I observe politics a lot. I understand a lot about how people of different political stripes think. Sure, there are many times that I see things that don't make sense -- but I can often eventually determine why certain types of people support certain positions, even if I disagree with them. But sometimes, when a group contradict themselves, I just don't get it.
For example, I understand Democrats. Heck, most today admit they don't like freedom, and most of their positions are anti-freedom, so they're consistent. They dislike the military, so they dislike war. They dislike freedom, so they support socialized medicine. In general, they honestly believe in utopia if the right people are in charge. Now I don't agree with all that insanity, but I understand it. But the one I don't understand is the "People cannot be illegal" signs.
When Democrats and Socialists take this position, it makes logical sense. But when libertarians, who claim to like liberty, take this position, I'm rather confused.
You see, freedom is what America used to be. 50-100 years ago if you wanted to know anything about freedom, you simply looked at America. This was the ONE place in the world where you could really find freedom. I love freedom. Freedom has been declining a lot in America over the last century, yet it's still the most free place in the world. But those who support open borders are actively working to destroy freedom!
Stay with me -- In order to have freedom in the world today, you need the America of the last century. America was based on freedom -- "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." America was built upon personal responsibility and rugged individualism. Freedom was ingrained in every citizen from their birth. When the world wars appeared, Americans didn't hesitate to fight for freedom around the globe -- the Marine Corps Hymn even says, "First to fight for right and freedom." Freedom and American culture were synonymous.
Then came multiculturalism. This radical departure from the last 200 years was a new philosophy that claimed that every other culture on the planet was just as valid, just as good as the American culture. Whether you were from a third-world terrorist country, or a cannibal from the jungles of South America, your ideas and culture were just as good as America -- as good as freedom. Multiculturalism demanded that Americans accept all other cultures, no matter their values.
So today, those who support open borders and unlimited migration are saying that the socialist system that has made Mexico a third-world country is just as good as freedom. Those who cry out "No Human is Illegal" are saying that freedom is no better than socialism. If we cannot agree that the unique American culture of the past 200 years based on freedom is not better than living in a monarchy or tyrannical dictatorship, then America is indeed lost.
To those who would call yourself "pro-open borders" and pro-liberty or pro-freedom at the same time, I would suggest you're contradicting yourself -- and one of your positions is going to lose. It is looking like the position that's going to lose is the freedom-based, uniquely American position.
1
America was built upon personal responsibility ..sorry bro thats not in vogue any longer...great read ~!
Posted by: Angel at June 14, 2007 04:36 PM (lvUvZ)
2
In Vogue? Heck, it's pretty much against the LAW these days!!
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at June 14, 2007 04:46 PM (oifEm)
3
What has happened to personal responsibility inside the U.S. Justice Department? Eight DA's were fired and NOBODY has taken personal responsibility for the firings. If the leaders of this great Republic don't set a good example, why should anyone else?
Posted by: Bull Run Yankee at June 15, 2007 04:40 AM (EsBr1)
4
America's Multiculturalism used to be called the "melting pot", no?
What makes America unique is that our multi-cultures co-exist and are assimilated into the American way of life.
When you visit other countries they have ONE culture (Japan, China, Africa, Latin America) and tourists stand out. Here in America we can eat in Japanese, Chinese, Ethiopian, Mexican, Middle Eastern restaurants and nobody knows if you are an American-born Muslim serving in the National Guard or if you are a Middle-Eastern Muslim visiting the USA.
Posted by: Bull Run Yankee at June 15, 2007 04:51 AM (EsBr1)
5
The balance of individual freedom and the individual's responsibility to the nation was something the Founders took great care to address. When it gets out of whack (i.e. illegal immigration), we experience problems. WRT the firings of the attorneys, it seems to me that's neither here nor there. It's actually pretty standard practice for the attny gen'l of an administration to do a "clean sweep" of the existing US attorneys and replace them with new ones...Gonzales only sacked 8. The fact that he can't come up with good reasons may make him an idiot, but certainly not unethical or a criminal.
Posted by: Nathan Tabor at June 15, 2007 06:01 AM (HQYcw)
6
Excellent post, Ogre!
America has strayed so far from what our Founders intended. They wouldn't recognize her now. Breaks my heart.
Posted by: Always On Watch at June 15, 2007 09:33 AM (h/YdH)
7
Thanks for stopping by, everyone!
Bull Run Yankee, you're exactly right on the melting pot -- people used to come to America to JOIN America and become part of it. Now immigrants bring their own culture with them even when it opposes American culture. Did you know that the crappy government education system no longer teaches the "melting pot" theory? Instead they teach that it's a "tossed salad" -- so other cultures can join WITHOUT assimilating. I say if your non-American culture is so good, go back to where you came from and have your culture!
And indeed, Nathan, personal responsibility used to be a big thing -- but it's simply not allowed any more. Government will not allow me to take responsibility for myself, they insist on taking that away from me -- and that's just plain wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2007 10:07 AM (XQnlX)
8
Ogre, did you know there is a difference between first generation and later generation immigrants?
