0 comment Saturday, July 12, 2014 | admin
From the Project USA website, a list of the "top ten reasons for flooding the country:"
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 Please see the website for Project USA's answers to the above arguments.
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.
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.
0 comment Saturday, May 31, 2014 | admin
The White House gathering for a number of talk radio personalities is reported as a bid to shore up the conservative base of the GOP before the upcoming election.
Is this even necessary? Most of the 'conservative' talk radio personalities are already full-time cheerleaders for the GOP and the administration, to wit: Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and perhaps Laura Ingraham. I have not heard Ingraham's show lately, but from what I recall of her, she was less of a shameless shill than Limbaugh or Hannity, however.
Recalling the recent case of black pundit Armstrong Williams, who was apparently paid by the administration to talk up the 'No Child Left Behind' program, it's hard not to be cynical about this effort to shepherd the 'conservative' radio pundits in an appropriately loyal direction. I don't say that they are being bribed to be cheerleaders for the administration, but surely the privilege of access to the White House and the administration is a powerful incentive for some people to take a favorable view. And of course, with the talk radio personalities not being journalists in the purer sense of the word, the lack of a bothersome code of ethics leaves them free to take whatever perks they might be offered in exchange for a friendly stance, and for putting out the talking points to their listeners. It may be that they are just 'entertainers' as Limbaugh styles himself, and it may be that they are true believers, who are in lockstep with the administration (they certainly give a convincing performance, if they are not) or whether they are being offered some kind of incentive, as Williams was -- who knows. The result is the same: I no longer look to talk radio, even 'conservative' talk radio for true conservative viewpoints. Outside the blogosphere, there is almost no real conservatism in the media, and that commentary which is labeled 'conservative' is often simply neocon or right-liberal boilerplate. It seems as though the 'conservative' media, or that which is labeled as such, is just a means to get people on board with the neocon agenda, and to define the conservative debate in a more liberal direction, further limiting it and marginalizing true conservatives as 'extremists'. That seems to be the purpose in mind.
But I expect to hear the talking points issued from talk radio with a renewed fervor after this little garden party.
Is this even necessary? Most of the 'conservative' talk radio personalities are already full-time cheerleaders for the GOP and the administration, to wit: Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and perhaps Laura Ingraham. I have not heard Ingraham's show lately, but from what I recall of her, she was less of a shameless shill than Limbaugh or Hannity, however.
Recalling the recent case of black pundit Armstrong Williams, who was apparently paid by the administration to talk up the 'No Child Left Behind' program, it's hard not to be cynical about this effort to shepherd the 'conservative' radio pundits in an appropriately loyal direction. I don't say that they are being bribed to be cheerleaders for the administration, but surely the privilege of access to the White House and the administration is a powerful incentive for some people to take a favorable view. And of course, with the talk radio personalities not being journalists in the purer sense of the word, the lack of a bothersome code of ethics leaves them free to take whatever perks they might be offered in exchange for a friendly stance, and for putting out the talking points to their listeners. It may be that they are just 'entertainers' as Limbaugh styles himself, and it may be that they are true believers, who are in lockstep with the administration (they certainly give a convincing performance, if they are not) or whether they are being offered some kind of incentive, as Williams was -- who knows. The result is the same: I no longer look to talk radio, even 'conservative' talk radio for true conservative viewpoints. Outside the blogosphere, there is almost no real conservatism in the media, and that commentary which is labeled 'conservative' is often simply neocon or right-liberal boilerplate. It seems as though the 'conservative' media, or that which is labeled as such, is just a means to get people on board with the neocon agenda, and to define the conservative debate in a more liberal direction, further limiting it and marginalizing true conservatives as 'extremists'. That seems to be the purpose in mind.
But I expect to hear the talking points issued from talk radio with a renewed fervor after this little garden party.