To a country which has no core; to a disunited, disaffected shell of a country.
But then that's the whole idea, isn't it?
Oddly, the very same people, liberals, who moralize to us about not 'judging' other cultures and countries devote a lot of time and energy to judging the past. According to their bizarre worldview, we are not only free to impose our present-day standards on the past, but in fact morally bound to do so. And in doing so, we inevitably weigh our ancestors in the scales and find them wanting. Now this should simply show us that human beings are flawed; we are imperfect. Our Christian ancestors knew that we humans are a fallen race, and not perfectible. But liberals hold our ancestors (and our own modern Western society) to an impossible standard of perfection, thus they are perpetually scolding and moralizing and preaching and warning and denouncing.
When there are not sufficient outrages in the present, our busy liberal neighbors exhume corpses from the past, dredging up some past wrong as a moral object lesson for us. According to the liberals among us, we, or more accurately they themselves are the epitome of human moral development. They are the first enlightened generation ever to grace the planet, while our ancestors were benighted, backward, and bigoted. Such were the 'dead white males' they favor as whipping boys, those same dead white males who somehow founded our country. On the one hand, they quote phrases like Jefferson's 'all men are created equal', while denouncing Jefferson for his supposed moral lapses, a slander which has somehow become accepted as truth.
Liberals, especially those whose lives are dedicated to historical revisionism, never rest from disparaging our Founding Fathers, and it seems that Simon Schama, a British-born transplant to the US, has been busy writing yet another of his revisionist morality plays. This time, it's about race and the American Revolution. The book is called '"Rough Crossings" and H.D.S. Greenway at the Boston Globe writes a column about it.
Schama apparently thinks, according to Greenway, that his 'daring' revisionism makes him some kind of heroic dissident, at risk of being put in irons and whisked off to Guantanamo for his less-than-respectful views of our history. Somehow this is laughable, and pathetic at the same time.
Revisionist histories, slandering our Founders, are a dime a dozen these days; scribbling yet another such work is hardly likely to put anyone in a gulag. Do Schama and Greenway really believe we live in such a country?
Greenway implies that we Americans read mostly worshipful biographies of our founders. I don't know what he is reading, but I am aware of far more hit pieces on the Founders than hagiographies. But he solemnly concludes,
''Do we, as a nation of immigrants, need whitewashed founding legends to unite us? Do Americans, in these morally ambiguous times of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the secret prisons into which our prisoners disappear without trial or hope, long for heroes and heroic times? Perhaps Americans feel the need to hang onto the glory days of our national youth, when all our leaders were brilliant, brave, and beyond reproach, even if it is not always entirely true.''
Yes, Mr. Greenway, we do need founding legends to unite us. Whether our traditional images were 'whitewashed' as you say is a matter of opinion. Why should I choose to believe Schama's work over the work of the traditional historians, especially knowing that he is a leftist with a definite axe to grind? And where does this revisionism and deconstructing of America's past lead us? To a country full of self-doubt if not shame, to a country which disdains its past and has no confidence in its future. To a country which has no core; to a disunited, disaffected shell of a country.
But then that's the whole idea, isn't it?
And the costs keep going up
Following on the 'Guard the Borders Blogburst' posted below, Phyllis Schlafly's column here gives us some more facts about the rising costs of illegal immigration.
On today's Lou Dobbs program, on CNN, a guest named Juan Jose Gutierrez of the 'Latino Movement USA' claimed that illegals are subject to 'taxation without representation.' Schlafly's article points out that, on the contrary, millions of illegals work 'off the books' and pay no taxes on their earnings.
"That enables both employer and employee to avoid paying taxes, and enables employers to avoid paying workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and assorted other taxes. If the Internal Revenue Service collected all the taxes that should be paid by the underground economy, our current budget deficit would disappear overnight, according to a Bear Stearns study released in 2005."
On today's Lou Dobbs program, on CNN, a guest named Juan Jose Gutierrez of the 'Latino Movement USA' claimed that illegals are subject to 'taxation without representation.' Schlafly's article points out that, on the contrary, millions of illegals work 'off the books' and pay no taxes on their earnings.
"That enables both employer and employee to avoid paying taxes, and enables employers to avoid paying workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and assorted other taxes. If the Internal Revenue Service collected all the taxes that should be paid by the underground economy, our current budget deficit would disappear overnight, according to a Bear Stearns study released in 2005."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Guard the Borders Blogburst
By Heidi at Euphoric Reality
Facts are a funny thing. They are conveniently forgotten if they don’t uphold one’s point-of-view, and they’re easily overlooked if they are randomly scattered about. But when solid facts are brought together in one place, the pattern is difficult to ignore. The facts I’m about to provide below are just such a case. People may be able to overlook a single fact, but the weight of their significance cannot be denied when they come together in one place. That is the purpose of this week’s Blogburst - to look at some hard facts.
I think it’s important to study the problems of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as instructive for the rest of the states. It may be that others can write off the doom of California by saying, “Well, that’s just California, a loony state of fruits and nuts - that would never happen here.” But while California is tipping head-first into ruin, it is highly indicative of the chain of events the rest of us are blindly bumbling through. Arizona and New Mexico have declared official states of emergency because they are completely unable to handle the burden of the influx of illegals into their communities. Texas is not far behind with mass hospital closings, an overwhelmed and declining school system, and a climbing crime rate. Just because one lives in Idaho or Nebraska or Maine does not mean that it won’t happen to you! You’re just a few years behind the curve.
The following 10 facts have been pulled from the LA Times. We’ve posted them all at one time or another at ER or in the Blogburst.
1. L.A. County has 10 million people. 40% of all workers in L.A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. Of the 10 million people in L.A. County, 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak primarily Spanish. Of the 14 million people in California, 5.6 million primarily speak other than English.
3. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
4. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
5. Over two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
6. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
7. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
8. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
9. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
10. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish language only.
We need to look at the experience of California as inevitable for the rest of us - if we don't, we're only burying our heads in the sand and bequeathing that future to our children! After all, if we keep merrily careening down the road to California, we can't be dumbfounded when we actually end up in California, can we?!
Here are a few more facts on a national scale:
1. Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 36% are on assistance/welfare. More on welfare provided to immigrants.
2. Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. More on immigration as the primary contributor to our population explosion.
3. The United States receives more immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
4. The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
5. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.
6. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
The problems of illegal immigration are not solely “border state” problems. They impact everyone. California and Texas are the two biggest economic engines in the United States - and they are teetering on bankruptcy on a catastrophic scale. If they go bust, guess who picks up the pieces? Indiana, New Hampshire, South Dakota, West Virginia, and all the rest. Illegal immigration is not - I repeat, NOT - a border state problem. It’s a burden we’re all bearing and a risk we’re all sharing.
We are way past the point of half-way measures and temporary fixes. As a nation, we must demand a definitive, decisive, no-nonsense solution. We cannot be placated by smarmy speeches from self-interested politicians, or fooled by spin semantics (”it’s a guest worker program - not amnesty”), or lulled into apathy by the drone of our everyday lives.
We cannot leave this crisis to our children. Do something! Get out of your comfort zone and get involved. There are bigger issues at stake than the price of lettuce! The time is critical. And it’s NOW.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
What America is up against
"This isn't so much a policy debate. It's a battle for America's identity. Are we the people already here, or are we a set of ideas and ideals that are universal...
"America is permanently evolving. That scares some people, but that's what we are all about. Do you keep it the way it is, or do you keep re-energizing the country with fresh people and fresh ideas?" - Frank Sharry, quoted in Time Magazine, August 15, 2005 issue.
The quote illustrates the ideology behind the open borders agenda. The words above make it plain that these radical people want to remake America. They are boldly redefining America, telling us that America is 'permanently evolving', with no fixed character or culture. Shades of Mao Zedong's 'perpetual revolution' -- perpetual evolution is what we are all about, according to these open borders ideologues.
America is, so they say, simply a set of 'ideas and ideals that are universal.' Not a country belonging to an identifiable set of people, with a definite history and set of traditions. Just a set of ideas and ideals.
Sharry represents a group called the National Immigration Forum. Sounds very objective and neutral, doesn't it? But in fact it is a very liberal immigration advocacy group. In fact, liberal is too mild an adjective for the ideas of the NIF as represented above. The philosophy is nothing less than radical, advocating the remaking of America, dedicating our country to perpetual change, 're-energizing' with 'fresh people and fresh ideas.'
And distressingly, it is not just radical leftists who speak this language; some in the Republican party are now reciting the same slogans, about America being a 'proposition nation', defined by 'universal ideas' like freedom and liberty, a nation which will in essence be some kind of international zone, open to anybody and everybody who professes to believe in an amorphous conception of 'liberty'.
Fresh people and fresh ideas, perpetual evolution. We Americans are being told that this is not our home anymore, but some kind of revolving-door hostel for immigrants.
