Friday, August 21, 2015


I SUPPORT 
MARK STEYN


The Trumping of Party
by Mark Steyn

Steyn on America
August 17, 2015

Donald Trump has now said that he would reverse President Obama's executive amnesty for "DREAMers" - illegal immigrants who've been here since they were children - and deport every last member of the Undocumented-American community. The amnesty for the kids was supposed to prefigure an amnesty for their parents - for what mean old politician would advocate breaking up families? But, as he told NBC's Chuck Todd, Trump plans to keep the families together by deporting every single one of them:
"We're going to keep the families together, but they have to go," he said in the interview, which will air in full on NBC's "Meet the Press" this Sunday.
Pressed on what he'd do if the immigrants in question had nowhere to return to, Trump reiterated: "They have to go."
"We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don't have a country."
Now there's a campaign slogan.
But he's gone beyond that. Trump has - ta-da! - a policy paper:
1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
In other words, as every functioning society understood until two generations ago, immigration has to benefit the people who are already here. Government owes a duty to its own citizens before those of the rest of the planet - no matter how cuddly and loveable they might be. The fact that it is necessary to state the obvious and that no "viable" "mainstream" candidate from either party is willing to state it is testament to how deformed contemporary western politics is. Trump may not be a "real" Republican or a "real" conservative, but most of his rivals are not "real" - period, as Carly Fiorina would say.
There seems to be some dispute among the consultant-industrial complex as to whether Trump's rise comes from his seizing the immigration issue or because folks are just enjoying the show - like "Breaking Bad" star Bryan Cranston:
"I actually like his candor," Cranston said. "There's something so refreshing about shaking up that world that is all about being handled and here comes this loose cannon who has terrible ideas and would be a horrible president, but there's something great about his 'I-don't-give-a-shit' attitude that really kind of keeps others honest."
On the other hand, when it's a subject that both parties are evasive and dishonest about, maybe the issue and the I-don't-give-a-sh*t candor are perfectly aligned.
The retort that Trump is not a "real" Republican or a "real" conservative would of course be a devastating criticism had "real" Republicans and "real" conservatives" in Washington managed actually to "conserve" anything during their time in office. Fiscal prudence? Constrained welfare? Private health care? Religious liberty? There's no point to a purity test for a party that folds more reliably than the White House valet. As I've said, for the Republican establishment the issue is Trump; for a large part of the base the issue is the Republican establishment.
And among the broader citizenry, where elections are decided, the GOP's complaint is entirely irrelevant. It's not often that I find the pajama boys of Vox.com worth reading, but this Ezra Klein column makes an interesting point:
It's not that Trump is a moderate Republican. It's that he's a moderate, full stop. And he's the kind of moderate that really exists, not the kind of moderate Washington likes to pretend exists.
What, after all, is a "moderate"?
The way it works, explains David Broockman, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, is that a pollster will ask people for their position on a wide range of issues: marijuana legalization, the war in Iraq, universal health care, gay marriage, taxes, climate change, and so on. The answers will then be coded as to whether they're left or right. People who have a mix of answers on the left and the right average out to the middle — and so they're labeled as moderate.
But when you drill down into those individual answers you find a lot of opinions that are far from the political center. "A lot of people say we should have a universal health-care system run by the state like the British," Broockman told me in July 2014. "A lot of people say we should deport all undocumented immigrants immediately with no due process."
Because the first position is "left" and the second position is "right", the pollsters split the difference and label such a person a "moderate". But he isn't actually a moderate, so much as bipartisanly extreme. In practice, most "moderates" boil down to that: They hold some leftie and some rightie positions. The most familiar type of "moderate" in American politics are the so-called "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" red governors of blue states - Christie Whitman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki and (in his Massachusetts incarnation) Mitt Romney. In practice, they usually turn out to be not all that "fiscally conservative" because it turns out the social liberalism comes with quite a price tag.
Suppose there were a countervailing force to the fiscally conservative, socially liberal type? Fiscally liberal, socially (or at any rate culturally) conservative. Recent elections in Europe suggest there's no shortage of voters who like their welfare checks, free health care, state pension plans ...but don't see what any of that has to do with letting the country fill up with fanatical Muslims hot for sharia and female genital mutilation. Once upon a time the old left-wing parties represented that interest, but the British Labour Party and most European social democratic parties abandoned that market when they got hot for multiculturalism and diversity.
Is there a similar constituency in America? In other words, people who like their Medicare and food stamps ...but, like Trump, think there are too many unskilled Mexican peasants flooding into a country with ever diminishing social mobility and no hope of economic improvement without a credential that requires taking on a quarter-million dollars in debt. As Trump's detractors see it, he's just a reality-show buffoon with a portfolio of incoherent attitudes that display no coherent worldview. But very few people go around with a philosophically consistent attitude to life: Your approach to, say, health insurance is determined less by abstract principles than by whether you can afford it. Likewise, your attitude to the DREAMers may owe more to whether your local school district is collapsing under the weight of all this heartwarming diversity.
Presumably, if you're one of these bipartisanly extreme moderates, which of your incoherent positions is more pressing on election day determines your vote. The question then is whether large numbers of the electorate are as concerned about immigration as Trump purports to be. Via Mickey Kaus, for example, I found this nugget in a new paper by that David Broockman fellow quoted up above:
On immigration and abortion citizens tend to think the entire range of elite policy debate is too far to the left.
But on abortion one of the two parties at least talks the talk, even if it does nothing. On immigration both parties are engaged in a conspiracy against the American people. One party gets cheap voters and Big Government dependents; the other gets cheap labor and a chocolate on its turned down coverlet in the junior suite. The Democrats made a smarter deal. The Republicans signed a demographic death warrant. Yet Jeb! and the other alleged non-buffoons in the race have to be dragged kicking and screaming to get beyond the most ludicrous sentimentalist pap on the subject. If a "real" Republican is someone who toes the party line on a suicide mission, why be surprised that voters seek reality elsewhere?
The experts are still assuring us that the next Trumpian infelicity - after Mexicans, McCain and Megyn - will be the one that causes his campaign to self-destruct. You could be waiting a long time. As Ann Coulter says, the quickest way to get rid of Trump is to steal his issue and run with it.


