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.
0 comment Thursday, July 3, 2014 | admin
There has been quite a flurry of MSM commentary on Bush's amnesty-which-is-not-amnesty.
Much of it has been disappointing. For example, one stalwart on the issue has been Tony Blankley of the Washington Times, but his editorial today, 'The price of secure borders', counsels surrender to the amnesty plan. It's a reasonable price to pay for border security, says Tony.
Is this the way it is going to go, with conservatives being bought off by Bush's insincere talk of enforcing our laws? It seems to be a trend, judging by the op-ed pieces I have been reading.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, one of the supposed dissenters in the sell-out Senate, has been striking a tough pose, but in his op-ed piece, also in the Washington Times, he seems to be sounding very conciliatory, and not as tough as we have been led to think.
I am beginning to think that much of the tough posturing we have been hearing in recent days was just for show, and when push comes to shove in the Senate, they will all fold like cheap tents and go along with the president and with McCain-Kennedy.
Richard Brookhiser, writing at the New York Observer, is surprisingly critical (for him) of the president and his amnesty scheme. But unsurprisingly he says some rather inane things, like this passage:
We may thank God that we share our border with Mexico, not the Maghreb. Profound differences divide the cultures of the United States and Mexico, and Chicano radicals talk of the Southwest in irredentist terms, as if hoping to refight the battle of Buena Vista. But they are not suicides or homicides or innocent-killing, virgin-craving holy men. Even as the illegal aliens among us are many times more numerous than our terrorist enemies, so they are many times less dangerous.
This particular bit of reasoning, saying that illegal Mexicans are to be preferred to crazed suicide bombers from the Middle East, is heard among the Bush supporters, who are prone to grasping at straws in defense of their hero's irrational policies. As a compliment to Mexicans, it's rather left-handed; just about anyone, presumably, is a better potential neighbor than an exploding terrorist. But have I not read somewhere that more people are killed in our country by illegals than have been killed by 'insurgents' in Iraq? I will have to look up the statistics on that. Be that as it may, this argument that illegal Mexicans are at least not Islamic fanatics is a particularly unpersuasive argument for welcoming them; it's cold comfort, in my book. It seems to imply some inevitability; a kind of resigned fatalism and passivity; sort of 'well, we can't stop our country being invaded, so at least Mexicans are more compatible invaders.' What kind of flaccid response is that? Why can't we protect our borders and preserve our country, or are we reduced to choosing merely who will invade and conquer us?
Brookhiser does admit that unchecked immigration is a danger, but in true neocon fashion. puts his ultimate faith in the good old engine of assimilation; everybody succumbs eventually, so we are told; they will all fall prey to the MTV/Hollywood/hiphop/American Idol pop culture juggernaut. And that promise is supposed to cheer us up.
Finally, a slanted little article from USA Today, 'Center ties hate crimes to border debate', by Kevin Johnson, slanders anti-illegal activist groups as being 'racists'. The authority cited in the headline is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a radical, extreme leftist group which is very free in designating others as haters and 'racists'. Funny, the article and the SPLC make no mention of hate groups like La Raza, MEChA, the Mexica Movement, the Voz de Aztlan, and the rest of the Latino hate groups. It's typical of the MSM to apply the 'hate' label selectively, always towards majority Americans and patriotic groups, never towards the Latino extremists. I suppose this follows in line with the Politically Correct dictum that only white people can be guilty of racism.
It's this kind of PC totalitarianism that is putting Americans at a huge disadvantage in defending our country. As long as any kind of self-defense is condemned as 'hate' and 'racism' what chance do we have? The only chance is to reject this rigged game which liberalism has set up, and to refuse to play the game any more.
While our media and political elites seem to be ready to surrender, I still see some spirit of defiance in the real people of the country. We are not all as easily fooled or as easily bought as our supposed leaders.
Much of it has been disappointing. For example, one stalwart on the issue has been Tony Blankley of the Washington Times, but his editorial today, 'The price of secure borders', counsels surrender to the amnesty plan. It's a reasonable price to pay for border security, says Tony.
Is this the way it is going to go, with conservatives being bought off by Bush's insincere talk of enforcing our laws? It seems to be a trend, judging by the op-ed pieces I have been reading.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, one of the supposed dissenters in the sell-out Senate, has been striking a tough pose, but in his op-ed piece, also in the Washington Times, he seems to be sounding very conciliatory, and not as tough as we have been led to think.
I am beginning to think that much of the tough posturing we have been hearing in recent days was just for show, and when push comes to shove in the Senate, they will all fold like cheap tents and go along with the president and with McCain-Kennedy.
Richard Brookhiser, writing at the New York Observer, is surprisingly critical (for him) of the president and his amnesty scheme. But unsurprisingly he says some rather inane things, like this passage:
We may thank God that we share our border with Mexico, not the Maghreb. Profound differences divide the cultures of the United States and Mexico, and Chicano radicals talk of the Southwest in irredentist terms, as if hoping to refight the battle of Buena Vista. But they are not suicides or homicides or innocent-killing, virgin-craving holy men. Even as the illegal aliens among us are many times more numerous than our terrorist enemies, so they are many times less dangerous.
This particular bit of reasoning, saying that illegal Mexicans are to be preferred to crazed suicide bombers from the Middle East, is heard among the Bush supporters, who are prone to grasping at straws in defense of their hero's irrational policies. As a compliment to Mexicans, it's rather left-handed; just about anyone, presumably, is a better potential neighbor than an exploding terrorist. But have I not read somewhere that more people are killed in our country by illegals than have been killed by 'insurgents' in Iraq? I will have to look up the statistics on that. Be that as it may, this argument that illegal Mexicans are at least not Islamic fanatics is a particularly unpersuasive argument for welcoming them; it's cold comfort, in my book. It seems to imply some inevitability; a kind of resigned fatalism and passivity; sort of 'well, we can't stop our country being invaded, so at least Mexicans are more compatible invaders.' What kind of flaccid response is that? Why can't we protect our borders and preserve our country, or are we reduced to choosing merely who will invade and conquer us?
Brookhiser does admit that unchecked immigration is a danger, but in true neocon fashion. puts his ultimate faith in the good old engine of assimilation; everybody succumbs eventually, so we are told; they will all fall prey to the MTV/Hollywood/hiphop/American Idol pop culture juggernaut. And that promise is supposed to cheer us up.
Finally, a slanted little article from USA Today, 'Center ties hate crimes to border debate', by Kevin Johnson, slanders anti-illegal activist groups as being 'racists'. The authority cited in the headline is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a radical, extreme leftist group which is very free in designating others as haters and 'racists'. Funny, the article and the SPLC make no mention of hate groups like La Raza, MEChA, the Mexica Movement, the Voz de Aztlan, and the rest of the Latino hate groups. It's typical of the MSM to apply the 'hate' label selectively, always towards majority Americans and patriotic groups, never towards the Latino extremists. I suppose this follows in line with the Politically Correct dictum that only white people can be guilty of racism.
It's this kind of PC totalitarianism that is putting Americans at a huge disadvantage in defending our country. As long as any kind of self-defense is condemned as 'hate' and 'racism' what chance do we have? The only chance is to reject this rigged game which liberalism has set up, and to refuse to play the game any more.
While our media and political elites seem to be ready to surrender, I still see some spirit of defiance in the real people of the country. We are not all as easily fooled or as easily bought as our supposed leaders.