We expect this kind of wild-eyed ideology from leftists; it's what they are about. But for Republicans who claim to be 'conservative' or at least patriotic Americans, this kind of ideology is unconscionable. The Republicans especially should be put on notice that we aren't buying their faux-conservatism and sham patriotism any longer; they need to re-examine their loyalties. Are they citizens and servants of the America our Founders gave us, or are they shills for this remade America, which has no resemblance to the America of our forefathers?
"America is permanently evolving. That scares some people, but that's what we are all about. Do you keep it the way it is, or do you keep re-energizing the country with fresh people and fresh ideas?" - Frank Sharry, quoted in Time Magazine, August 15, 2005 issue.
The quote illustrates the ideology behind the open borders agenda. The words above make it plain that these radical people want to remake America. They are boldly redefining America, telling us that America is 'permanently evolving', with no fixed character or culture. Shades of Mao Zedong's 'perpetual revolution' -- perpetual evolution is what we are all about, according to these open borders ideologues.
America is, so they say, simply a set of 'ideas and ideals that are universal.' Not a country belonging to an identifiable set of people, with a definite history and set of traditions. Just a set of ideas and ideals.
Sharry represents a group called the National Immigration Forum. Sounds very objective and neutral, doesn't it? But in fact it is a very liberal immigration advocacy group. In fact, liberal is too mild an adjective for the ideas of the NIF as represented above. The philosophy is nothing less than radical, advocating the remaking of America, dedicating our country to perpetual change, 're-energizing' with 'fresh people and fresh ideas.'
And distressingly, it is not just radical leftists who speak this language; some in the Republican party are now reciting the same slogans, about America being a 'proposition nation', defined by 'universal ideas' like freedom and liberty, a nation which will in essence be some kind of international zone, open to anybody and everybody who professes to believe in an amorphous conception of 'liberty'.
Fresh people and fresh ideas, perpetual evolution. We Americans are being told that this is not our home anymore, but some kind of revolving-door hostel for immigrants.
We expect this kind of wild-eyed ideology from leftists; it's what they are about. But for Republicans who claim to be 'conservative' or at least patriotic Americans, this kind of ideology is unconscionable. The Republicans especially should be put on notice that we aren't buying their faux-conservatism and sham patriotism any longer; they need to re-examine their loyalties. Are they citizens and servants of the America our Founders gave us, or are they shills for this remade America, which has no resemblance to the America of our forefathers?
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Open borders talking points
From the Project USA website, a list of the "top ten reasons for flooding the country:"
We have all heard all these creaky arguments many, many times; it's impossible to read a news article or hear a TV discussion of the issue without hearing one or all of the above cliches. The trouble is, the Open Borders evangelists are impervious to logic and common sense. They have an almost religious zeal in pressing their ideas on us. They are basing their appeal on emotions; usually they appeal to 'compassion' and sympathy for the poor downtrodden immigrants, (see arguments 5, 6, and 7 above) but they also rely on a sense of guilt among many Americans (see 1,2,3, and 4); after all, our ancestors came here and displaced the Indians, which was unfair, (so we are told) and why should we have more right to live here than the recent arrivals?
None of the arguments above have common sense on their side. Number 8, 'diversity is our strength', that ubiquitous Orwellian phrase, has no supporting evidence in the real world to back it up. It is just one of those mantras that are repeated so often that they become accepted unthinkingly. And number 10, 'plenty of room in America' is an odd argument for liberals to be making, considering their long record of doomsaying on the population question. Not so many decades ago, they were lecturing Americans on the evils of overpopulation, and the need for birth control, as overpopulation would lead to disastrous strains on resources and infrastructure, as well as a diminished quality of life.
Suddenly, however, the liberals are in the awkward position of saying that a population of 400 million or 500 million or more would not be a bad thing at all. What happened to change their minds?
Obviously, common sense and rationality have no bearing on the open borders agenda.
- Your ancestors were immigrants!
- Immigration makes our economy grow
- We're a nation of immigrants
- Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do
- It's racist to oppose immigration
- Immigrants built this country
- Immigrants just want a better life --- limits are mean
- Diversity is our strength
- Only Native Americans can criticize our immigration policy
- There is plenty of room in America for lots more people
We have all heard all these creaky arguments many, many times; it's impossible to read a news article or hear a TV discussion of the issue without hearing one or all of the above cliches. The trouble is, the Open Borders evangelists are impervious to logic and common sense. They have an almost religious zeal in pressing their ideas on us. They are basing their appeal on emotions; usually they appeal to 'compassion' and sympathy for the poor downtrodden immigrants, (see arguments 5, 6, and 7 above) but they also rely on a sense of guilt among many Americans (see 1,2,3, and 4); after all, our ancestors came here and displaced the Indians, which was unfair, (so we are told) and why should we have more right to live here than the recent arrivals?
None of the arguments above have common sense on their side. Number 8, 'diversity is our strength', that ubiquitous Orwellian phrase, has no supporting evidence in the real world to back it up. It is just one of those mantras that are repeated so often that they become accepted unthinkingly. And number 10, 'plenty of room in America' is an odd argument for liberals to be making, considering their long record of doomsaying on the population question. Not so many decades ago, they were lecturing Americans on the evils of overpopulation, and the need for birth control, as overpopulation would lead to disastrous strains on resources and infrastructure, as well as a diminished quality of life.
Suddenly, however, the liberals are in the awkward position of saying that a population of 400 million or 500 million or more would not be a bad thing at all. What happened to change their minds?
Obviously, common sense and rationality have no bearing on the open borders agenda.
Law of the majority or law of the strongest?
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809
"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
Thomas Jefferson,1808
"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
Thomas Jefferson,1808
America's "sick children"
“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a seperate entity. It’s up to you, teachers, to make all the sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”- Chester M. Pierce., Professor of Educational Psychiatry, Harvard University, as quoted by Berit Kjos in Brave New Schools,Harvard House, 1995.
The above quote illustrates the liberal point of view which dominates our schools, our media, and much of our government. Thanks to this attitude, there is a sizable segment of our population, especially those of the post-Baby Boom generations, who no longer have such 'sick' allegiances. The Baby Boom generation was the first, really, to embrace this liberal, anti-American, anti-traditional agenda. The dominant influence of many of the 60s generation colors our media and our educational system today, so that sadly, having respect for and loyalty to our country and our traditions is seen as 'sick.'
In a column at Townhall.com, Rich Tucker ponders this attitude. In this piece, titled 'The path to self-defeat', Tucker discusses a column from Salon.com, in which liberal journalist Nina Burleigh laments that her 5-year-old son had acquired (horrors!) patriotic feelings at his school.
Tucker makes a comparison between this liberal anti-patriotism as manifested by Burleigh and the loss of national confidence and pride which have led to the Islamification of Europe. He quotes author Bruce Bawer's comments on the current state of Europe, from his book 'While Europe Slept': “a civilization with so prosaic a self-understanding is a house of cards, easily toppled by a foreign people possessed of a fierce, all-subsuming sense of who they are and what they believe.”
Tucker refers to the threat of Islamic terrorism in the West, but surely this could apply also to the illegal immigrant invasion, which is the result of liberal foolishness and self-hatred. It's because of academics like the Ivy League professor quoted above, and leftist journalists like Burleigh that America is full of self-doubt and self-loathing. It's because of those who think as they do, and promulgate their ideas with a zeal bordering on religious fanaticism, that America and the rest of the West are now under threat, with our traditional cultures fading, our borders breached, and our identities called into question.
Who are the real 'sick children' of the West? Are they those with allegiances towards our Founding Fathers, our parents, and our God? Or are the 'sick children' the ones who reject their own fathers and forefathers, and the accomplishments of generations of their own ancestors?
Perhaps it's just ingratitude on the part of the liberals, who can find little to praise or be thankful for, and nothing worth defending or preserving in the countries that gave them birth. 'How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child,' in Shakespeare's words.
The above quote illustrates the liberal point of view which dominates our schools, our media, and much of our government. Thanks to this attitude, there is a sizable segment of our population, especially those of the post-Baby Boom generations, who no longer have such 'sick' allegiances. The Baby Boom generation was the first, really, to embrace this liberal, anti-American, anti-traditional agenda. The dominant influence of many of the 60s generation colors our media and our educational system today, so that sadly, having respect for and loyalty to our country and our traditions is seen as 'sick.'
In a column at Townhall.com, Rich Tucker ponders this attitude. In this piece, titled 'The path to self-defeat', Tucker discusses a column from Salon.com, in which liberal journalist Nina Burleigh laments that her 5-year-old son had acquired (horrors!) patriotic feelings at his school.
Tucker makes a comparison between this liberal anti-patriotism as manifested by Burleigh and the loss of national confidence and pride which have led to the Islamification of Europe. He quotes author Bruce Bawer's comments on the current state of Europe, from his book 'While Europe Slept': “a civilization with so prosaic a self-understanding is a house of cards, easily toppled by a foreign people possessed of a fierce, all-subsuming sense of who they are and what they believe.”
