Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Happy Socialist, Anarchist, Illegal Alien Day

I'm not going to get a chance to post much on this new day of arrogance. I've let my U.S. Senator from Cuba know I loathe him. I've ranted to a few friends who still don't see the threat that the interlopers pose to their children, and I wrote one comment on a blog.

That's what I'm copying over here. First, I'll repost the original pabulum:

howl

Count my voice among those who are today marching and asking for a path to citizenship for immigrants in this country. Look, I know they broke the law by coming here (I won't even get into how suspect it is for countries to set their own laws on immigration and expect citizens of another country to just follow them), but what right do we have to demand that they not enter our borders? For all America is doing wrong, it is still the most free country in the world and the one most able to provide a good life for its inhabitants. How can we expect people to not come to this country if we can offer them such a better life than the one they have in other countries? How can we, and especially myself and other Christians, tell people to not come to us even though we can help them? Since when is the saying on the Statue of Liberty about "bring me your huddled masses..." a epithet without meaning?

Too often we americans forget that our history is, in certain areas, largely one of breaking laws and theft and questionable citizenship. We stole land from the indians and just arbitrarily said it was ours; it's not like we Americans were the first ones on the scene here. We fought wars to gain our own independence because we believed that America could hold a better life. We welcomed immigrants from Europe from the thousands, laying the groundwork for the America we have today with our rich differing cultures and dialects and traditions. We are not a nation of indigenous peoples. We are a nation built on a history of huddled masses, immigrants, poverty-stricken farmers, religious freedom-seekers, soldiers, land-grabbers, and dreamers.

How can we deny anyone else in this whole world the same thing? Happy May Day, everyone.




Katie's Dad said...

When Emma Lazarus rises from the dead and proves she was a founding father, not some PR-Stunt poetry contest winner, then I might have a thimble of compassion for an illegal alien. But probably not then, either. For she was nothing more than a foil for a newspaperman's quest for profit. No figure in American history is more over-promoted. It's just sick to base policy that determines who we are, and what sort of fate-in-nation awaits our ancestors, upon that blithering tripe of a poem. Really.

Being romantically distracted by baseless ideals while deadly serious issues like sovereignty and societal cohesiveness are at stake is the epitome of stupidity.

Instead, I'm informed by Thomas Jefferson who wrote:"In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."

George Washington said, prescriptively: "Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles."

John Jay wrote, also prescriptively: "I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."


As a Christian, you'd be better served by thinking about the plight of the people these interloping opportunists leave behind; the poverty they exacerbate back home; the broken families; the elderly with no youth to support them in a a community; the tacit support your compassion gives to despots who are relieved to see the departure of those who are most physically able to threaten their corrupt status quo; and, most importantly, the detrimental impact upon the futures of America's children that such an unprecedented influx surely portends. Do you ever think about that stuff? Or has the romanticism for the "needy other" completely made you blind to
the needs and best interests of your own?

Is it OK if one in five of our residents has no connection to, empathy for or sense of stewardship on behalf of those who fought and bled and died to start this grand experiment? Even if that assures that heritage is erased? And even if the loss of that heritage puts an end to the experiment?

If so, please send your kids to schools built in the shadow of your new Tower of Babel; but, please, make provisions for mine to go to schools in which english is the only language allowed to be spoken. While you're at it, give my little girl a place to grow up in which this nation's sense of Providence is allowed to thrive without being held hostage to the influence of those who would sell it all out on a whim.

I was tempted to beat the author up over his asinine "we stole the land from the indians" crap, but I figured he'd not be able to digest any additional de-programming thoughts in one post.


Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Ultimate Goal of Tolerance: Self Extinction?

From Lawrence Auster's View from the Right, a commenter posits this gem:

Is the Islamic takeover of Europe inevitable?

