0 comment Tuesday, October 7, 2014 | admin
Lately, with the depressing speech by President Bush and the even-more depressing weak media responses to it, I have been feeling burned out on this whole debate. The whole situation is so profoundly frustrating. Seeing the swift slide downward of my once-strong country, and the seeming betrayal by the powers-that-be is very demoralizing. And feeling so much ire and righteous indignation for my country is tremendously draining over the long term.
I can only hope that this present wrangling over amnesty will somehow re-galvanize patriotic Americans, in the wake of this propaganda blitz meant to wear down the opposition to open borders.The boilerplate being put out by the MSM and the party hacks is much like the wartime propaganda, when one side drops pamphlets telling the enemy to 'surrender; you can never win; your cause is hopeless.' That's what we are hearing from the media, and there is an air of torpor in some quarters.
We who are patriots need something to re-energize us, to rally us. Above all, we have to resist letting the enemy wear us down.
Our opposition has no good arguments on their side; all they have is relentless repetition of various slogans and agitprop, (a 'nation of immigrants', 'hard-working people', 'out of the shadows', and so on ad nausaeum) and various 'big lies' which they keep hammering on: '12 million undocumented', 'forced to come here to survive', 'solid family values' and so on).
When these emotional catchphrases and cliches and half-truths and whopping lies fail, there is always name-calling and accusations. The trusty race-card is tattered from its frequent use.
I've also noticed how often the Latino apologists resort to excessive emotion and hysterical-sounding rhetoric, as in this quote from a guest on Lou Dobbs today. Miguel Perez said:
what do we do? What are we saying, then? Are we saying basically, "Look, we're going to just sit around and keep the 12 million people, who we don't know who they are. We don't know where they live." And then the argument, we're not going to deport them. It's illogical to deport them. OK, so what the argument is then is that we are going to starve them out of the country. I wouldn't do that to an animal.
These histrionics were accompanied by a raised, shrill voice and gesticulations. This seems to be the preferred style with many of the Latino spokesmen. Is it politically incorrect to notice? I have yet to see a Latino apologist or pundit give a cogent, objective, calm argument for their side. And I have yet to see one who was willing (or able?) to see the bigger picture, as in what is best for America as a whole, for everybody; instead, it's all about their people, and oddly 'their people' are always their ethnic kin, not their fellow Americans. Perez, for one, is apparently a naturalized American who has lived here since age 11, for 40-odd years, and yet he seems to feel more kinship with the illegals from Mexico than with his American adopted countrymen. The same holds true for many other prominent Latinos. Case in point: Geraldo Rivera, American-born and bred, seemingly aligning himself with the illegals. Similarly, Latina 'conservative' Linda Chavez, also pro-amnesty. These people are not isolated examples.
America is dividing up into ethnic camps, but only 'generic Americans', who identify solely as Americans, are supposed to be objective and self-sacrificing. We are supposed to step aside and defer to all the other rival ethnic groups with their particular, insular agenda, while we must be all-tolerant and accommodating. This situation is highly unnatural as well as being grossly unjust; it can't obtain forever.
At what point will we Americans be granted the same right to look out for our interests? When hell freezes over? Or when we finally say 'not no, but hell no' to Political Correctness?
To paraphrase that old line about war, we've got to end liberalism before it ends us.
I can only hope that this present wrangling over amnesty will somehow re-galvanize patriotic Americans, in the wake of this propaganda blitz meant to wear down the opposition to open borders.The boilerplate being put out by the MSM and the party hacks is much like the wartime propaganda, when one side drops pamphlets telling the enemy to 'surrender; you can never win; your cause is hopeless.' That's what we are hearing from the media, and there is an air of torpor in some quarters.
We who are patriots need something to re-energize us, to rally us. Above all, we have to resist letting the enemy wear us down.
Our opposition has no good arguments on their side; all they have is relentless repetition of various slogans and agitprop, (a 'nation of immigrants', 'hard-working people', 'out of the shadows', and so on ad nausaeum) and various 'big lies' which they keep hammering on: '12 million undocumented', 'forced to come here to survive', 'solid family values' and so on).
When these emotional catchphrases and cliches and half-truths and whopping lies fail, there is always name-calling and accusations. The trusty race-card is tattered from its frequent use.
I've also noticed how often the Latino apologists resort to excessive emotion and hysterical-sounding rhetoric, as in this quote from a guest on Lou Dobbs today. Miguel Perez said:
what do we do? What are we saying, then? Are we saying basically, "Look, we're going to just sit around and keep the 12 million people, who we don't know who they are. We don't know where they live." And then the argument, we're not going to deport them. It's illogical to deport them. OK, so what the argument is then is that we are going to starve them out of the country. I wouldn't do that to an animal.
These histrionics were accompanied by a raised, shrill voice and gesticulations. This seems to be the preferred style with many of the Latino spokesmen. Is it politically incorrect to notice? I have yet to see a Latino apologist or pundit give a cogent, objective, calm argument for their side. And I have yet to see one who was willing (or able?) to see the bigger picture, as in what is best for America as a whole, for everybody; instead, it's all about their people, and oddly 'their people' are always their ethnic kin, not their fellow Americans. Perez, for one, is apparently a naturalized American who has lived here since age 11, for 40-odd years, and yet he seems to feel more kinship with the illegals from Mexico than with his American adopted countrymen. The same holds true for many other prominent Latinos. Case in point: Geraldo Rivera, American-born and bred, seemingly aligning himself with the illegals. Similarly, Latina 'conservative' Linda Chavez, also pro-amnesty. These people are not isolated examples.
America is dividing up into ethnic camps, but only 'generic Americans', who identify solely as Americans, are supposed to be objective and self-sacrificing. We are supposed to step aside and defer to all the other rival ethnic groups with their particular, insular agenda, while we must be all-tolerant and accommodating. This situation is highly unnatural as well as being grossly unjust; it can't obtain forever.
At what point will we Americans be granted the same right to look out for our interests? When hell freezes over? Or when we finally say 'not no, but hell no' to Political Correctness?
To paraphrase that old line about war, we've got to end liberalism before it ends us.
Labels: Borders