Tucker refers to the threat of Islamic terrorism in the West, but surely this could apply also to the illegal immigrant invasion, which is the result of liberal foolishness and self-hatred. It's because of academics like the Ivy League professor quoted above, and leftist journalists like Burleigh that America is full of self-doubt and self-loathing. It's because of those who think as they do, and promulgate their ideas with a zeal bordering on religious fanaticism, that America and the rest of the West are now under threat, with our traditional cultures fading, our borders breached, and our identities called into question.
Who are the real 'sick children' of the West? Are they those with allegiances towards our Founding Fathers, our parents, and our God? Or are the 'sick children' the ones who reject their own fathers and forefathers, and the accomplishments of generations of their own ancestors?
Perhaps it's just ingratitude on the part of the liberals, who can find little to praise or be thankful for, and nothing worth defending or preserving in the countries that gave them birth. 'How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child,' in Shakespeare's words.
Friday, April 21, 2006
'Their land'
Lee Benson writes an article in the Deseret Morning News on the subject of the Mexican belief that they own much of the Western U.S. Many of us who are aware of the border crisis know that many Mexicans express a belief that they are the 'real' owners of much of the Southwest, but in fact many believe that the Western states all belong to 'Greater Mexico.'
Benson quotes a retired U. S. Foreign Service officer who spent time in Mexico, and observed schoolchildren being taught that this swath of western America belonged to them and their people.
"They have an undeclared policy to retake by infiltration what they lost by infiltration," he says, comparing the large numbers of Mexicans currently streaming into U.S. territory to the large numbers of Americans who once poured into then Mexican-held strongholds in Texas, California and elsewhere; Americans who eventually turned their collective might into majority rule. In other words, they're doing to us what we did to them.' (Italics mine).
The warnings by this retired embassy worker, David Timmins, are well-taken. He correctly perceives the threat from this revanchist effort to re-take 'their' land. However, the last sentence quoted above, the italicized sentence, may be the writer's misconception: "... they're doing to us what we did to them."
Maybe the writer is not aware that the original American settlers in Texas were there with the permission of the Spanish and later the Mexican government. Maybe he is not aware that much of Texas was sparsely populated and that there were few Spanish or Mexicans there at the time the colonists arrived.
The American settlers were not there by stealth or in defiance of the governing authorities; they had to meet certain criteria, and they were granted a certain allotment of land. This is hardly analogous to the present Mexican invasion, with millions of unidentified people, subject to no screening process, character and skills unknown, entering our country each year.
To say that the Mexican illegals are just doing to us 'what we did to them' is to denigrate the honest American settlers of Texas, and to put them on a par with the lawbreakers who are currently invading our country and demanding rights. To compare the settlers of the Southwest with the illegals is also to imply that our current troubles are just payback, or 'karma', that we are reaping what we sowed back in the 1820s. Of course this is exactly the rhetoric of the liberals who always take the other side in any dispute, but no thoughtful American should wish to make this moral equivalence between the illegals and the American settlers of the Southwest.
Benson quotes a retired U. S. Foreign Service officer who spent time in Mexico, and observed schoolchildren being taught that this swath of western America belonged to them and their people.
"They have an undeclared policy to retake by infiltration what they lost by infiltration," he says, comparing the large numbers of Mexicans currently streaming into U.S. territory to the large numbers of Americans who once poured into then Mexican-held strongholds in Texas, California and elsewhere; Americans who eventually turned their collective might into majority rule. In other words, they're doing to us what we did to them.' (Italics mine).
The warnings by this retired embassy worker, David Timmins, are well-taken. He correctly perceives the threat from this revanchist effort to re-take 'their' land. However, the last sentence quoted above, the italicized sentence, may be the writer's misconception: "... they're doing to us what we did to them."
Maybe the writer is not aware that the original American settlers in Texas were there with the permission of the Spanish and later the Mexican government. Maybe he is not aware that much of Texas was sparsely populated and that there were few Spanish or Mexicans there at the time the colonists arrived.
The American settlers were not there by stealth or in defiance of the governing authorities; they had to meet certain criteria, and they were granted a certain allotment of land. This is hardly analogous to the present Mexican invasion, with millions of unidentified people, subject to no screening process, character and skills unknown, entering our country each year.
To say that the Mexican illegals are just doing to us 'what we did to them' is to denigrate the honest American settlers of Texas, and to put them on a par with the lawbreakers who are currently invading our country and demanding rights. To compare the settlers of the Southwest with the illegals is also to imply that our current troubles are just payback, or 'karma', that we are reaping what we sowed back in the 1820s. Of course this is exactly the rhetoric of the liberals who always take the other side in any dispute, but no thoughtful American should wish to make this moral equivalence between the illegals and the American settlers of the Southwest.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Open doors, broken windows
The 'broken windows theory' of social disorder holds that when a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, this invites further decay and destruction. Vandals and criminals are emboldened by the appearance that there is no authority to 'fix' things, and destruction escalates. Soon, the entire neighborhood is in a state of decay; crime increases, decent people flee, and lawlessness is entrenched.
We can see this process at work in our inner cities, where the will to forestall disorder is lacking. And we see it in our nation, when our non-existent borders lure invaders by the millions to enter our country. The whole world seems to be getting the signal that we are a weak, decadent country, lacking the will or means to protect our country, and everyone is moving in to take advantage of this carelessness and sloth.
Tellingly, at one of the pro-illegal marches recently, a protester (who apparently didn't get the memo about avoiding confrontational signs and foreign flags) carried a placard reading 'Abre la puerta o rompere la ventana.' In English, this means 'Open the door or I'll break the window.'
Maybe this is just typical bluster and bravado from the Latina protester. Politically incorrect it may be to say so, but the Mexican culture is very big on bluster and swagger. But the brazen behaviors displayed by so many of the illegals makes me take them at their word.
Still, our politicians seem eager to open all the doors for them, and the illegals continue to break the windows of our increasingly decrepit society. Open doors, broken windows, welcome to the Third World.
We can see this process at work in our inner cities, where the will to forestall disorder is lacking. And we see it in our nation, when our non-existent borders lure invaders by the millions to enter our country. The whole world seems to be getting the signal that we are a weak, decadent country, lacking the will or means to protect our country, and everyone is moving in to take advantage of this carelessness and sloth.
Tellingly, at one of the pro-illegal marches recently, a protester (who apparently didn't get the memo about avoiding confrontational signs and foreign flags) carried a placard reading 'Abre la puerta o rompere la ventana.' In English, this means 'Open the door or I'll break the window.'
Maybe this is just typical bluster and bravado from the Latina protester. Politically incorrect it may be to say so, but the Mexican culture is very big on bluster and swagger. But the brazen behaviors displayed by so many of the illegals makes me take them at their word.
Still, our politicians seem eager to open all the doors for them, and the illegals continue to break the windows of our increasingly decrepit society. Open doors, broken windows, welcome to the Third World.
More euphemisms and myths
Helle Dale, in a column in today's Washington Times, discusses 'Reforming immigration'
Dale starts out somewhat promisingly, stressing the need for enforcing our laws and demanding that the illegals respect the rules of our system. But then, as so often happens, Dale reverts to the usual platitudes and myths about the illegals, and ends with this weak rhetoric:
"In the heat of the debate, though, we need to recall that the situation could be worse. Hispanic communities certainly can fit into the American social and cultural landscape, with their strong Catholic values and family traditions. In fact, they are a far better fit than the predominant immigrant groups in Europe from the Middle East and North Africa, who are Muslims settling in very secular European societies." (Emphasis mine.)
So, in the end, Dale resorts to the already-stale 'arguments' which are the favorites of the open-borders, cheap labor Republicans. And this is what passes for 'conservative' thinking.
Far from being conservative, those who parrot these half-baked platitudes are starry-eyed pollyannas. Maybe they have seen too many Capra movies, but they seem to dwell in a parallel universe where every immigrant is a colorful cliche, and we are all one big happy family. Conservatism is generally thought to be grounded in reality, to be based in the world as it is and not in some utopian world as we wish it to be. Dale and others like her have more in common with the wishful-thinking liberals.
The idea expressed by 'conservatives' like Dale that the Hispanic illegals are at least preferable to Moslems is particularly soft-headed. I have heard a number of ostensible 'conservatives' saying that a Hispanic America is better than a Moslem America; there is a ring of defeatism and fatalism in their attitude. They seem to be saying America has to be surrendered to somebody, and they prefer conquest by Mexico to Islamization.
What would our forefathers say, I wonder, to this attitude of defeat and resignation?