I SUPPORT 
MARK STEYN







.
.

126 comments:

  1. LOL! Steyn's another gutless wonder. When I read him going after Wal-Mart and Tyson, then I'll believe he give's a rats behind about this issue.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We learn much more about Jersey McJones from what he says about Mark Steyn than we learn about Mr. Steyn.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Hey Jersey man, why dont you pack it in yer ass already. Gutless wonder? Why? Because he goes after your darling communist causes? Give it a rest already. Yer an Obama fanboy and yer all hot for Hillary, we get it. You got no ideas, no new thinking, just communist propaganda farted out the asses of the likes of the OWS retards and blackliesmatter.

      Sheeesh, what a patsy you are. Can't you think for yourself for crissakes?

      Delete
    5. He's a gutless wonder just like the rest of you cowards. Build a wall! No more anchor babies! Send them all home - even children born here a decade ago! Racist pansies. When I see the anti-illegal immigration crowd start going after the employers who make unauthorized workers SEVEN PERCENT OF THE F'N WORKFORCE, then I'll believe they are not all a bunch of phony, bigoted, sissy punks. Steyn should go back to Canada.

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Jersey, you should have quit while you were behind –– just a little. Now, you've gone all the way back to zero.

      Delete
    8. Your Jersey boy is less than zero.

      He's changing the subject. I don here nobody on our side standing up for the dirty bastards who hire illegals. It's no friggin different than scab labor.

      Back before Dems went all stupid and communist, they used to stand up for the American worker.

      Coward, Jersey? You try bustin your ass at a construction site all day for wages drug down by illegals, you pamperd pussy.

      Delete
    9. Biff, you're a bit mixed up, buddy. The LABOR Movement is essentially a MARXIST-COLLECTIVIST initiative. Unionism and the thuggish tactics of union bosses, many of whom are nothing more than GANGSTERS have all-but DESTROYED the Founders' Vision.

      It isn't the illegal aliens who WORK that are causing social and economic problems, it is the illegal aliens who come here to drop ANCHOR BABIES, get on WELFARE, CRIPPLE our EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM with non-English-speakng children, GRAB all the FREE STUFF they can get, and participate in GANGS perpetrating DRUG-RELATED CRIMES and WORSE who are the problem.

      It is the idiotic willful MIS-interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gives "Birthright Citizenship" to anything excreted from ANY womb that happens to be on American soil coupled with the promise of unlimited amounts of FREE STUFF that acts as a MAGNET for the most UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS to come here from abroad.

      Yiur thinking is BASSACKWARDS, Biff, old boy.

      B-A-S-S-A-C-K-W-A-R-D-S!

      Delete
    10. Them aint babies working construction, Mr FreeThinke. Unions is all we got left. I ain't mixed up.

      You's right about tha achor baby thing. Just droppin a baby here don't make it on citizen.

