0 comment Wednesday, October 22, 2014 | admin
The mood of heaviness that seemed noticeable on the heels of the president's speech seems to be lifting, as a few sane voices are heard over the usual MSM noise and blather.
Diana West, a reliable voice of sanity at the Washington Times, writes a piece called 'Too little, too late'.
I wonder how many Americans, listening to President Bush bringing his too-little, too-late immigration address to a close, felt like he ran out of track when he concluded: "We honor the heritage of all who come here...because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans, one nation under God," end of speech. Every allegiance-pledging American, of course, on hearing the phrase, "one nation under God," automatically adds "indivisible," not to mention "with liberty and justice for all." The president did not. It's likely that Mr. Bush simply didn't wish to sign off with the final words of the Pledge of Allegiance, which would have been out of place. Still, he invoked the pledge, and ended up omitting "indivisible." Purposeful or not, the omission is apt. We -- if I may say "we" to indicate the United States of America -- are anything but "indivisible" at this sorry point in history, and, as a perilous result, we think and we act less and less like a "nation."
A nation has borders and defends them. "We" do not. Otherwise, building a fence against an unprecedented invasion by Mexico wouldn't be considered a harsh and radical position in the political mainstream. A nation has laws and upholds them. "We" do not.'
'...A nation defines itself as a nation. "We" certainly do not. We are, as we are endlessly told, a Nation of Immigrants, a concept that blows to smithereens the unique nature of the "nation" to which immigrants have traditionally assimilated: the European-derived, mainly Anglo-Saxon polity, born of the Enlightenment and extraordinarily blessed by Providence, which the current president is now rapidly phasing out. '
'I have this terrible feeling I finally understand what a "compassionate conservative" is: an emotional train wreck. It's time to get a grip and build a fence -- a pledge, possibly, to become indivisible again. '
Amen to that.
And the stalwart Dimitri Vassilaros at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes a lighter piece 'Dubya's Mexican disconnect'. He makes the sensible though implausible proposal that Bush threaten a punitive tax on remittances to Mexico unless Vicente Fox acts to stop the flood of illegals. I think Vassilaros description of the Bush-Fox duo is hilarious though accurate:
'Bush seems so comfortable playing Johnny, the surreal thumb and index finger hand puppet, to Fox's Senor Wences.'
Funny, but sad at the same time. But sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying.
(The allusion to Wences, who was a Spanish ventriloquist with a very strange though funny act, might be lost on the younger generation, though.)
Finally, Ann Coulter's wry comment, 'Read my lips: no new amnesty' also displays some humor as well as a no-nonsense approach to the amnesty question. I like this bit:
Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.'
Although Ann injects some needed comic relief into this distressing subject, she obviously means business. When one reads Mark Steyn, for example, on the immigration issue, one gets the impression that he is completely detached; his tone is flippant and cavalier. There is no indication of real passion there, and no hint that Steyn has any partisan feeling on the fate of the West. Coulter has only lately started to address the immigration issue, but she at least seems to be emotionally engaged, unlike the elusive Steyn.
As long as we have a few sound-thinking and lucid people to argue our case, as long as there is still the old-fashioned American spirit as displayed in these articles, maybe we Americans still have a chance.
Diana West, a reliable voice of sanity at the Washington Times, writes a piece called 'Too little, too late'.
I wonder how many Americans, listening to President Bush bringing his too-little, too-late immigration address to a close, felt like he ran out of track when he concluded: "We honor the heritage of all who come here...because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans, one nation under God," end of speech. Every allegiance-pledging American, of course, on hearing the phrase, "one nation under God," automatically adds "indivisible," not to mention "with liberty and justice for all." The president did not. It's likely that Mr. Bush simply didn't wish to sign off with the final words of the Pledge of Allegiance, which would have been out of place. Still, he invoked the pledge, and ended up omitting "indivisible." Purposeful or not, the omission is apt. We -- if I may say "we" to indicate the United States of America -- are anything but "indivisible" at this sorry point in history, and, as a perilous result, we think and we act less and less like a "nation."
A nation has borders and defends them. "We" do not. Otherwise, building a fence against an unprecedented invasion by Mexico wouldn't be considered a harsh and radical position in the political mainstream. A nation has laws and upholds them. "We" do not.'
'...A nation defines itself as a nation. "We" certainly do not. We are, as we are endlessly told, a Nation of Immigrants, a concept that blows to smithereens the unique nature of the "nation" to which immigrants have traditionally assimilated: the European-derived, mainly Anglo-Saxon polity, born of the Enlightenment and extraordinarily blessed by Providence, which the current president is now rapidly phasing out. '
'I have this terrible feeling I finally understand what a "compassionate conservative" is: an emotional train wreck. It's time to get a grip and build a fence -- a pledge, possibly, to become indivisible again. '
Amen to that.
And the stalwart Dimitri Vassilaros at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes a lighter piece 'Dubya's Mexican disconnect'. He makes the sensible though implausible proposal that Bush threaten a punitive tax on remittances to Mexico unless Vicente Fox acts to stop the flood of illegals. I think Vassilaros description of the Bush-Fox duo is hilarious though accurate:
'Bush seems so comfortable playing Johnny, the surreal thumb and index finger hand puppet, to Fox's Senor Wences.'
Funny, but sad at the same time. But sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying.
(The allusion to Wences, who was a Spanish ventriloquist with a very strange though funny act, might be lost on the younger generation, though.)
Finally, Ann Coulter's wry comment, 'Read my lips: no new amnesty' also displays some humor as well as a no-nonsense approach to the amnesty question. I like this bit:
Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.'
Although Ann injects some needed comic relief into this distressing subject, she obviously means business. When one reads Mark Steyn, for example, on the immigration issue, one gets the impression that he is completely detached; his tone is flippant and cavalier. There is no indication of real passion there, and no hint that Steyn has any partisan feeling on the fate of the West. Coulter has only lately started to address the immigration issue, but she at least seems to be emotionally engaged, unlike the elusive Steyn.
As long as we have a few sound-thinking and lucid people to argue our case, as long as there is still the old-fashioned American spirit as displayed in these articles, maybe we Americans still have a chance.