Dale starts out somewhat promisingly, stressing the need for enforcing our laws and demanding that the illegals respect the rules of our system. But then, as so often happens, Dale reverts to the usual platitudes and myths about the illegals, and ends with this weak rhetoric:
"In the heat of the debate, though, we need to recall that the situation could be worse. Hispanic communities certainly can fit into the American social and cultural landscape, with their strong Catholic values and family traditions. In fact, they are a far better fit than the predominant immigrant groups in Europe from the Middle East and North Africa, who are Muslims settling in very secular European societies." (Emphasis mine.)
So, in the end, Dale resorts to the already-stale 'arguments' which are the favorites of the open-borders, cheap labor Republicans. And this is what passes for 'conservative' thinking.
Far from being conservative, those who parrot these half-baked platitudes are starry-eyed pollyannas. Maybe they have seen too many Capra movies, but they seem to dwell in a parallel universe where every immigrant is a colorful cliche, and we are all one big happy family. Conservatism is generally thought to be grounded in reality, to be based in the world as it is and not in some utopian world as we wish it to be. Dale and others like her have more in common with the wishful-thinking liberals.
The idea expressed by 'conservatives' like Dale that the Hispanic illegals are at least preferable to Moslems is particularly soft-headed. I have heard a number of ostensible 'conservatives' saying that a Hispanic America is better than a Moslem America; there is a ring of defeatism and fatalism in their attitude. They seem to be saying America has to be surrendered to somebody, and they prefer conquest by Mexico to Islamization.
What would our forefathers say, I wonder, to this attitude of defeat and resignation?
Politically Correct Mythologizing
In our current liberal society, telling unflattering truths is strongly discouraged; instead, we are pressured to speak only praise and compliments about people based on their status in the 'victimizer/victim' hierarchy. In other words, if a group is a designated 'victim' group based on race, sexual proclivities, or religion, that group must not be criticized. Flattery is not only expected, but required when mentioning protected groups. Special labels are devised to condemn those who criticize, even in a polite way, a member of a protected group or the group as a whole. Labels such as 'homophobic', 'Islamophobic' and 'racist' are deployed to attack and discredit anyone who does not show appropriate deference and an exaggerated respect toward designated victims.
We see this every day; sometimes careless comments are met with a firestorm of indignation when the speaker or writer steps outside the narrow bounds of political correctness. Not only is it taboo to say anything critical or unflattering, it seems now to be de rigueur to create positive myths about protected groups. Lawrence Auster, journalist and blogger, cites what he calls 'Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations' : "The more alien, unassimilable, and dangerous a designated minority or non-Western group actually is, the greater the politically correct lies that must be told about it, and the more wicked it becomes to speak the truth about it."
Auster's Law seems to hold true. In the recent discussions about the illegal invasion of America, those Americans who oppose the invasion are accused of unfairly generalizing, and of 'demonizing' the poor 'undocumented workers'.
The word 'demonize' is a favorite of the liberals; the idea is that any criticism of a protected group is 'demonizing' them, making them out to be less than human, or preternaturally evil. In fact, the critics are doing nothing more than pointing out that the illegals are only human, subject to human faults, while their defenders are putting them on a pedestal, canonizing them as saints. The illegals are praised excessively as 'hardworking' (as if no one else is), pious Christians, paragons of 'family values' . There is some serious generalizing going on here; the liberals constantly decry 'generalizations' and 'stereotypes' but they themselves are guilty of those very things. They are simply stereotyping in an adulatory way. I have actually heard the illegals' defenders claim that we Americans can 'learn' from the illegals; that they are better examples of American values than we Americans are. If there is such a thing as 'demonizing' illegals, then their defenders are 'angelizing' them, if I may coin a silly-sounding word of my own.
The illegals who are entering our country don't have horns and pitchforks but neither do they have haloes and wings, notwithstanding all the smarmy, sugary myths being propagated about their virtues.
We as a society, all of us in the Western world in fact, have gone too far away from the truth in an effort to appear non-racist and inclusive. We are telling pious, hypocritical lies in order to appear fair and 'nice'. Too many among us are willing to tell flattering falsehoods as a way of demonstrating our openness and altruism.
The price we pay for this is that as a society, we are bound to act as though all our flattery is true; those who are invading our country and challenging our very right to be here cannot be recognized as the threat that they are as long as we are committed to living in this politically-correct dreamworld, this fictitious 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood of Make-Believe'. In this PC fairyland, there are no enemies or threats, only neighbors we haven't acknowledged yet. In this dream-world, there are no 'reconquistas', just humble, hard-working, pious, saintly immigrants.
We see this every day; sometimes careless comments are met with a firestorm of indignation when the speaker or writer steps outside the narrow bounds of political correctness. Not only is it taboo to say anything critical or unflattering, it seems now to be de rigueur to create positive myths about protected groups. Lawrence Auster, journalist and blogger, cites what he calls 'Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations' : "The more alien, unassimilable, and dangerous a designated minority or non-Western group actually is, the greater the politically correct lies that must be told about it, and the more wicked it becomes to speak the truth about it."
Auster's Law seems to hold true. In the recent discussions about the illegal invasion of America, those Americans who oppose the invasion are accused of unfairly generalizing, and of 'demonizing' the poor 'undocumented workers'.
The word 'demonize' is a favorite of the liberals; the idea is that any criticism of a protected group is 'demonizing' them, making them out to be less than human, or preternaturally evil. In fact, the critics are doing nothing more than pointing out that the illegals are only human, subject to human faults, while their defenders are putting them on a pedestal, canonizing them as saints. The illegals are praised excessively as 'hardworking' (as if no one else is), pious Christians, paragons of 'family values' . There is some serious generalizing going on here; the liberals constantly decry 'generalizations' and 'stereotypes' but they themselves are guilty of those very things. They are simply stereotyping in an adulatory way. I have actually heard the illegals' defenders claim that we Americans can 'learn' from the illegals; that they are better examples of American values than we Americans are. If there is such a thing as 'demonizing' illegals, then their defenders are 'angelizing' them, if I may coin a silly-sounding word of my own.
The illegals who are entering our country don't have horns and pitchforks but neither do they have haloes and wings, notwithstanding all the smarmy, sugary myths being propagated about their virtues.
We as a society, all of us in the Western world in fact, have gone too far away from the truth in an effort to appear non-racist and inclusive. We are telling pious, hypocritical lies in order to appear fair and 'nice'. Too many among us are willing to tell flattering falsehoods as a way of demonstrating our openness and altruism.
The price we pay for this is that as a society, we are bound to act as though all our flattery is true; those who are invading our country and challenging our very right to be here cannot be recognized as the threat that they are as long as we are committed to living in this politically-correct dreamworld, this fictitious 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood of Make-Believe'. In this PC fairyland, there are no enemies or threats, only neighbors we haven't acknowledged yet. In this dream-world, there are no 'reconquistas', just humble, hard-working, pious, saintly immigrants.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
"Whose America?" Part II
Heather Mac Donald, writing at National Review Online, discusses the recent illegal alien marches and their brazen assertion of 'rights' in our country.
As Mac Donald rightly concludes, if America acquiesces to the protesters' aggressive claim of rights in our land, we will effectively be declaring that our rule of law is nonexistent, or that it is arbitrary, subject to being overthrown by a naked assertion that it is invalid. Acquiescing to the illegals' demands is giving up our sovereign rights as citizens of a nation called the United States of America to set limits on who enters, and to decide such limits based on our own standards. In the past, contrary to what the open borders fanatics of both parties say, America has chosen immigrants based on American interests. Now we are being pressed to give up the right to do this; the claim is made that any such restrictions on immigration are discriminatory and unfair. Thus we have no moral right to limit entry to our country. We are told that potential immigrants themselves are to decide for us. They may enter at will, and stay, regardless of our existing laws, and contrary to the expressed will of the majority of citizens of the country.
Now this kind of arrogance coming from opportunistic invaders is one thing; but our elected leaders, who in theory represent us Americans and our interests, are agreeing with the invaders. We are giving the illegals carte blanche to enter our country and flout its laws, and to defy the will of the American people.
If we who are the citizens and the rightful heirs of this country have no say in who enters the country, if we are only to passively submit to the remaking of our nation at our expense, in what sense is this still 'our' country? And in what sense is America still the America put forth in our founding documents?
As Mac Donald rightly concludes, if America acquiesces to the protesters' aggressive claim of rights in our land, we will effectively be declaring that our rule of law is nonexistent, or that it is arbitrary, subject to being overthrown by a naked assertion that it is invalid. Acquiescing to the illegals' demands is giving up our sovereign rights as citizens of a nation called the United States of America to set limits on who enters, and to decide such limits based on our own standards. In the past, contrary to what the open borders fanatics of both parties say, America has chosen immigrants based on American interests. Now we are being pressed to give up the right to do this; the claim is made that any such restrictions on immigration are discriminatory and unfair. Thus we have no moral right to limit entry to our country. We are told that potential immigrants themselves are to decide for us. They may enter at will, and stay, regardless of our existing laws, and contrary to the expressed will of the majority of citizens of the country.
