Saturday, June 28, 2008

AlterNet's "Anti-Immigrant" Rhetoric

Using Google News is always educational. Their automatic filter always includes media outlets that are "progressive" into the top results. Today one of their links led me to AlterNet, a heavily "progressive news" outlet and an article titled Immigration Hard-Liners and John McCain: Strange Bedfellows or Forever Star-Crossed? by Jordan Michael Smith. I responded there, but the immigration issue is blog-worthy enough to warrant a cross-over entry here. The following is my response to the article:

Your article repeats incessantly the line "anti-immigrant" and never once uses those magic two words "illegal immigrants" which are the entire focus of people in the southwest. In the southwest, illegal immigrants are kicking in the doors of homeowners and robbing their houses. Illegal immigrants are the ones who flee from accidents they cause and travel by the millions uninsured on US roads. Pandering to the descendants of illegal immigrants is ok and par for the course for those who want their own fortunes to rise on the backs of the desperate, promising them things they can't deliver, but when you fall back on "anti-immigrant" propaganda word games it just makes it so obvious and amateurish. You should have thrown in at least one "illegal" in there and cut the "anti-immigrant" line down by about 95 percent. Then it wouldn't have been so obvious that it was poorly crafted propaganda for the looters and the recipients of said looting.

Pretending that John McCain is a conservative is like pretending Hillary has no ambition. Both pretenses are absurd to anyone who has paid even peripheral attention to their actions in office.

The GOP is more likely to sell out to the Hispanic bloc, because their sole other constituency is people middle class or above. When the lower classes outnumber these folks 3-1, other blocs are needed. Obama, if elected, is less likely to grant illegal immigrants citizenship because there are enough other poor folks to exploit for the DNC. The party of Lincoln lost the Black voter after Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill. They lost almost all the poorer folks and blue collar workers during the depression, only winning a few back during Eisenhower's terms after they realized socialism and state controls were impoverishing them.

When George Bush backed the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill, he demonstrated that many in the GOP will sell out on that issue. If it wins the GOP Hispanic voters as LBJ secured the Black vote the GOP will survive as a party. If it doesn't, the income disparity alone will destroy the GOP. Poor people will always vote for the handout & loot the rich promises. As a result, we already have a DNC and GOP closer in policy than ever before in history. Both want to survive and will pander to whatever groups they can.

So, to sum up, your assumptions are all wrong, the word games are amateur (obviously demanded by editors because other articles read much the same)and the truth of the illegal immigration issue is nowhere to be found. America dances around the issue, while those who work in think-tanks, dealing with numbers, the events and consequences, realize the future of America already IS bleak and even the most robust conservative policies and politicians would not be able to stem the tide of mass poverty the illegal invasion has brought to America. Progressives are blissfully unaware that they have limited their own shelf-life and will be just as obsolete as Hillary Clinton after the demographics change even further under the non-stop, millions per year, illegal invasion. The DNC and GOP will, in less than 20 years, be replaced by an all Hispanic party, whose sole interest is their fortunes, and who will be elected into office by sheer weight of numbers. The US will rapidly fail and mimic Mexico in a constant state of socialist decline. So progressives, as they exist today, have, about 10 years of political power left after the GOP rides off into the sunset of statistical white noise.

Try to enjoy the few years of power before near universal poverty is reached. As Spock said, "After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." Presiding over the destruction of the USA, with your powder-burned finger on the trigger, is not an enviable position to be in when your and other "progressives" epiphany arrives.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are moderated. Civil discourse is invited, however profanity, insults and advertising are prohibited. Thank you for your contribution. Your post will appear after a moderator has reviewed it.