Patterico's Pontifications

Ding.

Patterico (9c670f) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:28 am

teh Jebster is just another RINO POS from the GOPe.

the only thing that would shock *this* conservative would be if he said something i agree with.

redc1c4 (b340a6) — 2/5/2015 @ 8:16 am

THIS is CNN!?!?!?

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/5/2015 @ 8:22 am

There’s absolutely no news peg for this.

So somebody’s trying to stir up trouble.

The way the whlle thing is going, Democrats want this to be a key issue in the 2016 election, but Jeb Bush is not on the other side, and hasn’t waffled, either.

Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 2/5/2015 @ 8:52 am

Chump News Network.

DejectedHead (75dfa4) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:07 am

Well, I’m not shocked. I also don’t disagree.

If any group of illegals deserve a path to citizenship, people brought here as toddlers and growing up in our society would be the ones. They broke no laws themselves.

Where I draw the line is with those who did break the law — no citizenship for them, ever.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:11 am

Speaking of remarks…
Rush is playing clips of President Obama today at the National Prayer Breakfast saying that “we should not get on our high horse” since there was violence in the crusades and in slavery in the name of Christ.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:14 am

How would CNN know?

also, what does ‘Ding.’ mean when Patterico posts it?

seeRpea (9a7f2e) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:19 am

re #6: is the current slavery system in the Arab countries done in the name of Islam?

seeRpea (9a7f2e) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:20 am

Jeb Bush was Governor of a state with a lot of Hispanic immigrants, and grew up in a state with a lot of Hispanic immigrants; he’s trying to make a reasonable statement about his policies. Had his brother pursued something like the DREAM act, Hispanic voters would be a GOP lock.

Most of the Republican candidates don’t have a fornicating clue on what they are going to do concerning illegal immigration, because none of them are going to advocate the only hard line policy which would work: rounding up every last illegal immigrant and forcibly deporting them. Every Republican candidate, real or prospective, knows that that will never happen — it would be stopped by the courts even if we tried — but no one seems willing to tell us what else they can or will do.

Instead, they are going to talk harshly on the subject, to try to get past the primaries, and then do their best to ignor the problem once in office.

The realistic Dana (f6a568) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:50 am

“Ding”, I believe, is a way to make the presence of a new post known on the “Recent Comments” log. Otherwise, people going from one comment to another without going back to the homepage might not know there is a new post.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:51 am

rounding up every last illegal immigrant and forcibly deporting them.

Disagree. Romney was right when he said they would “self deport” once E-Verify was enforced. There was a lot of evidence for this when 2008 crashed the economy. Reverse immigration was a real phenomenon. The problem is the big donors who rely on illegals. The GOP needs to see, first, whether those donors really support Democrats. I think they do.

Mike K (90dfdc) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:58 am

Order up! Who got the biscuits and gravy?

papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:01 am

I despise this preezy. I really do. And in this case it has nothing to do with politics. He’s an absolute idiot. A demonstrable idiot. He has never learned anything, and he can’t ever learn anything.

Let’s look at his remarks as conveyed by Doc, whom I trust and which I believe because I’ve heard him make similar vapid remarks with my own ears.

“we should not get on our high horse” since there was violence in the crusades

Yes, there was, boys and girls. And what sort of activity were the crusades in response to? Show of hands? Yes, you over there. Correct, Johnny.

Jihad!

The Crusades were a series of limited responses to centuries of jihad. Which is ongoing to this day.

…slavery in the name of Christ.

Let’s see. What’s the 1st Commandment in the religion of Christ?

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

The religion of Christ brings people out of slavery, not into it. As a matter of fact, let’s look at the 3rd Commandment.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

This is the one unforgivable sin. And it isn’t referring to what you might say after hitting your thumb with a hammer. Taking the Lord’s name in vain means doing evil in the name of the Lord. People may have enslaved people in the name of Christ, but those who did will burn in Hell for it. God can forgive any other sin including murder. But He won’t hold guiltless anyone who did that.