      Somebody's gotta stand up for the working man. I aint heard no socialism talk from the union folks, and yea, there may be some corruption there, but they are getting us jobs, unlike the washington politicians

      Delete
    11. Biff, you shouldn't assume what other people do or have done. When the Republicans tell you that they simply refuse to do anything about illegal immigration unless and until the borders are completely secure, a mammoth and completely unnecessary undertaking purely for the political consumption of dumb people, they are saying they refuse to do anything about the lure that brings them in and keeps them here. The conservatives WANT the status quo.

      In order to fix this we have to have to IRS that works and is properly sized and financed. That's how you end illegal immigration.

      JMJ

      Delete
    12. Jersey, please stop LYING about what Republicans would or would not do about the problem of Illegal Aliens running amok all over the country –– an undesirable phenomenon openly encouraged and greatly expanded under the perpetually prevaricating Obama Administration.

      BOTH parties share responsibility for this situation having reached Critical Mass, and I have never said otherwise. Please READ MY COMMENTS and those of others who identify as conservative before delivering one of your broadsides. It would greatly improve your image, if you did. ;-)

      FULMINATION is always an unworthy substitute for COGITATION.

      Delete
    13. FT,
      BOTH parties share responsibility for this situation having reached Critical Mass, and I have never said otherwise.

      EXACTLY!

      Delete
    14. Lying?

      Again, When the Republicans tell you that they simply refuse to do anything about illegal immigration unless and until the borders are completely secure, a mammoth and completely unnecessary undertaking purely for the political consumption of dumb people, they are saying they refuse to do anything about the lure that brings them in and keeps them here.

      That's not a lie. That IS reality.

      They do NOT want to deal with the employment issue because 75% of ag workers are immigrants, and the big ag states are Republican power bases. Also, the GOP needs to keep the issue alive. They have politically boxed themselves into this position. The Democrats may not have the answers you like, but they do have answers. The GOP has NOTHING but a stupid stupid stupid wall.

      JMJ

      Delete
    15. JMJ said:

      They do NOT want to deal with the employment issue because 75% of ag workers are immigrants, and the big ag states are Republican power bases.

      Is that correct? California isn't a Republican power base.

      The answers which the Democrats have -- as I understand those answers -- do not adequately address border security. Democrats want to do nice things for the illegals already here. But we must stop more from coming in -- insofar as possible, that is.

      Furthermore, having 300,000-400,000 anchor babies born here every year is unacceptable. They are soaking up medical resources, for one thing. For example, an illegal immigrant pays $10 at a pharmacy clinic, but a bona fide American citizen pays at least $100, even with insurance.

      Delete
    16. Jersey,

      What the F? The IRS is going to solve the problem? Are you batshit?

      Yeah, go after the businessmen who hire scabs, and the repubs aint no better, but dammit ya gotta fix the border first, or we'll just get another wave like what happened in the 80's.

      C'mon man, think.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't want to be deleted QUIT the NAME-CALLING.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Okay, but what about what MARK STEYN says in THIS article?

      Delete
  4. That you chose to write your OPINION is fine. OPINION however is not PROOF and therefore is of little to no consequence to me. And it never is!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To whom have you addressed that remark, and what ARE you trying to say?

      The cryptic, apparently irrelevant, little quips are no help whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  5. Most of us understand we have a immigration problem, but we also understand that treating people like trash and fantasizing about killing them is not the way to solve this human problem. Like the "good" Dr. Carson does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

      And please don't embellish your opinions with inflammatory rhetoric. NO ONE I know on the Right has talked abut KILLING anyone, although occasionally we joke among ourselves about how vastly improved the nation's prospects would be if certain Democrats were to expire asap. Please don't tell you members of your "side" don't do the same, because I have always traveled in wide circles and I've HEARD them with my own two ears.

      Delete
    2. FT, the other day, Carson, that idiot, said we should use drone strikes on the border. I think that's what ALM is saying. Oh, and again, he's another GOP moron whom I can't find saying a single thing about e-verify or other employment issues. Just more dumb, dopey, stupid border-war nonsense.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Betty Battles, Sgt, USAAugust 23, 2015 at 1:05 PM

      Jeresy McJones, YOU are the idiot! Drones do other things beside kill people, like surveillance.

      Why you gotta call Dr Carson names? He's about 100 times smarter than you, moron.

      Delete
  6. Can you imagine the cries of RACISM if a Black person was fired and/or denied a job simply because they were a member of the Black Panthers or NAACP?

    It’s kind of *funny* how ANYONE in America can do or be anything they want to be, well, unless you’re a White guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean Paul Dindonmanger said

      Ca va sans dire. C'est trop obvieuse.