Now this kind of arrogance coming from opportunistic invaders is one thing; but our elected leaders, who in theory represent us Americans and our interests, are agreeing with the invaders. We are giving the illegals carte blanche to enter our country and flout its laws, and to defy the will of the American people.
If we who are the citizens and the rightful heirs of this country have no say in who enters the country, if we are only to passively submit to the remaking of our nation at our expense, in what sense is this still 'our' country? And in what sense is America still the America put forth in our founding documents?
Monday, April 17, 2006
Patriots Day and our history
On April 18-19 1775, the famous 'midnight ride of Paul Revere' occurred. On that night, British troops were approaching Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. One Dr. Joseph Warren, in an effort to get the word out to the local militias, sent William Dawes and Paul Revere out to warn of the approaching British. Dawes and Revere rode out along with Samuel Prescott to spread the warning. Along the way, all were captured by the British, but it was Prescott who escaped to successfully reach Concord and alert the militias Their efforts enabled the defenders to withstand the British, and history was made.
There was a time in this country when all schoolchildren knew this story; they could probably recite by heart the lines from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow " 'Twas the eighteenth of April, in '75/ Hardly a man is now alive/ Who remembers that famous day and year.'' Now, of course, these tales of American history are fading from national memory. It can truly be said that 'hardly a man is now alive who remembers.' The reason? The liberal assault on our national traditions and history. These accounts are just the doings they say, of 'dead white men' who were racist, sexist, elitist, and not worthy of our honor. Now children are taught, (if they are taught any history at all) a revised version of history in which the 'victimized' groups assume a starring role. The more 'oppressed' a particular group, the more attention and honor is accorded to them. So Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott take a back seat to more politically correct heroes.
In the very liberal Boston Globe, Gordon S. Wood writes a column actually advocating a study of American History and emphasizing the importance of history as a unifying the American people and fostering a national identity.
While I can't agree with everything he says, it's gratifying to see someone speaking out for American history and traditions.
I disagree with Wood only on his assertion that our American national identity had to be created from whole cloth; he implies that American nationality is an artificial creation, and our nation is a cobbled-together entity, as opposed to an organic nation which grows naturally. I disagree because the founders of this country were for the most part a homogeneous group of people; most had their origins in the British Isles, specifically England, and shared a common religion and heritage. Among the three men who took part in the famous ride on "the 18th of April, in '75", two were of English descent, while Paul Revere was of French Huguenot descent. In any case, their commonalities outweighed their differences; they came from a common cultural matrix. Now, however, with a socially-engineered America which is indeed an artificial creation, a multicultural patchwork, some unifying factor is sorely need to prevent further cracks in our national facade; Wood is correct in his view that a grounding in American history is crucial to maintaining a cohesive nation.
This is no doubt why the malcontent leftists among us want to deconstruct our history and our traditions and replace it with their own revisionist litany of grievances.
George Orwell said, "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
Time to take back control of our past and with it, our future.
Happy Patriots Day, America.
There was a time in this country when all schoolchildren knew this story; they could probably recite by heart the lines from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow " 'Twas the eighteenth of April, in '75/ Hardly a man is now alive/ Who remembers that famous day and year.'' Now, of course, these tales of American history are fading from national memory. It can truly be said that 'hardly a man is now alive who remembers.' The reason? The liberal assault on our national traditions and history. These accounts are just the doings they say, of 'dead white men' who were racist, sexist, elitist, and not worthy of our honor. Now children are taught, (if they are taught any history at all) a revised version of history in which the 'victimized' groups assume a starring role. The more 'oppressed' a particular group, the more attention and honor is accorded to them. So Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott take a back seat to more politically correct heroes.
In the very liberal Boston Globe, Gordon S. Wood writes a column actually advocating a study of American History and emphasizing the importance of history as a unifying the American people and fostering a national identity.
While I can't agree with everything he says, it's gratifying to see someone speaking out for American history and traditions.
I disagree with Wood only on his assertion that our American national identity had to be created from whole cloth; he implies that American nationality is an artificial creation, and our nation is a cobbled-together entity, as opposed to an organic nation which grows naturally. I disagree because the founders of this country were for the most part a homogeneous group of people; most had their origins in the British Isles, specifically England, and shared a common religion and heritage. Among the three men who took part in the famous ride on "the 18th of April, in '75", two were of English descent, while Paul Revere was of French Huguenot descent. In any case, their commonalities outweighed their differences; they came from a common cultural matrix. Now, however, with a socially-engineered America which is indeed an artificial creation, a multicultural patchwork, some unifying factor is sorely need to prevent further cracks in our national facade; Wood is correct in his view that a grounding in American history is crucial to maintaining a cohesive nation.
This is no doubt why the malcontent leftists among us want to deconstruct our history and our traditions and replace it with their own revisionist litany of grievances.
George Orwell said, "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
Time to take back control of our past and with it, our future.
Happy Patriots Day, America.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The costs of open borders
Thomas Sowell, being an economist, has written at times about the economics of the illegal invasion. But in his column of today in the Washington Times, he touches on the societal and cultural effects of mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Sowell asks the obvious question as to why our country is prosperous and many other countries which are rich in resources are less successful. His answer is that the culture of the people makes the difference.
'When you import people, you import cultures.Those cultures no longer give way to the American culture when ''multiculturalism'' is a dogma and its apostles and activists make it necessary for American laws, language, and culture to give way, or at least accommodate growing alien enclaves in our midst.
A nation is more than a collection of whatever population happens to reside within its borders.' (Emphasis mine).
Sowell goes on to stress the life-or-death importance of national unity and solidarity, and notes in closing his article that the fact that Americans are 'at each other's throats' over immigration is not a good sign.
The very presence of large and increasing numbers of disparate peoples serves to further polarize America, which of late has been divided over racial and political differences. The borders issue becomes one more issue which divides us, and which causes emotions to run high. A further complication is that 'multiculturalism' and 'political correctness' warp and suppress the honest and open debate which is absolutely vital to coming to any kind of solution within our country. Those who oppose open borders and the transformation of our country make up a solid majority, according to many polls. But the majority voice is stifled; we are not allowed in our controlled media to express our honest feelings. Those who simply want to preserve the America they grew up in and enforce the laws of our land are branded as 'nativists', xenophobes, and of course 'racists'.
The divide between pro- and anti-open-borders factions also crosses party lines, with more than a few Democrats against the illegal invasion, and on the Republican side there is no lack of support for open borders, as witness our President's obsessive crusade for amnesty and the Hispanicization of America.
Sowell rightly stresses the need for unity in an 'international jungle' as he calls it. Today's world is possibly more dangerous than it has ever been, with a militant Islam on the march, Iran on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and a 'Camp of the Saints' assault on the West.
I fear for our country when I see how divided we are. It's shameful when Americans are too divided and too paralyzed with political correctness to muster a healthy anger about the invasion and transformation of our country. There are too many people who feel more anger towards their own countrymen than towards outside enemies.
The presence of more and more people of differing and often hostile cultures can only further narrow our self-expression as our PC-ridden media and leadership try to contain honest expression of Americans' emotions. Containing the increasing conflict is creating a pressure-cooker situation.
Sowell asks the obvious question as to why our country is prosperous and many other countries which are rich in resources are less successful. His answer is that the culture of the people makes the difference.
'When you import people, you import cultures.Those cultures no longer give way to the American culture when ''multiculturalism'' is a dogma and its apostles and activists make it necessary for American laws, language, and culture to give way, or at least accommodate growing alien enclaves in our midst.
A nation is more than a collection of whatever population happens to reside within its borders.' (Emphasis mine).
Sowell goes on to stress the life-or-death importance of national unity and solidarity, and notes in closing his article that the fact that Americans are 'at each other's throats' over immigration is not a good sign.
The very presence of large and increasing numbers of disparate peoples serves to further polarize America, which of late has been divided over racial and political differences. The borders issue becomes one more issue which divides us, and which causes emotions to run high. A further complication is that 'multiculturalism' and 'political correctness' warp and suppress the honest and open debate which is absolutely vital to coming to any kind of solution within our country. Those who oppose open borders and the transformation of our country make up a solid majority, according to many polls. But the majority voice is stifled; we are not allowed in our controlled media to express our honest feelings. Those who simply want to preserve the America they grew up in and enforce the laws of our land are branded as 'nativists', xenophobes, and of course 'racists'.
The divide between pro- and anti-open-borders factions also crosses party lines, with more than a few Democrats against the illegal invasion, and on the Republican side there is no lack of support for open borders, as witness our President's obsessive crusade for amnesty and the Hispanicization of America.
Sowell rightly stresses the need for unity in an 'international jungle' as he calls it. Today's world is possibly more dangerous than it has ever been, with a militant Islam on the march, Iran on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and a 'Camp of the Saints' assault on the West.
I fear for our country when I see how divided we are. It's shameful when Americans are too divided and too paralyzed with political correctness to muster a healthy anger about the invasion and transformation of our country. There are too many people who feel more anger towards their own countrymen than towards outside enemies.
