Skip to comments.RUSH: 'QUITE TELLING' FOX DIDN'T WANT ME TO CRITICIZE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Posted on 07/03/2013 5:02:09 PM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
I want existing legal immigration to continue, but all illegals deported, and no amnesty. You appear to want otherwise. Assuming your claims of being conservative-minded are valid, you have zero by way of strategic vision.
Game's over if Amnesty passes. Period.
Your tagline states it perfectly, brother...
Oh good. I had a weird feeling I was the only one who heard him capitulate on his radio show. Click! Done. No more Hamnesty or FOX. I was sick to my stomach just watching Meagan Kelly smiling announcing the election results so it wasn’t a huge stretch to turn em off permanently, other than the fact I had watched them since 2002 or so. Guess the FOX paycheck outweighed loyalty to the cause, huh Sean? Ailes says we’re pro amnesty and you just meekly go along. Sickening.
It was just two days after the November 2012 election that Hannity announced his epiphany on the issue. It was patently obvious that he had been instructed about what side of the bread his butter was on!
>>What does the GOPe know that makes them so willing, even eager, to spit on the conservative base?<<
They believe that globalization is coming and the New World Order will control everything. They want a seat at the table and the United Nations will not tolerate people who support the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments.
It amazes me that the truth of what globalisation means is right there, in easily understood language, last chapter of the Bible, and people just blithely rush to embrace it. “Strong delusion”, indeed.
Tell Dwight D. Eisenhauer he's nuts.
Citation: The entry for the rather unfortunately-named "Operation Wetback" in 1954. If they can apprehend that many in one year in 1954, how many do you think they can apprehend NOW -- with the advancements in technology -- and still use the SAME numbers of Federal police? Add in the States efforts, and I think in 5 years the problem is under control.
There is a concerted effort by the Democrats and even the Republicans to downplay, and even pooh-pooh and/or mock the idea. However, these numbers back in 1954 show that the deportation idea is quite attainable, and would not resort in any more of a police state than we presently have.
If I were not a Soros Plant -- and if I were concerned about a police state -- I'd probably be putting my energy towards removing NSA surveillance efforts, and not downplaying the eminently-possible idea of the enforcement of existing immigration laws, and the deportation of those lawbreakers.
For someone who doesn't listen to Rush, as clearly evidenced by your baseless attack on him in your referenced post, don't come back here telling me what I should do.....
Your ignorance of his daily outspoken criticism towards the amnesty bill pretty much disqualifies anything you may have to say about him and puts you in the category of all of the retards over at DU.........
The only wild card in your scenario, then, would be Obama, total demagogue that he is, to exploit this, as he is the quintessential expert in doing, as an opportunity to enlarge a massive federal police force which he's ITCHING to do. Even somebody like Bush would blithely "compassionate conservatively" create another bureaucracy for eternity to oversee the operation and the rest would be history. I don't know how you get around that.
Also, with stupid things like minimum wage in place, who's going to do the cheap labor that keeps our prices down when we boot all these people out of here? Those illegals are actually really helping us.
Would love to have more, if we could stand the influx of population, which we cannot.
But we especially cannot afford lazy, dependent, socialist (anarchists is what they would have been called back in 1912), America-haters who are here not to love the country and support it. Rather they are here to subvert it and escort it to ruin.
So grow up, turn off the 78 RPM Victrola, and start taking in the world AS IT IS.
And right now America is on the ropes because of the infantile, give-away-the-farm, thinking that you are advocating.
Wake up PapaNew.
Actually, freedom is for all. But in a socialist state, it's another story. You may argue the socialist argument against immigration, that's fine. Let's at least call it what it is.
My entire presence on this thread has consisted of knocking down false assertion after false assertion, as I am armed with facts, not conjecture. Almost every post I have sent up on this thread backs my conclusions with citations.