      Delete
  7. Trump plans to keep the families together by deporting every single one of them.

    That won't happen.

    But what should happen: every single criminal of any kind -- burglary, fraud, assault, etc. -- should be deported with his family.

    If Ann Coulter is correct, the 14th Amendment has been abused beyond belief. See FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT. Excerpt (emphases mine):

    ... In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

    He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

    The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment," the court explained -- and not for the first or last time -- "was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

    American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.

    Of course it's easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924."...

    [...]

    As the Supreme Court said in Elk: "[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."

    The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan's crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.

    Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America's most-cited federal judge -- and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop "awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States."

    The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was "to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves," adding that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution" if it passed a law "to put an end to the nonsense."...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, AOW, for that MOST VALUABLE contribution. I wish there were a way to post it PERMANENTLY on the face of every intelligent blog.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      On Monday, I will have a blog post about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. I hope to see a lively discussion of this important matter.

      Delete
  8. your attitude to the DREAMers may owe more to whether your local school district is collapsing under the weight of all this heartwarming diversity.

    HEAR! HEAR!

    This is happening in Northern Virginia -- to the point that native American citizens who are native not by dint of the 14th Amendment cannot get a decent education. Funds for ESL programs are consuming much of everything other program, particularly the program for average students.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see this as a serious MISUNDERSTANDING of the term "Dreamers."

      Many of those who qualify as such were brought here as tiny tots, and have lived all there lives AS "Americans" to all intents and purposes.

      Most of THOSE are every bit as proficient in English as any natural-born American citizen (which isn't saying much these days!). Many have been here for DECADES, are gainfully employed, own businesses, own houses, have married American citizens, raised children, and in many instances have even served in the MILITARY –- some with valor in overseas combat. A significant number have gone to college here and earned their degrees.

      I wholeheartedly agree with those who believe that any attempt to DEPORT people of THAT sort is not only IDIOTIC, it constitutes CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, and may qualify as a HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE under the UN Charter.

      The young people who trouble your area so badly, AOW, most probably came here in their mid-to-late teens with parents who came NOT to WORK, but to take ADVANTAGE of the lousy, stinking WELFARE SYSTEM deliberately put in place by DEMOCRATS to ensure themselves PERMANENT INCUMBENCY.

      I cannot emphasize strongly or repeatedly enough that virtually ALL the problems with illegals that plague us now are the DIRECT RESULT of insidious, self-serving machinations by members of the DEMOCRATIC Party.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      I must disagree somewhat. Many who came here quite young are not proficient in English because they speak only their family's native tongue in the home, thus placing a burden on the school systems when these children are enrolled.

      Delete
    3. FT,
      The mercy you support is a laudable thing.

      However, in order to straighten out this mess created by BOTH political parties, draconian measures are now required. Such draconian measures will curb the further invasions. Yes, invasions.

      Delete
    4. I strongly support a sponsoring program different from the one we have now. Any American who is a natural born citizen should be allowed to sponsor an worthy immigrant and his family. Not as indentured servants, but rather as a sort of apprenticeship program with a probation period that would include a later path to citizenship.

      America cannot take in every underprivileged child from every nation.

      I understand that cheese Dreamers want a better life. But if we continue on the present path, the American Dreamwill die for everyone.

      We ne d a new paradigm. Trump doesn't have the perfect pant, that's for sure, but we must start somewhere.

      Delete
    5. Using a iPad. Please forgive my typos.

      Delete
    6. "I strongly support a sponsoring program different from the one we have now. Any American who is a natural born citizen should be allowed to sponsor an worthy immigrant and his family."

      NOW, you're talking. ;-)

      Draconian Ine-Size-Fits-All legislation is AWAYS erroneous. That is why I so often quote Mr. Dickens and say, "The LAW is an ASS."

      The only exception I, personally, would make would be in the case of MUSLIMS living un the WEST.

      Common sense alone should inform us that it is far farFAR too dangerous to allow this lurking, hulking, glowering, ravening EVIL to take root and grow on OUR soil.

      Islam is NOT a RELIGION it is an INVASION an ABOMINATION, and a DIRE THREAT.

      Delete
    7. FT,
      Immigration reform -- if there's to be any -- must be accomplished by thinking outside the box.

      I don't see why the kind of sponsorship idea as I've outlined it wouldn't work. There would be accountability required of both the immigrant and the sponsor.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We delete remarks that make no sense, especially when they don't even pretend to pertain to the posted article.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Googly Eyed BastardAugust 21, 2015 at 10:57 AM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jersey, so you mistake this forum for that of the Porn Queen's Stench Trench, FreeThinke, or any of a myriad of reactionary far right wing sites or any number of far left wing sites?

    Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, like you are called here . Many are not. Steyn supporters and if they ate, they are not are that gullible for the most part but that does not make them idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I support Mark Steyn too. I would love to see Mann bludgeoned (legally) with his own hockey stick.

    And Steyn is right on the mark with this article, as always.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why "legally?" It might be more appropriate and more effective if it were done LITERALLY.

      };-D>

      I'd love to see a return to the days when Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys took care of knaves and fools very effectively STRICTLY ON THEIR OWN.

      There's a lot to be said for rustic chivalry, an summary justice administered through vigilantism.

      Delete

  14. I don't doubt you, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely whom do you not doubt, Jessie?

      Mark Steyn?

      SilverFiddle?

      Me?

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is there a reason that the comments I made this morning have not appeared?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been on moderation most of the day, since nearly ALL the comments have either been idiotic, abusive, or downright cryptic at best. When that happens, I lose interest and tend to stay away for longer periods. Sorry your worthwhile contributions got held up as a result.

      As you know, I refuse to let this place be use as a City Dump.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Thanks for retrieving my comments. I spent quite a bit of time composing them.

      Delete
  21. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

    We welcome Conversation
    But without Vituperation.
    If your aim is Vilification ––
    Other forms of Denigration ––
    Unfounded Accusation --
    Determined Obfuscation ––
    Alienation with Self-Justification ––
    We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


    ReplyDelete
  22. From What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means, dated 2007 and very informative, albeit quite complicated (and with split infinitives):

    ...It should be noted that the condition of the father is what determines whether someone is born an alien or not because under U.S. law citizenship of wives and children always followed that of the father. And of course the status of the father was what determined the citizenship of a child born under law of nature.

    [...]

    ...citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances....

    [...]

    ...There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

    If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Amazing that a Congress full of lawyers doesn't seem to know what's in the above essay -- which, clearly, is written for those with legal training.

    I know, I know. "The law is an ass." But we must remember that our Constitution is law, and it is NOT an ass.

    ReplyDelete
  24. stomp, snort, and gruntAugust 21, 2015 at 10:22 PM

    For some Steyn is fine, for others he's like a cheap glass of wine.

    He does articulate his brand well in either case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no accounting for taste. Those who fail to appreciate the charm, grace, wit, infinite wisdom, and great style of Mark Steyn's prose, and his delightful "above-it-all" "happy warrior" stance either have BAD taste –– or NO taste at all.

      ;-)

      Mark Steyn is a fine spokesman for conservative-libertarian principles, but more important than that he's a Merry Old Soul who never fails to communicate with a twinkle in his eye, and often ––– unlike the dour, dreary, captious, humorless, perpetually indignant, sour-mouthed scolding given by the proponents of Cultural Marxism's "Critical Theory" and menacing Socialist-Laborite rhetoric –– Mark Steyn often writes tongue-in-cheek as well, as though daring anybody o take his subject TOO seriously.

      Delete
  25. I have two questions:

    1. Did Donald Trump actually call for mass deportations? He did call for this, which I strongly favor and which any sane person should favor:

    All illegal aliens in gangs should be apprehended and deported.

    2. Did Donald Trump call for rounding up and deporting illegal aliens' children who already have birthright citizenship?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. PoT, we do NOT accept NAME-CALLING and purely spiteful, denigratory posts here from EITHER side.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, AOW, but i had already deleted his post before you answered it. I will not accept stock, cliché insults such "clown car," "T-Baggers," "Saint Ronnie Raygun," "libtard," or even "doofus" here.

      We MUST do our best to help elevate the tone in the blogosphere, and start to address each other in the manner of LADIES and GENTLEMEN once again.

      I see this blog as much as a CLASSROOM as a FORUM for civilized discussion.

      As all who know me ought to realize by now, I am not the least bit interested in trying to win a Popularity Contest.

      Delete
    5. FT,
      Crossed wires, then.

      I was wanting some proof of one of the assertions.

      People make all sorts of assertions; if people can back up those assertions, I'm interested.

      Of course, all deletions are your call.

      Delete
    6. I feel the same way, AOW, but whenever i ask questions in hopes of starting a genuine dialogue almost invariably no one EVER bothers to respond. It's both disappointing and frustrating.

      Delete
    7. FT,
      Yep.

      Let's see what happens when my birthright citizenship post goes up early Monday morning.

      Delete
  26. Sorry for the miss-spell. (Damn I-phone ) spell-correct!

    Purveyor of Truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay. SIRI, or whatever voice recognition system you're using does have its flaws, doesn't it?