In the end, I think things are going to get much, much worse before they get better, precisely because liberals refuse to accept the most common sense limitations on the principle of tolerance. They risk discrediting tolerance altogether by making it synonymous with self-extinction. An outpouring of hatred and violence is almost certain to erupt at some stage, since nowhere do people gladly suffer replacement of their own people civilization by that of others. A tipping point must eventually be reached, and when it does, the reaction could be spasmodic and bloody. This can easily be avoided, but liberals are determined to see this suicidal path through to the bitter end, such is their devotion to a program which I think even they suspect is daily darkening the future of mankind.
I'd not considered the end game that comes part and parcel with today's politically-correct definition of the word tolerance. While I have to ponder it a bit, my initial thought is that this is probably true. While the post thread from which this comes is in regard to the Islamification of Europe, I think it equally applicable to the United States.


Technorati tags:

Labels: , , , ,

|

Monday, April 16, 2007

McCain Wouldn't Know Conservatism If...

...it bit him on the ass.

This just doesn't square.
G.O.P. Candidates Lay Into Democrats, Not One Another - New York Times

“The Republican Party — and conservatism generally — are a philosophy of strength,” he said. “Military strength, economic strength, personal strength and family strength.”

-Senator John "I never met an amnesty I didn't love" McCain

How could a person with any scruples whatsoever fish for votes with such soaring language when what he says runs so contrary to his grandest desire as a politician: giving amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens and setting off an unprecedented chain migration?

Please bear with me as I parse this quote and expound on the double meanings:

  1. "Conservatism is a philosophy of strength," but I believe our nation is weak and needs help from millions of indentured servants.
  2. "Conservatism is a philosophy of military strength," but let's disregard the fact that America's political-philospher founders warned against submitting to or leveraging into too strong influences and alliances with foreign powers.
  3. "Conservatism is a philosophy of economic strength," as long as the government is made stronger than the people through control of people's purse strings.
  4. "Conservatism is a philosophy of personal strength," as long as people don't display it in the form of speech too close to an election.
  5. "Conservatism is a philosophy of family strength," and we can't get enough of those strong Mexican families and we can't be deterred by mere citizens who because they want to keep their heritage will stand in the way .
It seems like every day Senator McAmnesty just keeps giving this Conservatives like me more reasons to despise him. Even if I didn't believe with all my heart and soul that the man truly wants to sell my child's future to the highest big-business bidder via amnesty, there's always his McCain-Feingold subversion of the First Amendment, his opposing tax cuts that work and his support for the gay agenda.

But even if none of those things were the case I'd still oppose him with all my being; my political gut and human instinct tell me that he is an evil person. When I see or hear him speak, it sets off alarms within me that have never been wrong in the 27 years I've been involved in political campaigns. It took an awful lot of working for candidates who set off my "creep-o-meter" before I started paying attention to my senses. The lesson has sunk in: I won't ever again vote for someone for whom I have such a visceral distrust.

The bottom line: I loathe John McCain and wouldn't vote for him if satan himself were on the other side - how would I choose between two equal evils?

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Quote of the Day Double Header!

I'm a big fan of clarity, which is probably the element most lacking in this debate over mass and illegal immigration. If our ancestors could witness it, they'd think it was some bizarre case study in how not to govern the nation and the liberty for which they pined and bled and died.

Here are a couple of fantastic quotes from two equally important op-eds I found today:


RealClearPolitics - Articles - Bush's Immigration Defeatism

Bush’s failings at the border mirror his failings in Iraq. In both places, he underestimated the need for security and order and has undertaken a push for them only belatedly. In both places, he was motivated by a good-hearted belief in the essential fungibility of people. He thought that Iraqis naturally would have the same desires as Westerners; and on the border, he assumes that Mexicans are seamlessly interchangeable with Americans, since they seek employment here. In Iraq, he has tried to compensate for his mistakes. On the border, he seems hopeless.

Those who hold that there is any form of ethics, morality or human good in promoting "the fungibility of people" are probably the most evil people around these days. Lowering humanity to commodity status is a very subtle evil; there is little that would torture me more than having to associate with people who have no qualms that their path to enrichment subjugates the most vulnerable and helpless while displacing those just marginally less vulnerable and helpless.