Because of that, you are now resorting to assumptions and conjecture. Nowhere did I say this needs to occur AT THIS MOMENT, while Obama is President, nor, should it occur, would it necessarily result in the outcome you postulate. Remember, this dude cannot even run a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt. He's one of the least competent Presidents I have seen in my lifetime, falling to the worse side of Jimmy Carter.
But I do detect a softening of your position, and a change in your demeanor. It appears you may not favor Amnesty as much as you did; I would hope not, the facts are not on your side. It would be the final death-knell for America, and I have demonstrated why.
At least, it is *my* assumption you have been given some important facts and have changed your opinion. If you have, bravo, it speaks of open-mindedness. If you have not, I will continue to refute you, for the benefit of others who read the thread.
I never said I was FOR illegal immigration even though I see where a portion of these people are actually helping us (you might even construe that as a socialist argument except this is breaking unjust laws in favor of free-market volunteerism which is always beneficial).
My point is, let's call at least the socialist-based whine what it is. I guess my other point is the potential mammoth problems with what you propose. Eisenhower got rid of a million plus, but Eisenhower's not Obama and one million plus is not 30 million. You credentials being what they may, don't answer these tough and real issues.
You have an odd idea of what constitutes socialism.
You brought up other reasons like they're Democrats who Obama's purposely bringing in to bolster his party. Fair enough.
Those reasons are sufficient, to a reasonable man who is conservative, to virulently oppose Amnesty.
Eisenhower got rid of a million plus, but Eisenhower's not Obama and one million plus is not 30 million. You credentials being what they may, don't answer these tough and real issues.
I addressed both issues to satisfaction: One million easily becomes two, four, or six million with the force-multiplier of modern technology and assistance at the State level, and while Obama is heinous, he is incompetently so -- further, it would never happen under Obama, since he is staunchly opposed to deportation. The point becomes moot under Obama. It will have to occur under a Conservative (not a Republican) President.
If we ever see one in our lifetimes, that is.
Work for that.
Don't work for Amnesty, which will guarentee we will never see a Republican or a Conservative President ever again.
Here on 4th’ July, I’m happy for you to realize that your “hero” and his 1/2 billion dollar radio contract is your role model, however, feel sorry for your brainwashing from him that is equal to the 53% cool-aid drinking Barry Soetoro disciples!
No wonder, that easy persuaded people like you, makes America, created 237 years ago, to go down the drain by the coming of Sharia Law. And BTW there’s already an immigration law in place!!
Yes, I do understand you don’t dare calling LIMBO on the Article II. Section 1. Clause V regarding the NBC issue, because you would be cut off immediately like hundreds of others have tried. Cheers!!!
BTW, I think I TOO was an avid Limbo fan and listening to him every day until January 14, 2009 when John Roberts had a “secret” meeting with some Chicago-GODFATHER-Mob people at SCOTUS, whispering something softly in Roberts’s ears. From that day on LIMBO and likeminded “fog-horns”, especially those at FAUX News, went mute and AWOL in discussing the NBC issues. Even Roberts and other black robed were publicly humiliated at a later SOUA to the extent that Roberts gave in to obamaScare.
Maybe you also heard of the choir director and his faggot pals murdered, Brennan’s Passport lifter, shot, Bill Gwatney shot, Andrew Breitbart died suddenly on the street by “natural’ causes and Michael Hasting’s car just crashed, hello!!!
Thank you, at least you've finally admitted that you don't listen anymore........
Anything else you might want to say about Rush is nothing more than heresay that you obviously picked up over at DU.......Your dog don't hunt bro so you might as well go fishin'.
Great arguments and citations for your statements, Mr. Mataz.
You’re right as rain, as usual. Thank you for the ping.
I was speaking of the economic consequences only. To imply otherwise that I was equating the two is simply silly.
Fair enough, sorry about that.
They ALL know that we are now France.
What that means is that because of the cultural shift in America (away from traditional families) the Americans who have been here for at least several generations are dying off demographically.