Now let’s turn to Muhammad’s religion.

http://quran.com/4/24

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

Sex with your married female slaves isn’t adultery. After all, a marriage among the filthy kuffar isn’t a marriage at all, and since you can’t have Muslim women as slaves (one of the few advantages for women under Islam, you don’t have the actual legal status of slave) have it boys! This is the eternal decree of Allah.

So we hit the trifecta with this Ayat, in which Allah condones a) adultery, b) slavery, and c) rape, since by definition a slave isn’t free to either give or withhold her consent.

Just ask a Yazidi or Christian girl who manages to escape from an ISIS brothel.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:11 am

Just to emphasize, the Crusades were in anything defensive in nature. They set out to recover former Christian territory.

Watch. If the US were to set out to liberate Syrian and Iraqi Christian towns from the atrocities of ISIS, where Christians had lived since the time of the Apostles, ISIS would call the US Crusaders.

And they’d be right, in a sense, because that’s exactly what the Crusades set out to do.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:15 am

this Jeb Bush for president farce has already gotten really, really stale

happyfeet (a037ad) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:26 am

“Where I draw the line is with those who did break the law — no citizenship for them, ever.”

– Kevin M

Why? Are immigration laws more sacred than other laws? Should we revoke the citizenship of all lawbreakers, regardless of their offense?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:30 am

Leviticus, it’s just ok with you that they committed at least two felonies after breaking immigration laws? That millions of children grow up to find out they have criminal records and are deeply in debt because some illegal alien stole their identities.

The problem of illegal alien identity theft is such a huge problem that several states, such as Utah, have changed their identity theft laws. In the past they modeled them on the federal statute. The problem with that is under federal law, to convict someone you’d have to prove they knowingly stole someone’s identity. When illegal aliens steal identities using fake social security cards they don’t know if that SSN actually belongs to someone or is just made-up.

So states such as Utah and Kansas changed their laws to make it a crime whether or not someone knows that fraudulent SSN belongs to someone or not. If anyone, including an illegal alien, commits document fraud and in the course of that fraud steals someone’s identity, then they can be convicted of identity theft.

This is exactly the kind of crime that would have to be amnestied under any path to citizenship regime because nearly all illegal aliens have committed it if they worked illegally in this country.

So you’re cool with that?

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:42 am

*That millions of American citizen children grow up to find…

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:43 am

Actually, I always thought the initial “Ding” comment was Pat’s way of saying “If any of you f**kwits start doing that ‘first post!’ bulls**t I will END YOU.”

PCachu (e072b7) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:43 am

Revoking citizenship is not the same as denying citizenship.

DRJ (e80d46) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:43 am

I have no problem with no citizenship for anyone, if it includes no permanent residency either. It just does not seem right to me to have a permanent immigrant class. Join us, be one of us, make our goals yours, or get out.

nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:43 am

16. …Why? Are immigration laws more sacred than other laws? Should we revoke the citizenship of all lawbreakers, regardless of their offense?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:30 am

I can see there’s no point in engaging you today since you’re on some hormonal hissy fit.

We should grant lawbreakes citizenship regardless of their offenses?

No one is revoking anyone’s citizenship. If a Honduran illegally in this country commits rape in , that man is still a Honduran when he comes out of prison just like an American is still an American.

Are you really that irrational?

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:46 am

Deport Bush / 2016

mg (31009b) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:51 am

words fail in English, so I might have to switch to another language:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/05/obama-you-know-christians-were-just-as-bad-as-isis-a-few-centuries-ago/

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:51 am

Deport the Chamber of Commerce, immediately.

mg (31009b) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:54 am

“I can see there’s no point in engaging you today since you’re on some hormonal hissy fit.”