The presence of more and more people of differing and often hostile cultures can only further narrow our self-expression as our PC-ridden media and leadership try to contain honest expression of Americans' emotions. Containing the increasing conflict is creating a pressure-cooker situation.
Friday, April 14, 2006
The exaltation of immigrants
Reading the news media and listening to our pandering politicians on the subject of immigration, legal or illegal, it's becoming apparent that the history of America is being rewritten at a furious pace lately. During the last two weeks with all the discussion of amnesty and all the agitation in the streets of our cities, the rhetoric has been hot and heavy.
The phrase du jour is 'a nation of immigrants'. And it's obvious that the term 'immigrant' is now expanded to include illegal invaders as well as those who enter this county lawfully. And it's clear that somehow, the emphasis has shifted so that the immigrant, illegal or legal, is now the apotheosis of the American ideal. The immigrant is that most American of all Americans, paradoxically. Those of us whose roots here go back far enough that we no longer identify with our ancestral countries are somehow less valued, suddenly, than those who stealthily entered across the Arizona desert or the Rio Grande last week or last night. They are the heroic new Americans who represent the true meaning of America. The glowing stereotype of the brave, noble, plucky immigrant builds on the old Ellis Island cliches of the huddled masses with tears in their eyes, enriching America by their presence.
Peggy Noonan, in her gushing column in the Wall Street Journal, positively swoons over the sainted immigrants she loves. Fine, Peggy; I am happy you are infatuated with the illegals marching in your city, but your rose-colored glasses are obscuring your view.
Peggy is happy that the illegals purportedly share her religion; they are Catholic, so we are told, and so is she. Because of her Irish immigrant origins, she somehow feels like one of the immigrants. Peggy refers to the Irish as 'her people'. Peggy, are not Americans your people?
I don't know how recent Peggy's immigrant origins are; did her people immigrate here two generations back? Three? How long does it take before one identifies as an American only, and not as an immigrant? I am sorry to say that many, many of the people who have a soft approach to the border problem are sympathetic because they identify with their immigrant roots more than with their country of birth. They are actually walking arguments in favor of restricting immigration, because recent immigrant origins seem to predispose one to a romanticized, sentimental rapport with the illegals.
I realize there are exceptions; there are immigrants and children of immigrants whose allegiances are 100% American;
Michelle Malkin and Yeh Ling-ling are two examples that immediately come to mind. But there are, apparently, many more whose recent immigrant origins color their views on the border problem.
Peggy Noonan, with her pink-and-fluffy view of immigrants, represents a sentimentalized worldview which detracts from our ability to defend ourselves as a nation. Our country and our culture have become excessively sentimentalized and feminized; this country needs to reassert its more masculine, confident, hard-headed side; we are in jeopardy, and softheartedness will only weaken us further.
The phrase du jour is 'a nation of immigrants'. And it's obvious that the term 'immigrant' is now expanded to include illegal invaders as well as those who enter this county lawfully. And it's clear that somehow, the emphasis has shifted so that the immigrant, illegal or legal, is now the apotheosis of the American ideal. The immigrant is that most American of all Americans, paradoxically. Those of us whose roots here go back far enough that we no longer identify with our ancestral countries are somehow less valued, suddenly, than those who stealthily entered across the Arizona desert or the Rio Grande last week or last night. They are the heroic new Americans who represent the true meaning of America. The glowing stereotype of the brave, noble, plucky immigrant builds on the old Ellis Island cliches of the huddled masses with tears in their eyes, enriching America by their presence.
Peggy Noonan, in her gushing column in the Wall Street Journal, positively swoons over the sainted immigrants she loves. Fine, Peggy; I am happy you are infatuated with the illegals marching in your city, but your rose-colored glasses are obscuring your view.
Peggy is happy that the illegals purportedly share her religion; they are Catholic, so we are told, and so is she. Because of her Irish immigrant origins, she somehow feels like one of the immigrants. Peggy refers to the Irish as 'her people'. Peggy, are not Americans your people?
I don't know how recent Peggy's immigrant origins are; did her people immigrate here two generations back? Three? How long does it take before one identifies as an American only, and not as an immigrant? I am sorry to say that many, many of the people who have a soft approach to the border problem are sympathetic because they identify with their immigrant roots more than with their country of birth. They are actually walking arguments in favor of restricting immigration, because recent immigrant origins seem to predispose one to a romanticized, sentimental rapport with the illegals.
I realize there are exceptions; there are immigrants and children of immigrants whose allegiances are 100% American;
Michelle Malkin and Yeh Ling-ling are two examples that immediately come to mind. But there are, apparently, many more whose recent immigrant origins color their views on the border problem.
Peggy Noonan, with her pink-and-fluffy view of immigrants, represents a sentimentalized worldview which detracts from our ability to defend ourselves as a nation. Our country and our culture have become excessively sentimentalized and feminized; this country needs to reassert its more masculine, confident, hard-headed side; we are in jeopardy, and softheartedness will only weaken us further.
Defending the West
"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it." - Pericles
On this note, Andrew Bolt in the Australian paper the Herald Sun writes a column on the lack of a will to defend the West
Bolt's column points out the obvious fact that all of the West is in crisis at this moment, and that crisis is precipitated and exacerbated by the lack of Western confidence; the loss of a strong sense of who we are, where we come from, and the loss of moral certitude. We are bombarded with the idea that our forefathers were morally deficient in their dealings with the non-Western peoples, and the doubt about our legitimacy as the possessors or even the rightful heirs of the lands we were born in. And into this vacuum caused by our weakness and uncertainty, other peoples are staking claims on our countries. The sign that the 'world has gone mad' is that our ostensible leaders seem to have surrendered before the ordinary citizens of the country have had time to realize and react to the threat. Will the West awake and rediscover the strength and confidence that our forefathers possessed, or will we follow our 'leaders' and passively accept the loss of the West? And we are talking not about the mere loss of territory, although that is a considerable loss, but the loss of the freedoms and the unique civilization created by our forebears. Our way of life, far from being common in the history of humanity, is unique; it is the result of a long series of developments distinctive to the West, specifically to the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Our kind of liberty is not something that appears to be reproducible by just any random group of people in the world, contrary to current belief. There is little evidence in history that 'democracy' can be exported just anywhere. It's a rarity, and should be guarded and defended zealously.
Our leaders obviously lack the courage to defend our freedom and our way of life. It remains to be seen whether the peoples of the Western countries, especially the Anglosphere which is the home of liberty as we conceive it, will show the necessary determination.
On this note, Andrew Bolt in the Australian paper the Herald Sun writes a column on the lack of a will to defend the West
World gone mad
" Countries such as our own are more than ever home to people who say they don't belong and don't really want to. And on one scary page after another I discovered a lot of influential people really had given up on defending us and this rotten society. Sure, you wouldn't have had to borrow my paper to have guessed already that the West was in strife. Countries such as our own are more than ever home to people who say they don't belong, and don't really want to, either. Brrrr, no. Right here in Melbourne, we have Aboriginal protesters in the Botanic Gardens who say this is their land -- not anyone else's -- and our laws do not apply. IT being a Saturday, I sat under the oak with a coffee to read a newspaper...Even in the United States this past month, almost one million Mexicans marched against proposed laws to send back some 12 million illegal workers, with thousands waving Mexican and Puerto Rican flags and carrying signs such as, "This is stolen land", "I'm in my homeland" and "Honkies are illegal immigrants, too".America's Hispanics are a challenge to the very idea of the US not just because they now outnumber blacks, but because they are far more likely to have divided loyalties. When Mexico's soccer team played the US in Los Angeles in 1998, many of the 90,000 fans flew Mexican flags, pelted the American players with rubbish and booed the American anthem.These are not healthy trends... "Bolt's column points out the obvious fact that all of the West is in crisis at this moment, and that crisis is precipitated and exacerbated by the lack of Western confidence; the loss of a strong sense of who we are, where we come from, and the loss of moral certitude. We are bombarded with the idea that our forefathers were morally deficient in their dealings with the non-Western peoples, and the doubt about our legitimacy as the possessors or even the rightful heirs of the lands we were born in. And into this vacuum caused by our weakness and uncertainty, other peoples are staking claims on our countries. The sign that the 'world has gone mad' is that our ostensible leaders seem to have surrendered before the ordinary citizens of the country have had time to realize and react to the threat. Will the West awake and rediscover the strength and confidence that our forefathers possessed, or will we follow our 'leaders' and passively accept the loss of the West? And we are talking not about the mere loss of territory, although that is a considerable loss, but the loss of the freedoms and the unique civilization created by our forebears. Our way of life, far from being common in the history of humanity, is unique; it is the result of a long series of developments distinctive to the West, specifically to the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Our kind of liberty is not something that appears to be reproducible by just any random group of people in the world, contrary to current belief. There is little evidence in history that 'democracy' can be exported just anywhere. It's a rarity, and should be guarded and defended zealously.
