Don’t Bullyrag Immigrants And Hope To Get Away With It

We can be our own Democrat or Republican if we want to. What we do not want are Liberals or Democrats that make lies sound truthful and murder out of want respectable.

I owe it to Felimar Blanco, a website master in his own right, for sending over this anti-immigration video for my comment. This is where I do not want to be a Republican pinhead that thinks like a Skinhead or a Supremacist that bullyrags immigrants whether undocumented or not.

What is seen in the video is misleading. Control of fertility rate, re, replacement growth was applied on the pre-immigration population [the green graph] but not on the additional population through immigration [the red graph placed on top of the green graph] which shows a camouflaged bias.

Statistical manipulation of this kind cannot escape the notice of one who was once a statistician in the RP bureau of census many years ago. Statistics never lies, unless you put something into it to make it lie.

The presentation was based on the wrong premise that America’s immigration policy aims at helping the underdeveloped countries lessen their population explosion problem! Pebbles in the glass jar have no relevance at all as to why this country attracts different peoples from all parts of the world.

Many Americans had forgotten what the meaning of the Statue of Liberty is – we are welcoming people of the world that seek freedom -- it is not about helping countries where they come from get rid of or lessen their overcrowding population!

This is a huge fundamental error in the understanding of the objectives and goals of the U.S. Immigration policy. It is a subtle distortion of statistical results out of a skillful manipulation of data indicating that immigration is being politicized.

We will have more cost to bear than just spending for our social capital infrastructures for this nation’s immigrants. But the cost of de-immigration outweighs the cost of policing our borders and legalizing those who are already here that had become integral members of our democratic but demographically porous society, as well as the continuing funding of our welfare programs that had been existing in this country since time immemorial … that means even before today’s pinheads began to solve this immigration problem the Orwellian way where immigrants get killed because they want to stop immigration. http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Immigrant-Hatred-Kills--The-Real-Problem----Ileto-Murdered-For-Taking--American--Jobs/189

Similar to Shakespeare’s blood and blade characters in Macbeth, Orwell is an active accomplice of treason and tyranny. He is the philosophical god of politically correct politicians that make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. We must address this immigration anathema the American way, not the Orwellian way.

We must accept reality. The naturalization process is not free, and we have to capitalize our expenditures as part of the cost of our social infrastructure.

But to some extent, what we owe for funding those who need to be naturalized, is self-liquidating. For instance, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) earn as much as, if not more than, what it is spending. But intolerant minds in agony are too limited to realize the importance of these ramifications, and blinded by anger and frustrations cannot see a more humane solution. Kicking the bucket until the ankle hurts does not give us the answer, which we need, more than just what we want.

In so far as this anti-immigration video is concerned, it is just an old bullyrag. It exhibits a terrible amnesia of what America – the country of immigrants -- is all about. #

The writer is an award-winning journalist. Know more about the author by reading his published editorials and feature articles or you may e-mail your comment at ed.superx722@yahoo.com.sg

I read 43 comments and more are coming. I am shocked to learn that the editorial written by the author in his blog “Don’t Bullyrag Immigrants And Hope To Get Away With It” attracted comments that were not only off the mark but also vulgar personal attacks that are not allowed in this Forum. <.p>

This is a conservative website. And I like the editorial piece. Sumcad, the author, is obviously a conservative scholar. He was trying to reach Republicans and Liberals alike who “think” like Skinheads and “act” like Supremacists with “attitudinal murder in mind” in solving the nation’s problem on undocumented immigrants. He presented Ileto’s murder as proof.

The author also presented the murders of several officers committed by illegal aliens. He made it clear that “What we do not want are Liberals or Democrats that make lies sound truthful and murder out of want, respectable.” I think it is a properly “balanced” editorial written by a scholar and an experienced journalist with such a rich educational background, aside from being a recipient of several excellence awards in Journalism on record.

Unkind comments showed ignorance of this author’s background as a writer and academician by asking mocking questions about his writings. These guys are not only impolite but also lazy to check it out.

I checked Sumcad out easily. He is all over the Internet. The well-known author is published in both conservative and liberal websites because according to what I read in the previous exchanges, his skills in editorial writing that target specific audience are remarkable, and his thoughts are obviously free of parochial politics and ideological bias. You can read his editorial writings and judge them yourself if you are academically prepared, not hopelessly blind or if your one eye is not half open and the other is half closed.

http://conservablogs.com/nuke/2007/05/12/ http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=edwin+sumcad&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/489/2/

In this piece on immigration, obviously Sumcad doesn’t want conservatives like us to be Skinheads that killed Ileto. But the mean-spirited among us misread him as some kind of hopeless Liberals that are coddling and protecting illegal aliens! That’s more than a mile father away from the truth.