– Steve57

The irony of you accusing anyone of a “hormonal hissy fit” is almost too intense to contemplate. I’ve made one other comment today, that you probably agreed with wholeheartedly. Wherefore art thou, Hormonal Hissy Fit?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:55 am

*Ding* will also, i assume, since i don’t use it, allow someone who uses the RSS feed option to track new poasts here, just as Dana’s “hello” would, know that there is a new thread…

ICBWBIDI

redc1c4 (a6e73d) — 2/5/2015 @ 10:57 am

“Revoking citizenship is not the same as denying citizenship.”

– DRJ

Why not? Practically speaking, it has the same result: “X is not a citizen.” I don’t see any logical reason that being born on one side of a paper border or the other has any bearing on one’s fitness for citizenship.

So, Arizona is requiring citizenship tests to graduate from high school! Good experiment, honestly. I wonder how many natural-born citizens are going to be held back a year (or two) for the sake of illustrating the arbitrary nature of citizenship.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:00 am

You go hormonal when someone touches on one of your manias, Leviticus. Illegal immigration is one of them.

I, on the other hand, at my worst am only in high dudgeon.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:00 am

Did someone say Crusades?

felipe (b5e0f4) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:00 am

it strikes me as poor public policy, to reward with formal citizenship, or any benefit of residency for that matter, to persons who’s first act upon our soil, was to break one or more of our laws by entering the country illegally.

if someone has a cogent argument as to why i’m wrong, i’d love to hear why rewarding illegal behavior is beneficial to law abiding residents, native born or lawfully immigrated.

redc1c4 (a6e73d) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:01 am

Leviticus @28, do you really think you can change the subject that easily?

You’re not that slick. Who cares about your views on someone’s fitness for citizenship?

The issue is your insistence on confusing granting citizenship and revoking citizenship.

Is refusing to grant someone citizenship the same as revoking someone’s citizenship?

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:03 am

It’s a factual question, not a matter of viewpoint.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:04 am

I wonder how many natural-born citizens are going to be held back a year (or two) for the sake of illustrating the arbitrary nature of citizenship.

i vote that they hold back as many as necessary, for as long as necessary. if more lawful residents understood how our form of government is designed to function, rather than the BS that the MFM and others have packed their heads with over the years, maybe we won’t have as many Occutard types in the future, prattling on about “this iw what democracy looks like”, since we live in a federal republic.

LIV’s are what’s really ruining this country, and anything that diminishes their numbers strikes me as a good thing…

YMMV

redc1c4 (a6e73d) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:06 am

we know the result of the last amnesty, the promises of further enforcement were ignored, some like the first WTC plotters benefited from it, and the net number of Hispanic voters dropped subsequently,

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:07 am

Leviticus,
Consider this example,
if a person is in my living room because I gave them permission to be there,
it is different than if a person is in my living room without my permission after crawling through a window.
After all, it is just a piece of paper that says it is my house.

Now, substitute this nation as our collective living room, and that is the difference.

“Thou shalt not steal” implies private property rights exist and are in themselves just.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:10 am

BTW, isn’t there a law on the books that says a fence is to be built, but that no funding was given for it?

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:12 am

MD in Philly,

The logical leap is in assuming that this country is “ours” just because we were born here. You bought your house – it’s your property. How does that hold true for the ethereal notion of “citizenship”?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:15 am

forgot the lesson of ‘not being seen’

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/02/influential_aqap_ide.php

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:18 am

Should we revoke the citizenship of all lawbreakers, regardless of their offense?

It used to be law in most states (maybe all) that a felon lost most of the rights of citizenship. Now, the Democrats are pushing to restore the vote. Guess who they expect them to vote for ?

We had the problem under control until the AFL-CIO got Congress (Democrats, of course) to end the Bracero program in 1964, a banner year for the country as LBJ had begun the Great Society.

The program was voted out of existence by Congress in 1964, under mounting criticism for exploiting Mexican workers and depriving American workers of jobs.

I wish that last line was a joke.

Mike K (90dfdc) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:22 am

No, I’m not going to do this all day,
say I just squatted on some land and built a hut.
If you crawled through the window without my permission that is especially a problem if you don’t own the land yourself,
and even if you do own the land, I think there is likely some due process argument rather than sneaking in the window.