This happened in France. It is happening in America.
Also, we have drastically increased our socialist spending. That requires two important parts in any economy: people to perform the work needed to build and maintain the manufacturing and supply and services in a country and (usually) those same people to be taxed on their labor so that the tax pays for the socialist spending.
This happened in France. It is happening in America.
Both the GOPe and the DNC now realize that in two generations or so, we will have too much spending and not enough workers to tax to pay the bills. We all know that the GOPe and the DNC never want to cut spending truly, which would require reducing the size of government.
So the answer this single group of like-minded traitors has devised is to encourage tens of millions of low-skilled workers to flood our borders to do the work and to pay the bills.
This happened in France. And they imported Islamofascists who hate the French and are trying to take it over for the caliphate. The “youth riots” outside Paris a couple of years ago were these very same Islamofascists.
Now this is coming to America in the form of millions of people who can’t stand Americans and who want to “reclaim” America for Aztlan.
They are traitors who support this latest form of Amnesty.
The answer to most of our ills has a single solution: reduce the size of government spending, which requires drastically reducing the size of government.
How about a land for free handouts...that the citizens pay for?
How about, a land for people who hate our system and want to fundamentally transform it into a communist/socialist system?
Is that what we are really all about?
What you quoted on the statue has nothing to do with our founding documents. It is a crappy sonnet written by someone with socialist sympathies. And we are open to take those who need a hand, but we do NOT want people to parasite off the citizens of this country.
There were two huge differences between our LEGAL immigration (I have no idea where you got the idea there were no restrictions on immigration in the 1920’s, there were, including quarantine) then and now:
1. The people coming here knew and understood that contrary to the anti-Americans, we did have a uniquely American culture. They knew that and were willing to put their own cultures aside in the public sphere in order to join the American culture and add to that UNITY that made us so strong and free and prosperous.
2. The number of people in the country was far fewer and that number was in a ratio to those who were contributing to society and those who were drawing from society. What I mean is that people came here to work and considered it shameful to take public assistance. They came and worked and chipped in. Today, millions of the immigrants who come here illegally and who hate our culture and want to spread their own cultures here in the public sphere, do everything they can NOT to chip in (working under the table if they do work) and to TAKE everything they possibly can for free (e.g., the ER is their local clinic).
Why it is a CONSERVATIVE argument not only to NOT reward those who came here ILLEGALLY and are sucking at the public teat but to RESTRICT ALL immigration (legal and illegal) is because we don’t want a giant socialist government to provide for all those who come here as parasites AND we also know that if we lose our uniquely American culture, our culture will divide and fall, and then there is no hope for anyone on the planet for a life of freedom and prosperity.
So, no, it is not a socialist issue to want our government to abide by law and order and it is not a socialist issue to want to preserve our culture and defend our nation from a disunity that is sure to sink us.
I second the emotion. These people with their defeatist attitudes sicken me...no fight, to desire to stand up and speak out and fight this enemy in OUR White House...all they can do and say is nothing that is positive and/or inspiring...or, for that matter, physical in that they get off their behinds and join forces with like minded people who love this country and want to return it to We the People, along with the Constitution, our Freedom and Liberty.
Advice to naysayers: Save your breath and your energy...your commentary is negative, and nothing good comes from negative thinking. Try thinking positive and begin to ACT toward saving this country. Less talk, more action. If you love this country, be the patriot we must all be and get out there and fight!
You are really way off base with this statement. Amnesty has nothing to do with socialism, fascism or capitalism. Amnesty can be granted, or not, by any nation, regardless of ideology. The question is whether it is the right thing to do in the eyes of citizens and their elected representatives.
Amnesty has to do with the (mass) pardoning of those who have committed a crime. These foreign citizens have come here without following the normal legal process to work (visas) or live (citizenship) in this country.