That’s the problem with “pseudo-geniuses” who-knew-not-what, that end up attacking the author when the mind is beclouded by insuperable anger. They cannot read English anymore because they thought it was written by some Mexicans they hate or authored by an academician named Bill Ayers, the notorious American bomber who was once Obama’s community-organizer associate.

Comment No. 43 represents all critics of the author’s writings that do not even understand what “bullyrag” means.

JimSEA -- I address this comment mainly to you because you are the only one who has the fortitude to challenge this disquieting ignorance single-handedly. It seems that spirituality in the air has been eaten by uncontrollable rage and the joint mentality of the agitated group deformed by this numbing thought of illegal alien invasion. You have exposed some shady thoughts on this issue -- in effect highlighting the foolish reaction and misguided responses of anti-Liberal conservatives among us whose mean-spiritedness is more frightening than that of the dreaded Ileto killers.

With this bucketful of nonsensical disagreement and misinterpretation, I am totally shocked!

Madame Dufarge, I want you to read how you write, quote: “He just signed up to day …” [sic] … “Methinks … the author himself ?????????” [sic]

What kind of English is this?

It is so shameful for one to criticize the writing of a journalist-awardee the way you do. Your presence in this forum embarrasses us all. Look at your writing one more time. You cannot even write straight English. How can you criticize an award-winning journalist’s writing without making yourself look like a juvenile clown?

Are you serious? I am not defending Sumcad, the author. But let us not be like drunks when we criticize. Let us write down a critique of his works to our heart’s content. But please if you do criticize, let’s do it right. Don’t blow a hole in our heads as if like you, we are all retarded.

This is what I mean when I said I was “shocked” to discover that there is a bunch of playful Katzenjammer Kids that strayed into this space who need to be taught how to write and understand excellent composition. Those of us who want to criticize must earned their right to criticize reasonably, and must show that they can write a critique in correct English.

Let me quote your other comment Madame Defarge, just to be sure that you understand what I am saying here. You said:

“His "background as a writer and academician is irrelevant if he can't make his thoughts clearly understood and seems unwilling to defend the article and/or clarify points he's been questioned on.”

Then you continued: “You seem offended that his post was greeted with less than slavish agreement. Oh well.

And finally, you asked: “Your writing style is remarkably similar to Mr. Sumcad's. Are you a student of his?”

First of all, I am not “offended”. I said I was shocked. Learn to read my pen and know how I write, and please understand what I wrote.

And you pilloried the author: “… he can’t make his thoughts clearly understood…”

Well, only those English authorities who gave the writer awards for his writings clearly understood his thoughts in a style of writing they believed was unique. It is not for you … you have no idea what the writer was writing about. With your kindergarten English, how can you understand him? I say to you … no way, Jose.

You must know that the editorial that the writer wrote was not meant for ambulant vendors or gravediggers, don’t you see? It is not also meant for you, and those who write English like the way you do.

The editorials was attempting to reach a specific audience, particularly the “intellectuals” in Congress and their “learned” supporters who wanted to criminalize undocumented immigrants and shoot them dead if they resist arrest, and the “geniuses” of the radical Left and their liberal lapdogs who think our border officers deserved to be shot by illegal aliens.

I really do not mean to offend you, but it is you yourself who showed that you cannot write English correctly, and the written editorial piece you criticized is not for you.

And this sounds like paranoia. You think that I write “remarkably similar to Mr. Sumcad’s” … I can see the uniqueness of Sumcad’s writing style. In this forum, I wish I could write like him, but please don’t embarrass Sumcad or Shakespeare by comparing me or yourself, to any of them! You may get sued for willful infliction of injury.

What is real is that the broken English that you wrote makes you “remarkably similar” to my four-year-old granddaughter whose writing her mother is trying to improve [just a statement of facts, no offense intended].

I agree with comment No. 40, that perhaps there is a “communist troll” in disguise. But it could never be this author that the comment was refering to. Those ignorant of his writings are unaware that the radical Left consider him one of their worst enemies. Don’t be lazy. Scroll down the Web. You can never be wrong about him if you know where to locate his writings.

A “troll” has to cover his disguise. One way of doing it is to accuse someone else of being a troll to divert attention away from him. I invite your attention to comment No. 40 and watch the birdie.

And the “Old Professor” in comment No. 24 is too old to know modern editorial writings. Development journalism [see the author’s background] is too far away from what he knew that is still standing and had never moved, from where he is now!

This leads me back to search for a sensible comment, like looking for a needle in a haystack. JimSEA, you can share your light of knowledge on this issue, especially those who badly need it. Those tigers have no teeth – just paper cats.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.