      Thank you for correcting your error. As most know, I am a proudly militant member of the Old School, and therefore, a STICKLER for good, standard English usage and correct spelling.

      Delete
  27. Information You DeserveAugust 22, 2015 at 8:08 AM

    Our nation has been hijacked by the commies on the left, and our media is the controlled opposition.....supporting both with lying and even staging events so we follow the program of both these hijackers. They bribe our congressional leaders who have made handsome contributions to their campaigns then bribe them to make laws in their favor and against us.... It was made obvious during the first Bush Presidency, then Clinton's, exploded during Bush Jr.'s and finalized through Obama......these wars of terror are really to terrorize us, to take away our rights and our treasure, to push a global agenda of white guilt to take away our jobs, flood our land with foreigners that have no respect for any laws and force us to accommodate them at our expense. The Donald is the only one that can make a difference right now, for all the rest are beholding to some huge corporations and the Global Agenda of a One World Government run by the UN.

    Even Hillary is endorsing Trump because she knows that shes going to need him for the pardon she will need. after she goes to jail.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Interesting read:

    Illegal Immigration is the Disease and Trump’s Plan is the Cure. Excerpt:

    Democrats want unlimited illegal immigration because they believe it will help permanently cement them in power. On the other hand, many Republican politicians also want unlimited illegal immigration because they're getting huge campaign contributions from businesses that want to profit from illegals while passing the costs on to the American people.

    Of course, the Republicans can't admit that; so the GOP uses its perpetual poor performance with Hispanics to justify its support for amnesty. The only problem is that the evidence has shown time and time again that illegal immigration isn't what's turning Hispanic voters off to the GOP.

    [...]

    ...Donald Trump does have a serious plan to end illegal immigration and as someone who has been fighting amnesty for years, I am profoundly grateful that he put it out. Trump’s plan is a blueprint that Republicans should have been following all along. Some of it, like increasing the number of ICE officers, getting nationwide E-Verify working, a visa tracking system, putting criminal penalties in place for people who overstay their visa and defunding sanctuary cities is fairly standard stuff among everyone who is even marginally serious about dealing with the problem.

    However, even the more supposedly controversial parts of the plan are just common sense.

    [...]

    End birthright citizenship: Contrary to what you’ve probably read this week, the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to illegal aliens and only started doing so in the 1980s because of a footnote slipped into a Supreme Court decision by Justice Brennan in 1982. In other words, this “right” supposedly given to foreigners who enter our country illegally by the 14th Amendment was lying undiscovered for 114 years and we still haven’t had the whole court rule on the subject. Since rulings of the Supreme Court these days hinge on what side of the bed Anthony Kennedy gets up on and whether John Roberts wants to twist himself into a pretzel to avoid controversial rulings, we can’t know how they’d rule, but it is entirely possible they would end the practice of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens if a law were passed. The children of foreign diplomats who are born here do not receive American citizenship because they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of our country. The same argument could also fairly be made about illegal aliens. Granted, it wouldn’t (nor should it) apply retroactively, but it would stop the incredible abuse of our system that allows “birthright tourism” and women who are 8 months pregnant to sneak into our country, have a baby and start receiving welfare soon after. When you consider that 71% of illegal alien households in this country are collecting some kind of welfare program, it gives you an idea of how badly the generosity of the American people is being abused in this area....


    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  29. (continued from above)

    Deport illegals: Trump’s plan alludes to deportations, but doesn’t get very specific about it. On the other hand, he has publicly said, “When people are illegally in the country, they have to go.” This has produced howls of outrage, but it says more about the people who are upset than Trump.

    Simply put: If you don’t punish people who cross the border and enter your country illegally, then you don’t have a border in any meaningful sense. If you say deportation is a bridge too far today, but we’ll deport people tomorrow after we pass a new bill, you’re obviously full of crap and the American people would have to be stupid to take you seriously.

    Now, would Donald Trump or anyone else be able to round up and deport 11 to 20 million illegal aliens? No, but we don’t catch every burglar either. However, whether you’re talking about burglary or illegal immigration, having a clear cut penalty in place and enforcing it goes a long way toward reducing the number of people who are willing to break the law. The woman who has been here illegally for 15 years cheating on her taxes to get earned income tax credits she doesn’t deserve, taking a job that could be held by an American citizen and collecting welfare is no more sympathetic than the burglar who has been robbing people’s homes for 15 years and getting away with it. She might be a nice person if you get to know her, but the guy who stole your flat screen TV last week might also be fun to have a beer with at the local bar. Ultimately, she still broke the law, fully knowing what the penalty would be and guess what? The penalty is more than just. If you’re just deported for coming here illegally, you got off pretty light, especially compared to places like Mexico where you can be put in jail for two years if you enter that nation illegally....