The normal legal application and process for visas and citizenship are in place to weed out those who logically should be turned away....criminals, subversives, the diseased, terrorists, or clinically insane. Amnesty would short-circuit this process. You can read the reasons for being "turned away" here.
This is why I am against blanket amnesty. Oh, by the way, you need to brush up on the meaning of socialism.
For Hannity, this latest might be the "devolve" state of his illegal immigration position. I first heard him when he was on WGST in Atlanta only. Pre-9/11/2001, he'd occasionally get a call from someone who thought the increasing number of illegal aliens around Atlanta and Georgia was a problem. Hannity would jump down their throats and start babbling about his Irish ancestors, "no Irish need apply", and about how he'd come to the US illegally if he lived in Mexico,etc.
He would not allow anyone to even state why they thought illegal aliens were a problem. Then 9/11 happened and he "evolved" and decided that illegal aliens and porous borders were a national security issue.
And, as you state, since the 2012 election he's changed again, but actually he's "devolved" back toward his pre-9/11 position and was even for a path to citizenship. But now he seems to be backing off from that to some extent.
Things change. The world reached a population of two billion around 1930. The world population 200 years ago was around one billion. Now the world population is seven billion. Can you see any difference in the potential results of unchecked immigration now and 100 or 200 years ago?
And the US still lets in around 1.2 million legally each year. Your argument is complete nonsense.
Cut off welfare and ability to work illegally they will go home.
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin. "We can't afford them" is certainly not a free-market capitalist argument. In a free society, the more the merrier, only it's up to you what you make of yourself - no one else is responsible for you except you - and that's the way it should be. We are a nation of immigrants and we have been a strong and good nation, not because of government or entitlements but becasue people have been free to live there own lives.
But socialism pits person against person, as here, becasue they've become dependent on a government who's only resources are your own money - so the more people that come in, the more money you lose. That is NOT how a free society operates.
A lot of their illegal work is actually helping us becasue they’re the only ones willing to work the menial tasks below the unjust minimum wage laws thereby keeping our prices down.
You are full of crap. People like just flat nauseate me. You cannot discuss with them because they are obtuse and live in a socialist panacea. Are you a Methodist?
That is a failed model. The rise in wages would more than offset the cost of welfare programs and the personal and property damages cost as a result of their uninsured status. Not to mention the dropping crime rate.
Are you denying they are working for below minimum wage or are you denying that their lower wages translate into lower prices for us? If neither, what are you raging about?
First it is not rage it is sanity and a definite end of patience for all you one world promoters. It is like trying to tell a 2 year old the logic behind not crapping your pants. They just don’t get it.
The illegals working here in the housing construction business make $10+ a hr, much better than minimum wage. The ones that do work for under minimum wage do cost us more as a society in welfare/entitlement services than we save in goods costs. There is a whole network of under ground businesses in the mexican areas that are cash only and never pay any taxes but by George they are in line at the ER every time one is hurt or sick.
Plus, I have a BIG problem with people that come here and have no intention of assimilating and becoming a US citizen. By their own admission they have no interest in becoming citizens they just want the benefits. You want to give people the vote who have no vested interest in our success as a country or respect for our constitution since the spit on it everyday.
We have enough problems combating crimes committed by US citizens we don’t need to extra burden of dealing with crimes committed by people who by law are illegally here to start with. Don’t even get started on the whole drug gang issues.
I submit to you that government is behind pretty much all the problems you mention.
The lack of enforcing immigration laws on invading hordes is #1 on that list.
>>Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh
Conservative talk radio host?
|Roxy Maxine McNeely (19771980, div.)
Michelle Sixta (19831990, div.)
Marta Fitzgerald (19942004, div.)
Kathryn Rogers (2010pres)
Elton John, reportedly paid $1 million, performed at their wedding reception held at the Breakers Hotel. Guests at their reception included Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, James Carville, Mary Matalin, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Tom Watson. On June 4, 2010, the Breakers Hotel was also the location for the rehearsal dinner luau Rush and Kathryn hosted for 400 guests. Rush has photos of their wedding available on his Facebook page. (Note: After clicking on the link, you may have to remove top frame to view photos.)