And I’ll check back later to see if there is a good reason that you give for me to continue this exercise.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:22 am

Getting back to Prom Queen and his remarks as conveyed by Doc@6, my major objection isn’t that he commits Bible/Quran fraud. Although that’s part of it. It’s that he never knows what he’s talking about, and he’s proud of it.

As quoted in Wolffe’s Renegade: The Selling of Barack Obama, Obama says, “You know, I actually believe my own bull***.”

Let that sink in. I recall a Harvard philosophy prof discussing the value of bull****. It isn’t that it’s merely a lie. Bull**** is more than a lie. Bull**** tells the world what people like Barack Obama believe about themselves.

For instance, this is a classic example of Barack Obama’s bull****:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-999-muslims-reject-radical-islam_836303.html

“But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam, and I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for–order, peace, prosperity.”

This is a statement that, if one truly believed it, would be certifiably insane. Barack Obama doesn’t believe this because it’s true. Barack Obama believes this, to the degree one can believe bull**** knowing that it’s bull****, because it tells the world about the wonderfullness of Barack Obama.

He is such a magnanimous human being his will reject the overwhelming evidence against what he just said in order to proclaim he believes great things about Islam and its adherents.

When presented with contrary evidence, he’ll refuse to believe it in favor of what he’d rather believe about Muslims. Such a healing, benevolent presence is he.

Come to think about it, it is still certifiably insane. But such is the value of bull**** as opposed to just a mere lie. When Obama talks about the world, he’s never talks about the world as it is. He talks about all the good will Obama has toward the world. Cheap, easy, self-serving fake good will, but good will nonetheless.

The world doesn’t deserve Barack Obama. He’s too good for the world.

That’s the bull**** he actually believes.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:23 am

Steve57-
if there is something worse than reading his comments from today it is listening to them,
it sounded like he didn’t even believe his own BS.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:26 am

he does good squirrel! reminds me of Aaron Eckhart’s character in ‘thank you for smoking’ I mean when you think of the incineration of a Muslim pilot, the siege of Acre comes to mind,

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:27 am

38. MD in Philly,

The logical leap is in assuming that this country is “ours” just because we were born here. You bought your house – it’s your property. How does that hold true for the ethereal notion of “citizenship”?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:15 am

There I was going on about Prom Queen when we have an example of someone who believes his own bull**** right here, close at hand.

If you think there’s something “ethereal” about citizenship then New Mexico needs to revoke your law license. You’ve just pronounced yourself impervious to facts and evidence.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:27 am

See, this is why the “hormonal hissy fit” accusations are so funny.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:29 am

“…but no one seems willing to tell us what else they can or will do…”
The realistic Dana (f6a568) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:50 am

What can be done is to rigorously enforce eVerify, and to strictly penalize employers who violate the law; leaving those illegals the choice of continuing to attempt to live in an underground economy, or returning to whence they came through self-deportation.

askeptic (efcf22) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:30 am

ethereal [ iˈTHi(ə)rēəl ]

Adjective

1. extremely delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world:

“her ethereal beauty”

synonyms: delicate · exquisite · dainty · elegant · graceful · fragile · airy

Oh, yeah, Leviticus. You and Obama are two peas in a pod.

A delicate space pod from the planet Pandora. Containing two wonderful beings who are, at heart, Na’vi, in cosmic fellowship with all beings in peace and harmony.

What did we ever do to deserve you to magical creatures? Thank you, Leviticus, for descending unto us in this fallen world to show us the light.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:33 am

Yup. I’d say “ethereal” captures the essence of the concept of citizenship.