And while I'm on the topic of subjugation...

An immigration bill for 'plantation owners' - Newsday.com

Now, we have neo-plantation owners, inheritors of the "Gone With the Wind" class, seeking to set national policy. Perhaps, in their greed and shortsightedness, those who depend on non-free labor - slaves back then, illegals and "guest workers" today - are so blindly eager for short-term profit they are willing to saddle the rest of the country with long-term problems of multiculturalism and balkanization, made all the worse by welfare-state dependency. Exploitative employers brought the whirlwind to this country once, and now they want to do it again.

Let me reiterate a portion of the immediately previous post:


How many American children must have their lives permanently altered for the worse before their plight starts to matter to those who misplace their compassion only with interlopers while ignoring the needs and futures of our native sons and daughters?
I rue the repurcussions of our having huge, slave-labor-class diasporas living adjacent to our neighborhoods when the next serious economic downturn happens or when the next inevitable well-coordinated attack comes courtesy "the religion of peace" and requires both our unified diligence and ability to communicate with each other clearly. We now have huge resident masses of other-tongued, foreign-allegiant peasants who think that and behave as if the United States exists solely for their convenience. Is it reasonable to think they will be easily pacified when their jobs, their access to the government teat and our tolerance for anyone lurking in the shadows disappears due to calamity?

I'm afraid it's going to get really, really ugly if we don't remove them fairly, incrementally, and soon.

Technorati tags:, ,

Labels: , , , ,

|

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Demographers Bassackward

This is laughable:

Census: Immigration helps big metros - 04/05/2007 - MiamiHerald.com

"Immigrants are filling the void as domestic migrants are seeking opportunities in other places," said Mark Mather, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau, a private research organization.
Might it ever occur to demographers that a big reason for the "void" is the characteristic "otherness" of the very influx of immigrants they suggest that cities need? Here, and in most current dialog regarding immigrants and cities in America, demographic cause and effect are presented as ass-backwards as possible by "experts."

For a counter-example, here is my own experience: I truly loved my hometown while growing up and as a young adult in S. Florida as it morphed from a small city into part of a vital coastal megalopolis. But in recent years, thanks to bad immigration policy and lax enforcement of law, the character and culture of the growth factors took a turn for the worse. My family and I came to view the large foreign-born population infusion as not a healthy or neighborly benefit at all; rather, we learned it presented contrary belief system wedges that frequently made us uncomfortable in our own home. When culture, language and heritage are first challenged by others in a subtle manner and eventually overtly denigrated by ungrateful "wretched refuse," something has to give.

And in our case, it was us who gave in and fled. The rapid demographic shift fomented such a cultural arrogance on the part of the newcomers that living there became intolerable. Our reaction to mass immigration is not unique, it is prevalent and growing.

It only takes quick a look through my old MS Outlook contacts and retired Rolodex cards to see the obvious: I held out hope for my former home a lot longer than most of my high school classmates, college friends and former business associates. The exodus of my social and business cohort from South Florida was caused by the "otherness" of alien immigrants and our correct perception of their disrespect for our way of life, and that of our ancestors. Now our replacement population shows every intention of remaining allegiant-in-diaspora to their former homelands through the generations.

I'd like to tell the demographers where they can stick their asinine assumptions.

The article continues:
Advocates for stricter immigration laws question whether a stable, or even a shrinking population, is bad.

"Don't we have concerns about congestion and sprawl and pollution?" asked Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stricter immigration policies.

"Maybe those metro areas should think about what it would take to make Americans want to live there," Camarota said.
If only our leaders understood that this last point is far more important to cities' health than importing cheap labor that spurs the rancor that accompanies diversity and multiculturalism. I suppose the onerous aspects of mass immigration are felt more keenly by those of us who were raised to believe, correctly, that a nation exists to promote and strengthen its culture; that is has a duty to honor ancestral legacy; and that it carries a prescription for a pathway to assure that there remains a birthright legacy for future generations to cherish.