The Icon of RINO Pop Conservatism who paid 1 million dollars for a homosexual Icon of Pop-rock to entertain the Rats and RINOs at his latest "wedding"...
~that conthervative talk radio host?
NO SURF FOR YOU, LUSH.
Unlike many apparently, I think the ideas and values of freedom are stronger than ideas of tyranny and servitude. I don't think you have to be so afraid of people - the "multitudes in the valley of [in]decision" will vote for their self interest in liberty if, like Reagan said, they are clearly shown their worth, value, and happiness as free individuals.
I'm in favor of border security as I've said from the start. I've also said that it seems to make sense to deport illegals in prison (at least the convicted ones) and some other things that can be done. Deporting 30 million sounds ludicrous and dangerous because it would be another opportunity for Obama to install his much desired police state to make it happen. But let's call what we are saying what it is. And the issue of sharing entitlements is a socialist-based argument.
Hmm.... You are in for a rude awakening illegals will never assimilate. IMO anyone that does not support deporting illegals is supporting the death of this great country and hence a traitor. Good day.
>>illegals will never assimilate.
As long as tribal membership, dialect, and epithelial melatonin density are more important than governance constrained within the purpose of securing the inalienable rights of ALL despite variance in those attributes, that is self-evidently true.
ate assimilated the Anasazi?
Where is such a place now that we've fallen and had our private property surrendered to those who have broken in to our home and taken it by adverse possession?
Do you leave your home unlocked and let any and all come in and make themselves at home, calling yours, theirs?
I think not. You're the "Do as I say, not as I do" party, right? That seems more accurate for those who speak as you do.
Your socialism is unwelcome here. Marx has given the world evil and you embrace it? The stench of death is unbearable.
Please explain how you construe what I’ve said as Socialism.
Sorry, pal, yes unlike you I’m able to make my own opinions without being “brainwashed” by your coward hero LIMBO!!!
You ever heard the name James David Manning. What is DU, btw???
Bump. What you said, exactly.
In case you didn't see this post...
Socialism is force cloaked in "compassion." It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's A saying he wants to "help" (entitle) B but only by using C's money which A must take by force and only after A skims off the top for himself (B may never actually see any of that money). If you're blind, all you see is A entitling B. If you have your head screwed on straight, you see A is actually living off of C's money while making B dependent on A (like a drug dealer).
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin. "We can't afford them" is certainly not a free-market capitalist argument. In a free society, the more the merrier, only it's up to you what you make of yourself - no one else is responsible for you except you - and that's the way it should be. We are a nation of immigrants and we have been a strong and good nation, not because of government or entitlements but because people have been free to live their own lives.
But socialism pits person against person, as here, because they've become dependent on a government whose only resources are your own money - so the more people that come in, the more money you lose. That is NOT how a free society operates.
Nonsense. This definition and all the subsequent text following it would also describe Fascism, Corporatism, Communism, and even Nazism.
You desperately need education on what socialism is. I will start with a dictionary definition:|
Definition of SOCIALISM
- : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
- a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
- : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin.
More utter and unmitigated garbage. In no way have I seen anyone say anything of the sort, that government entitlements would be spread 'too thin'. In fact, the argument 'we cannot afford them' is one that can be made without any prediliction to, or endorsement of, entitlements.
Example: I receive no entitlements. I have decided I cannot afford a new car. I am in no way stating that I wish to receive entitlements, or that I endorse them, by stating the financial fact I cannot afford a car.
Your primary premise -- that one would favor 'socialism' by correctly stating we cannot afford new government-dependent citizens, simply does not stand on it's merits -- as I demonstrated, by analogy, above. It is sheer and unreserved balderdash.