For example, first generation Italian immigrants brand new to New York City during late 1800's moved into the same tenement building as others from the same village that was their home in Italy. Why do you think they did that?
Well, they didn't speak English, so they could learn their way around NYC quicker by speaking Italian with their friends from the old country. They could find jobs with some help from their Italian friends who introduced them to their bosses where they worked. And they could trust their friends from the old country because they are all beginning a new life in America, but their families in the old country may have known each other for generations.
They immediately recognized that English-speaking people advanced farther and more rapidly. Even Latino immigrants today know that English-speaking guys are chosen first by the American driving the car to pick them up and take them to the work-site, and the English-speaking Latinos always get the better jobs than the Spanish-only-speaking day workers get.
Second-generation immigrants are educated alongside American children and by the time they finish their education they speak English as well or better than their local classmates, and they definitely want to be "cool" by American standards. They are assimilated into American culture, except they have a much stronger work ethic than their American friends.
Posted by: Bull Run Yankee at June 16, 2007 07:39 AM (EsBr1)
9
Nathan, it has been customary for in-coming presidents to replace all the politically-appointed District Attorneys with new, qualified people who agree on most issues with the new president's policy. Perhaps you didn't know that this was the first time in U.S. history that U.S. Attorneys were fired while in the middle of a term where all were actively involved in prosecuting several cases. It is generally thought unwise to change prosecutors during an active trial because the prosecution's case will certainly lose some continuity during the transition and will have to try to re-establish credibility with the trial judge and jury. The in-progress trials are put at risk when a prosecuting U.S. Attorney is replaced.
This was not a "clean sweep" as you suggest. It was a deliberate, calculated effort to replace just eight specific Republicans who for some still unknown reasons weren't "Republican enough" to satisfy the political ambitions of George Bush.
During a Congressional Investigation Attorney General Gonzalez made several conflicting statements, sometimes saying he was "intimately involved" in the firings of eight U.S. Attorneys and other times saying he had very little direct knowledge of the eight dismissals. Responsibility for deciding which U.S. Attorneys to fire was never established, and stated reasons switched between "performance-related issues" and "political expediency" and were never resolved or communicated to the interested parties.
It's not that AG Gonzalez couldn't give a good reason for firing any one of the U.S. District Attorneys, it's that he gave two or more different reasons for firing a District Attorney and some people call that lying to Congress. Of course we should expect complete honesty from the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in our government.
WRT the firings of the attorneys, it seems to me that's neither here nor there. It's actually pretty standard practice for the attny gen'l of an administration to do a "clean sweep" of the existing US attorneys and replace them with new ones...Gonzales only sacked 8. The fact that he can't come up with good reasons may make him an idiot, but certainly not unethical or a criminal.
Posted by: Bull Run Yankee at June 16, 2007 08:59 AM (9OdDd)
10
That's how second-generation immigrants USED TO behave. They're not any more. Multiculturalism encourages immigrants to retain their own language and culture -- and forces government and Americans to adapt and learn their language. That's wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2007 12:06 PM (XQnlX)
11
Well, like I said, it looks as if Gonzales didn't have particularly good reasons for firing those attorneys, and whoever was directly responsible, it seems clear that Gonzales is doing a lousy job of running Justice.
I'd like to see him go, and I wish Bush would show him the door, but the fact remains that Gonzales has the right to fire who he wishes (however ill-advised it might be), and the same goes for Bush.
Nothing criminal was done, which is why I believe that Congress's time could be better spent. Do we really need hearings to determine that Gonzales is an idiot?
Posted by: Nathan Tabor at June 16, 2007 05:19 PM (uV2Xy)
12
I want hearings to determine that Gonzalez is an idiot! Please, let's have hearings! The more hearings wasted on stupid crap like this, the less time the Dumocrats have to raise my taxes and pass amnesty bills! MORE STUPID HEARINGS! Yay, waste of time!
Posted by: Ogre at June 17, 2007 12:52 AM (XQnlX)
13
Immigration without Assimilation=Annexation.
Just ask Santa Anna.
Posted by: Skyler the Weird at June 18, 2007 01:03 AM (KkQmZ)
14
Indeed, annexation for Mexico. They ARE taking land away from America, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. We can claim all of CA belongs to the US, but it's simply no longer true.
Posted by: Ogre at June 18, 2007 01:32 PM (oifEm)
15
If a Democratic administration fired 8 DA's who were prosecuting Hillary Clinton I bet you'd be calling for impeachment!
China already owns $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. But that doesn't make for good television news, does it?
Posted by: Bull Run Yankee at June 22, 2007 04:14 PM (wyUSq)
16
Honestly, I don't think so. I understand that all DAs serve the administration and the sole job of the executive branch is to determine what crimes to prosecute.
Posted by: Ogre at June 23, 2007 03:10 PM (XUuuV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