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would also say this....

    If somebody breaks into your house, are you obligated to pay for their children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But much like the fact that the "Jews" were not responsible for ALL of Germany's problems in the 20's and 30s, ILLEGALS are not responsible for ALL of America's (only some of them). And Trump promises no solutions to the "real" crises of capitalism... corporatism.

      Delete
    2. Thersites,
      ILLEGALS are not responsible for ALL of America's (only some of them).

      Agreed. But I clearly see what the children of illegals is costing out public schools in various education programs and huge building additions. Real estate tax is the enemy of those on fixed incomes.

      And Trump promises no solutions to the "real" crises of capitalism... corporatism.

      Which candidate does?

      Delete
    3. Erratum!

      children of illegals is costing should read children of illegals are costing

      Delete
    4. Illegals actually are a help to the non-corporate economy. Corporations seldom hire illegals, small business' do. And they do soas to gain a corresponding competetive economic advantage that allows them to COMPETE with corporations.

      Delete
    5. ...they form a labour "black market" outside of corporate-government domination and control.

      Delete
    6. In other words, the "demand" is out there. You just need to be willing to break the government-corporate regulatory deadlock to access it.

      Delete
    7. ...and not EVERY problems requires a complicate bureaucracy to address it!

      Delete
    8. One day they'll finally figure out that, "We're all in it together"

      Delete
  31. Which candidate does?

    None. It's a stab directly in the eye of the "established" political and economic order. We have passed the "tipping point" however, in its' adaptation. From this point on, corporatism costs more jobs than it creates, and creates an anti-competitive environment harmful to further economic growth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thersites,
      Then, we're stuck with it? For how long?

      Delete
    2. Until the people recognize the actual problem and force politicians to implement policies to discourage further corporate formation, rather than encourage it.

      Democracy does not deal with problems of over-success too quickly or easily.

      Delete
    3. Maybe this will solve the problem of corporatism:

      World’s Richest People Lose $182 Billion in Market Rout

      Nah. Not enough hurt. Yet.

      Delete
    4. ...or until we all live under Shari'a Law... which completely repudiates the corporate form and prevents ANY economic benefits from being acquired from it. In other words, corporations are extremely beneficial to our economy. The problem is, our economy needs a "space" that prevents them from competing with small and start-up enterprises. And no, government small-and minority business set-asides are insufficient (government pick winners and losers, and NOT the market)

      Delete
  32. One thing is certain: Trump is now a force to reckon with -- at least for the time being. See 30,000 turn out for Trump's Alabama pep rally.

    Who else is the 2016 campaign is drawing crowds of that size?

    Obama did in 2008, and he got the nomination. Likely, his getting the nomination wasn't the Dems' original plan.

    Frankly, I think that it's a good thing that he's shaking up the GOP. The candidates are having to weigh in on birthright citizenship. That matter is one that should have had serious discussion back in the days of the Reagan amnesty, IMO.

    The matter of an effective barrier at our southern border is also a matter that needs attention -- real and effective attention. Otherwise, let's annex Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Scott Walker wouldn't take a position on birthright citizenship? Pffffft.

      Delete
    2. You know what else is funny? The Leftwing open-borders people are now in bed with Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson. LOL!

      Delete
    3. The ancient adage holds truer than ever:

      "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

      Delete
  33. A YOOOGE! conservative crowd in Alabama came out to greet the Trumpet and listen to his rambling, incoherent demagoguery. He told them what they wanted to hear, they cheered and grunted their approval. What a bunch of Red Neck Yokles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes you yearn for his upcoming State of the Union speeches, don't it! :)

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. I ditto what Anonymous said

      Delete
  34. I repeat:

    If somebody breaks into your house, are you obligated to pay for their children?

    Look. I love kids. Years ago, right before the Reagan amnesty, I voluntarily paid some bills for a child in my class in a private school. Yes, she was an illegal immigrant.

    I favor individual sponsorship of this type because such individual sponsorship can identify who is worthy of sponsorship and is not. A thug in a middle school class is not! Yes, I've personally dealt with such thugs (anchor babies or illegals themselves) in public school, private school, and the homeschool group with which I'm affiliated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I RESENT AND DESPISE what's happening to my real-estate taxes here in this sanctuary city. Those of us not costing the education system are being forced out.