Our leaders obviously lack the courage to defend our freedom and our way of life. It remains to be seen whether the peoples of the Western countries, especially the Anglosphere which is the home of liberty as we conceive it, will show the necessary determination.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
"Nations are the wealth of mankind..."
"In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less then if all men had become alike with one personality, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities. The very least of them wears its own special colors, and bears within itself a special facet of God’s design." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, from his Nobel lecture in 1970
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
A new nadir in the pro-invasion rhetoric
Lowell Ponte at FrontPage Magazine has a column which is stunning in its twisted arguments and demented 'logic.'
It's not new to promote the idea that America is a tired, effete, decaying country in need of 'revitalization' via immigrants from the 'vibrant' Third World. But Ponte's ravings in this column, based on a supposed conversation with a 'Darwinian' in favor of mass immigration, hits a new low.
As I read this article I was dumbstruck by the surreal quality of the 'Darwinist's' ideas. Are there really sane people in our world who believe that opening the floodgates and transforming a country is a reasonable and ethical policy to pursue? The recent relentless push for open borders and amnesty does suggest that the people behind it are obsessed fanatics, determined to pursue their goals with utter disregard for the citizens of their own countries, and with flagrant disrespect for laws and traditions and principles.
But Ponte's column is like a glimpse into another parallel universe of illogic.
Ponte says: “Those who hide behind laws, including immigration laws, to avoid such competition are committing slow suicide, growing too fat and lazy to survive,” said The Darwinian. “In the long run you can no more outlaw the law of supply and demand than you can outlaw the law of gravity. And there’s a big supply of cheaper labor just across the border..."
So we are all just economic units, and all of life is just a Darwinian competition which we are doomed to lose. And the Mexican illegals, according to Ponte, are superior in their ability to defy our laws and enter our country against our wishes. Their presence in our country proves their superiority and their vigor, so he suggests.
By the same logic, a burglar or home invader must be superior because he succeeds in entering his victim's home. By Ponte's logic, the victim should turn over his home and possessions to the invader because his vigor and strength and intelligence have earned it.
It's chilling to realize that there are many such people, apparently including our elected 'leaders' who see the world in these cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral terms. Such people have no regard for things such as this country's founding principles; there is not one moment of thought given to that troublesome thing, the will of the American people, the majority of citizens.
Read 'A Darwinian View of Immigration' by Lowell Ponte, at frontpagemag.com
It's not new to promote the idea that America is a tired, effete, decaying country in need of 'revitalization' via immigrants from the 'vibrant' Third World. But Ponte's ravings in this column, based on a supposed conversation with a 'Darwinian' in favor of mass immigration, hits a new low.
As I read this article I was dumbstruck by the surreal quality of the 'Darwinist's' ideas. Are there really sane people in our world who believe that opening the floodgates and transforming a country is a reasonable and ethical policy to pursue? The recent relentless push for open borders and amnesty does suggest that the people behind it are obsessed fanatics, determined to pursue their goals with utter disregard for the citizens of their own countries, and with flagrant disrespect for laws and traditions and principles.
But Ponte's column is like a glimpse into another parallel universe of illogic.
Ponte says: “Those who hide behind laws, including immigration laws, to avoid such competition are committing slow suicide, growing too fat and lazy to survive,” said The Darwinian. “In the long run you can no more outlaw the law of supply and demand than you can outlaw the law of gravity. And there’s a big supply of cheaper labor just across the border..."
So we are all just economic units, and all of life is just a Darwinian competition which we are doomed to lose. And the Mexican illegals, according to Ponte, are superior in their ability to defy our laws and enter our country against our wishes. Their presence in our country proves their superiority and their vigor, so he suggests.
By the same logic, a burglar or home invader must be superior because he succeeds in entering his victim's home. By Ponte's logic, the victim should turn over his home and possessions to the invader because his vigor and strength and intelligence have earned it.
It's chilling to realize that there are many such people, apparently including our elected 'leaders' who see the world in these cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral terms. Such people have no regard for things such as this country's founding principles; there is not one moment of thought given to that troublesome thing, the will of the American people, the majority of citizens.
Read 'A Darwinian View of Immigration' by Lowell Ponte, at frontpagemag.com
Whose America?
Watching recaps of Monday's demonstrations on the news channels, I am struck by several thoughts: first, the most honest coverage was by Lou Dobbs on CNN. Even Fox News, which trumpets its 'fair and balanced' approach, tended towards political correctness in its coverage.
Second, I am ever more convinced, the more I see of the protesters, that they do not grasp even the most rudimentary principles of how our country works, or is supposed to work. The marchers are under the misapprehension that our policy is dictated by whoever musters the largest protest march and shouts the loudest. Come to think of it, maybe it remains to be seen whether they are in fact right; we are approaching the moment of truth, when we will see whether our politicians continue to appease and kowtow to the illegals and their manipulators, or whether they will behave as true representatives of the citizens of this country. The jury is still out.
A question that occurred to me as I was watching the protests in progress the other day was, just what are the illegals protesting? Why are they so angry? From where I sit, they have the media solidly on their side, giving them fawning coverage, whitewashing the ugliness of the slogans, covering up the sporadic violent incidents, and then they have our craven politicians pandering to them and courting them shamelessly. We have a President who is moving heaven and earth to grant them amnesty. We have a Congress full of venal politicians climbing over each other to offer favors to the illegals. What on earth do the marchers have to complain and shout about? It's American citizens who have reason to be marching angrily and making demands.
Many of the illegal protesters carried signs denouncing Bush; this shows their utter ignorance of American politics; they are disparaging their most ardent supporter in America.
John O'Sullivan writes a column in the Washington Times, asking just who are the demonstrations aimed at?
Second, I am ever more convinced, the more I see of the protesters, that they do not grasp even the most rudimentary principles of how our country works, or is supposed to work. The marchers are under the misapprehension that our policy is dictated by whoever musters the largest protest march and shouts the loudest. Come to think of it, maybe it remains to be seen whether they are in fact right; we are approaching the moment of truth, when we will see whether our politicians continue to appease and kowtow to the illegals and their manipulators, or whether they will behave as true representatives of the citizens of this country. The jury is still out.
A question that occurred to me as I was watching the protests in progress the other day was, just what are the illegals protesting? Why are they so angry? From where I sit, they have the media solidly on their side, giving them fawning coverage, whitewashing the ugliness of the slogans, covering up the sporadic violent incidents, and then they have our craven politicians pandering to them and courting them shamelessly. We have a President who is moving heaven and earth to grant them amnesty. We have a Congress full of venal politicians climbing over each other to offer favors to the illegals. What on earth do the marchers have to complain and shout about? It's American citizens who have reason to be marching angrily and making demands.
Many of the illegal protesters carried signs denouncing Bush; this shows their utter ignorance of American politics; they are disparaging their most ardent supporter in America.
John O'Sullivan writes a column in the Washington Times, asking just who are the demonstrations aimed at?
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
"Who's America? We're America!"
Today, across the country, there have been protest marches and rallies by illegal aliens and their supporters. The marches were all over the news channels today, with many images of American flags (quite a contrast with similar marches last week, in which Mexican flags were ubiquitous) and images of white-clad marchers. The accompanying commentary was as uniform as the white shirts the marchers wore; it consisted mostly of glowing, rhapsodic descriptions of the plucky, brave marchers and their rhetoric about the American Dream. We owe it to them, you see; we were told so many times today by the marchers and their champions in the news media.
The slogan of today was 'Somos America' -- or in English, 'We are America.'
The New York Daily News account was typical, entitled
Give Us Piece of Dream
By Nicole Bode, Leslie Casimir, and Corky Siemasko
Tens of thousands of hidden New Yorkers emerged from the shadows yesterday to demand federal legislation that would make the American Dream a reality for millions of undocumented immigrants.
Is this country big enough for all of us, the tens of millions of newcomers as well as the hundreds of millions of us who inherited this country? The utopians among us think it is, provided we xenophobic old-timers learn our place, and stand aside to make way for a Hispanic-dominated America. It is clear that we are expected to yield, to accommodate, to adjust, and to assimilate. To ask the new arrivals to do so would be an imposition, and worse, it would be xenophobic and ethnocentric, and just plain mean-spirited.
Columnist Eugene Robinson, in the Washington Post wrote a column headlined 'Can you say Bienvenidos?' For all of you xenophobes who haven't gotten with the program and learned Spanish, 'bienvenidos' means 'welcome.' We are expected to welcome those who are claiming our home, and 'deal with it,' as Robinson says.
'Deal with it.' This is essentially the message being given to us by our elected 'representatives.'
We, the people of the United States, have been demoted. We are not the proprietors of our sovereign country anymore, it seems; just one more group of tenants, subject to eviction, it seems.