It is traditional Conservative impulses that lead people to flee cities inflicted with the results of the mass-immigrationist mentality, regardless of the evacuees' political persuasion. The unwelcomed replacement of Americans in metropolis should serve as a forewarning that all is not well with the status quo.

Screw political correctness. This invasion must end.


Technorati tags:

Labels: , , , , , ,

|

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Core Lessons: Unique American Culture

This piece was originally written either in the late 1990's or in 2000. It has existed in various versions, most of which were longer. When it came to writing something I wanted to leave for my kids to read, I decided to pare it down and tighten it up.

This is the result from early 2002:

Yes, there is a "unique American Culture"

Patriotic Americanism must continue to prevail over the desires of those who wish to deny that there is such a thing as "a unique American culture." Our ancestors anticipated attempts to lead our nation down a path to balkanization and expected us to stand fast against them. We must consistently refute lies that contend America was founded by and populated by people possessing broadly diverse perspectives and ideals. The ideas behind concepts like multiculturalism and diversity were anathema in the America of 1776 and for nearly 200 years thereafter.

In their faith, habits and principles, the first American citizens were a most narrowly diverse lot, separated only by slight variations in Christian denomination. In their ethics, morals and values, the first Americans could only be described as virtually homogenous. It was the similarity not the diversity of our forefathers and founders that set the stage for America to become a great nation.

Those who advocate diversity and multiculturalism as being historically important to this nation's greatness are dangerously wrong. Using their twisted logic, we are to believe that the ideals driving Islamic terrorists to fly planes into buildings are societally compatible with the motivations that drive Presbyterian women to have fundraising bake sales. Diversity theory places Christian Baptism on par with Animist ritual mutilation of baby girls' genitalia. Diversity theory blindly accepts into our midst hordes of incompatible, poorly educated, virtually aliterate(if not outright alingual) illegal alien border-jumpers from third-world Kleptocracies because it is supposedly in keeping with "the things for which this nation stands." There is no doubt that our founders would be nauseated by such absurd notions.

Thomas Jefferson expressed concern about this issue in "Notes on Virginia" (brackets added for clarity):

"…But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles.

Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies [the equivalent of today's despots, tyrants and kleptocrats]. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."

Jefferson chafed at the thought that we could, by inaction, surrender our homogeneity and he was greatly concerned that we might! All this banter about diversity and multiculturalism would have given him fits.

Nothing exemplifies how far we have strayed from the intentions and dreams of our founders more clearly than our current immigration policy. Yes, immigration is an important part of our history. But nobody from the pro-immigration camp wants to discuss the fact that the none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were immigrants, they were colonist and British subjects. Every member of the Constitutional Convention of 1789 except Alexander Hamilton was born in the colonies. The absolute truth is that the vast majority of our first citizens were Americans by birth and the vast majority of Americans have always been "citizens by birth." We have never had as many as 15 percent of our residents being of foreign origin.

Cast in this proper light, the "nation of immigrants" mantra to which we are constantly subjected becomes tritely idiomatic. If we are to be strictly precise, our history is one forged by colonists who became the first American citizens via revolution. These originals were augmented by immigrants who were eager assimilants: All Americans. Before and until the immigration reforms of 1965, between one quarter and one third of all migrants to this land could not adapt and ended up leaving. Those who came here "seeking a better life" without possessing the all-important corollary "dream of becoming American" were roughly cast aside by a society that was decidedly intolerant of selfish opportunists who didn't want to "get with the program." Promoting diversity for the sake of diversity is as accepting of malignancies as it is of the benign; it will always be an utterly stupid practice.

The only way in which we can assure America's long-term continued success as a sovereign nation is to establish new policies promoting American cultural homogeneity via imposing strict limits on the number of immigrants, demanding rigorously-enforced visa and border laws and insisting that all new arrivals submit to and successfully complete compulsory "patriotic assimilation" courses soon after their arrival. Those who cannot accept our unique culture, mores and values as their own, forsaking all others, should be summarily returned to their countries of origin.

Technorati tags: ,

Labels: , , , , ,

|