      Delete
    2. I deeply resent that too, AOW, but I have to tell you that even in the tight, white, highly elite suburban paradise where I was raised, –– a community still devoid of any of the dispiriting foreign influences we're discussing here –– the taxes on my mother and father's modest seven-room house now exceed TWENTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS per annum.

      The taxes on my aunt and uncle's 4500 square foot Tudor-style mansion in Essex County,NJ now exceed THIRTY-ONE-THOUSAND DOLLARS per annum. I doubt very seriously too that THAT community has had to deal with a heavy influx of non-English speaking illegal aliens either.

      I've kept tabs on the old stamping grounds partly out of curiosity and partly for purely sentimental reasons.

      Delete
    3. FT,
      I doubt very seriously too that THAT community has had to deal with a heavy influx of non-English speaking illegal aliens either.

      You might want to check the demographics.

      Reading, PA, used to have a Latino population in the single digits (percentage); it's now up to over 80%.

      Delete
    4. "You might want to check the demographics."

      Oh I HAVE, AOW. That's what i meant when I said I've kept in close touch the past.

      I think Sex, Drugs & Rock 'n Roll bear a much greater weight of responsibility for the social degeneration we've been experiencing than the influx of illegal latinos. I honestly do.

      I know lot of very decent people who LIKE that stuff, but I can see, because I've very deliberately remained aloof all these years that, nice as they are, R'nR has had coarsening, debilitating effect on them. THEY can't see it, but I can.

      No one can step in doo doo without getting his shoes dirty.

      Delete
    5. stomp, snort, and gruntAugust 22, 2015 at 8:27 PM

      Sex and rock and roll are dirty?

      Who knew?

      Delete
    6. Your blissful ignorance of that particular truth is proof of my contention.

      There are lots of people walking around, happily living their lives who din't know that cancerous tumors are growing stealthily among their internal organs and taking over their systems. It's unlikely that most will ever become aware until too late when inescapable death becomes imminent.

      That is exactly what cultural pollution has done to our society.

      Often alcoholics and drug addicts are hopelessly enamored of the very thing that is in fact dragging them down to utter wretchedness.

      Delete
    7. stomp, snort, and gruntAugust 23, 2015 at 10:45 PM

      Ah, FreeThinke you judge too harshly.

      Everything in moderation, nothing in excess.

      Rock and Roll (or rhythm and blues) will not corrupt societal morals nor will sex.

      Things must be viewed in a proper context and ir seems you are focusing on the extreme.

      My comment was in the context of moderation.

      Delete
    8. There can be no moderation in many areas where equivocation is impossible, sir.

      The classic example: Your daughter or mine cannot be "just a little bit pregnant."

      Delete
    9. stomp, snort, and gruntAugust 24, 2015 at 7:30 PM

      True my good sir. Values we have lovingly and diligently school our daughters in will hopefully become their own. Which has been my point really from the beginning, albeit in admittedly obtuse fashion.

      At the end of the day all we can do is hope the values we have taught are accepted. Our offspring are after all individuals with minds of their own.

      Open and honest communication combined with a loving and accepting environment is the best defense against the young making poor choices.

      Lead by example, not force.

      Delete
  35. LETS bring back sense and sanity to AmericanAugust 22, 2015 at 10:54 AM

    I ALSO SUPPORT MARK STEYN, AND I SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP AS WELL!

    Everything in America is now up for grabs, the person that YELLS the most and the LOUDEST get whatever he/she wants. . Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.
    America is being destroyed right before our eyes, and no one seems to care anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  36. After reading these comments, I sincerely look forward to the day, and it's coming soon, that such sentiment will only come from an old, forgotten minority.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  37. Joe the Republican killerAugust 22, 2015 at 4:10 PM

    The Dream Act sounds like a good idea to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  38. Replies
    1. That's what Ike warned about with the MIC. Only that is far, far, faaaaaaar more dangerous and consequential than xenophobic whining.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Overzealous defense of national borders is more "dangerously" consequential than irresponsibly abandoning them? Who knew?

      Delete
  39. Many thanks to AOW and FJ-Thersites & Co. for adding much substance and valuable insight to these comments.

    I thank Jersey too for giving us an eloquent demonstration of precisely how bigoted, and stubbornly obtuse the Opposition can be –– especially when they believe they mean well. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  40. I also thank Jersey for showing so just how ignorant the opposition can be .

    ReplyDelete
  41. LOL! A bunch of stiffs who listen to AM radio called me ignorant! Thanks. I'm honored. I must be the least ignorant man in the world today.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You CAN'T say that, Jersey. ALL you are entitled to say, if you hope to appear credible, is, "I disagree with most opinions stated here."

      Delete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.