The slogan of today was 'Somos America' -- or in English, 'We are America.'
The New York Daily News account was typical, entitled
Give Us Piece of Dream
By Nicole Bode, Leslie Casimir, and Corky Siemasko
Tens of thousands of hidden New Yorkers emerged from the shadows yesterday to demand federal legislation that would make the American Dream a reality for millions of undocumented immigrants.
They streamed across the Brooklyn Bridge and marched down Broadway from Chinatown and Washington Square Park chanting, "Who's America! We're America!" in English and a dozen other languages.
Marching to the beat of Korean drummers and waving flags from Mexico, Trinidad, Poland and myriad other countries, they were united by a dream shared by earlier immigrants - a dream as red, white and blue as the U.S. flags they also carried...
Who's America? It would seem that we, who have been America up until now, are being challenged by the new kids; those 12 million (or is it more like 20 million, as the Bear Stearns estimate says) who arrived unbidden, and now say the old homestead belongs to them? If the newcomers are America, what are we?Is this country big enough for all of us, the tens of millions of newcomers as well as the hundreds of millions of us who inherited this country? The utopians among us think it is, provided we xenophobic old-timers learn our place, and stand aside to make way for a Hispanic-dominated America. It is clear that we are expected to yield, to accommodate, to adjust, and to assimilate. To ask the new arrivals to do so would be an imposition, and worse, it would be xenophobic and ethnocentric, and just plain mean-spirited.
Columnist Eugene Robinson, in the Washington Post wrote a column headlined 'Can you say Bienvenidos?' For all of you xenophobes who haven't gotten with the program and learned Spanish, 'bienvenidos' means 'welcome.' We are expected to welcome those who are claiming our home, and 'deal with it,' as Robinson says.
'Deal with it.' This is essentially the message being given to us by our elected 'representatives.'
We, the people of the United States, have been demoted. We are not the proprietors of our sovereign country anymore, it seems; just one more group of tenants, subject to eviction, it seems.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Who we are: A nation of immigrants?
Lately we are told frequently by the media and by our political classes that we, Americans, are 'a nation of immigrants.' A google search on this phrase produces some 46,800,000 hits.
Yet how true is this phrase? It seems to imply, among other things, that America has no distinct character or culture; it is merely a tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which anyone is invited to come and write whatever he wishes. Each successive wave of newcomers, then, would superimpose his own culture and customs, and whichever group was most numerous would succeed in remaking America to their specifications. This seems to be the goal of the latest groups of immigrants: not to join an existing America, but to reshape America.
There is an implication also that America is strictly a creation of all the colorful 'melting-pot' immigrants; it is lately claimed that 'immigrants built America', or that they 'made America great.' This diminishes the contribution of the original colonists and settlers of America.
Reading the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke from the year 1775 tells us something about the character of the American people as they existed then. In his 'Speech on Conciliation With the Colonies', Burke said:
"In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole: and as an ardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and intractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think is the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people of the earth...First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted fro your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles...The colonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and principles."
Remember, Burke's description is of an America before the days of mass immigration. It would seem, then, that the main characteristics of the American spirit were present even before this country declared independence from England. And whatever else characterizes America, surely most people would agree that the love of freedom and the 'fierce spirit of liberty' was the contribution of the earliest colonists to America. America was a great country because of these high ideals, and later generations of immigrants became Americans by adopting these ideals and the commitment to defend liberty. All true Americans, regardless of national origin, share these traits with the early English colonists. To immigrate here, in earlier eras, implied acceptance of these American ideals.
Without the distinctive contributions of the original English settlers and their particular character, without the ideals which shaped the founding of this country, America could never have become the magnet which drew the later waves of immigrants. To say that the immigrants 'made this country what it is today' is to diminish the role of the original colonists and Founders.
Our current Politically Correct orthodoxy has decided that the Founding Fathers were just 'dead white males', not worthy of respect or deserving of any credit. In some kind of perverse upside-down hierarchy, immigrants are the true makers of this country, and newer immigrants are accorded more status than the original settlers of this country and their descendants. Our founding heroes have been disparaged and removed from their rightful place, while new arrivals, even those who entered illegally, are treated with deference.
Perhaps we are now a nation of immigrants, or at least a nation for immigrants.
Yet how true is this phrase? It seems to imply, among other things, that America has no distinct character or culture; it is merely a tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which anyone is invited to come and write whatever he wishes. Each successive wave of newcomers, then, would superimpose his own culture and customs, and whichever group was most numerous would succeed in remaking America to their specifications. This seems to be the goal of the latest groups of immigrants: not to join an existing America, but to reshape America.
There is an implication also that America is strictly a creation of all the colorful 'melting-pot' immigrants; it is lately claimed that 'immigrants built America', or that they 'made America great.' This diminishes the contribution of the original colonists and settlers of America.
Reading the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke from the year 1775 tells us something about the character of the American people as they existed then. In his 'Speech on Conciliation With the Colonies', Burke said:
"In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole: and as an ardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and intractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think is the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people of the earth...First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted fro your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles...The colonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and principles."
Remember, Burke's description is of an America before the days of mass immigration. It would seem, then, that the main characteristics of the American spirit were present even before this country declared independence from England. And whatever else characterizes America, surely most people would agree that the love of freedom and the 'fierce spirit of liberty' was the contribution of the earliest colonists to America. America was a great country because of these high ideals, and later generations of immigrants became Americans by adopting these ideals and the commitment to defend liberty. All true Americans, regardless of national origin, share these traits with the early English colonists. To immigrate here, in earlier eras, implied acceptance of these American ideals.
Without the distinctive contributions of the original English settlers and their particular character, without the ideals which shaped the founding of this country, America could never have become the magnet which drew the later waves of immigrants. To say that the immigrants 'made this country what it is today' is to diminish the role of the original colonists and Founders.
Our current Politically Correct orthodoxy has decided that the Founding Fathers were just 'dead white males', not worthy of respect or deserving of any credit. In some kind of perverse upside-down hierarchy, immigrants are the true makers of this country, and newer immigrants are accorded more status than the original settlers of this country and their descendants. Our founding heroes have been disparaged and removed from their rightful place, while new arrivals, even those who entered illegally, are treated with deference.
Perhaps we are now a nation of immigrants, or at least a nation for immigrants.
Forgetting Who We Are
"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history.
Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster. " - Historian Milan Hubl, quoted by Milan Kundera in 'The Book of Laughter and Forgetting'
We in America are witnessing the above process in our country, in our lifetime. Our origins as a country, our past glories and accomplishments, the principles that guided the creation of our country, are all being distorted in our media and our written records. In many cases, they are being effaced, and history being rewritten to serve an agenda. Our nation's history, our culture, have been deemed politically incorrect, and therefore they are being altered.
Generations are divided as the younger among us no longer know anything of the America of their grandparents; they know only that it was a flawed America, and a source of guilt and shame. Even some of the older generations are now coming to accept the revised history instead of their own recollections or the accounts of their elders.
My purpose is to challenge this liquidation of the memory of America and the assault on our identity; the constant campaign of the media and our academic and political elites. My purpose is to preserve, in whatever small way I can, the truth of America, of our people, our nation, and our original ideals.
My allegiance is as an American, not as a follower of any political party, but as a traditionalist American. As such, I have to stand against the excesses and follies of the liberalism which pervades our whole Western society today. Both political parties are part of the problem; we have no real left and right as much as we have shades of liberalism.
The dilemma we are facing now amounts to this: liberalism, with its dangerous commitment to openness and absolute tolerance, is leaving us vulnerable to destruction. We as a people have to find our way back to the original ideals of this country or face our 'liquidation', in the words of Hubl above.
We in America are witnessing the above process in our country, in our lifetime. Our origins as a country, our past glories and accomplishments, the principles that guided the creation of our country, are all being distorted in our media and our written records. In many cases, they are being effaced, and history being rewritten to serve an agenda. Our nation's history, our culture, have been deemed politically incorrect, and therefore they are being altered.
Generations are divided as the younger among us no longer know anything of the America of their grandparents; they know only that it was a flawed America, and a source of guilt and shame. Even some of the older generations are now coming to accept the revised history instead of their own recollections or the accounts of their elders.
My purpose is to challenge this liquidation of the memory of America and the assault on our identity; the constant campaign of the media and our academic and political elites. My purpose is to preserve, in whatever small way I can, the truth of America, of our people, our nation, and our original ideals.
My allegiance is as an American, not as a follower of any political party, but as a traditionalist American. As such, I have to stand against the excesses and follies of the liberalism which pervades our whole Western society today. Both political parties are part of the problem; we have no real left and right as much as we have shades of liberalism.
The dilemma we are facing now amounts to this: liberalism, with its dangerous commitment to openness and absolute tolerance, is leaving us vulnerable to destruction. We as a people have to find our way back to the original ideals of this country or face our 'liquidation', in the words of Hubl above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)