Now that the “lightworkers” Barack Obama and Leviticus have shown me the error of my ways.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:34 am

I’m asking a serious question:

1. What is the logical defense of hereditary citizenship?
2. How does a preference for hereditary “citizens” over hereditary “non-citizens” factor into the thinking of anyone who thinks that 50% of the hereditary “citizens” of this country have abdicated the most meaningful responsibilities of citizenship?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:35 am

they call themselves the Caliph, and cite scripture from the Hadith, the plotter behind the Benghazi attack was named after one of Mohammed’s lieutenants, Abu Sufyan

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:35 am

No, you’re not asking any serious questions at all, Leviticus.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:42 am

you see, Steve, sovereignty is another one of those ethereal concepts,

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:42 am

If a a robber robs a bank and gives the money to his child, the child doesn’t get to keep the money when the law catches up to them.

He’ll have to give back the money, and he’ll be forced through a horrible court proceeding to do it. Even though he might have been a blameless toddler when it happened.

The parent committed the crime, which is doubly horrific because he’s involving his child in it.

The parent is putting the government in the position of being forced to punish the child by taking away all the money he’s ever had. Isn’t that horrible? A parent forcing a child to base their life on theft?

Wouldn’t any such child do anything to get away from that?

luagha (e5bf64) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:47 am

I agree with Leviticus. One World, One People, One Citizenship, One Government, one Party, one Supreme Chancellor.

nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:48 am

You’re just putting on a display of the self-regard for the ethereal Leviticus. Just as our preezy rejects facts in order to do the same.

Yes. Got it, Leviticus. You’ve evolved into a higher being. You are now above the mucky concept of citizenship. Now that you’ve ascended, you want the world to know you truly have forgotten the purpose of and the value of citizenship.

Well, I’m not going to give you a history lesson, son. It would be wasted on you. Just like I wouldn’t ever try to fisk Obama’s historically and theologically illiterate Cairo speech in an effort to educate him, either. The purpose of that part of the speech wasn’t its nominal purpose; to articulate all that the world owed Islam. The purpose was to tell his Cairo audience about what a great guy they had giving them a speech.

I hope you and your bull**** will be very happy together, Leviticus.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:49 am

More seriously, I think this is the time for Scott Walker to debut the famous line, “Deport The Criminals First,” on the national stage. Maybe some focus testing first, but it’s one of those lines that’s hard to argue with.

luagha (e5bf64) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:49 am

One Law, nk – I would wager from past conversations that you would agree with me on that point, at least.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:49 am

“Well, I’m not going to give you a history lesson, son.”

– Steve57

Try giving me a logic lesson. I’ll have more respect for the attempt.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:53 am

…cite scripture from the Hadith…

Technically the Ahadith aren’t scripture. The Quran is scripture. But it’s a small quibble as Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’h oft make the same mistake themselves. And the Ahadith, at least the Sahih collections, are equally as authoritative as the Quran.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:53 am

Leviticus, your insistence that revoking and granting citizenship are somehow the same thing, and your statement that the notion of citizenship is “ethereal,” demonstrates a lesson in logic would be wasted as well.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:56 am

Fair point, about one of those newly enraged critics of ISIS:

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/09/17/ahmad-al-tayeb-sunni-islams-pope-global-zionism-jews-responsible-for-jihad-terror-groups-in-the-middle-east/

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:56 am

One Law in the sense that both the rich and the poor are equally forbidden to steal bread and sleep under bridges?

We get into trouble when we try to reduce the complexity of human societies to slogans. Citizenship is not an absolute guarantee of — there are traitors — but it is prima facie loyalty to the group. Like I said above, the individual adopting the group’s goals as his own. Or inheriting them. It works most of the time.

nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:57 am

“Try giving me a logic lesson. I’ll have more respect for the attempt.”

But you still won’t listen.

A hereditary citizen is usually brought up within the culture of country he is a citizen of. It, its civics, mores, morals, relationships, and other qualities make up one part of said hereditary citizens’ formative experiences.

President Obama is the easiest counter-example of what happens when someone is not brought up within the culture of a particular country and then moves to it at a later age.

luagha (e5bf64) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:58 am

Logic has nothing to do with it. The law is based on experience and aspirations.

nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2015 @ 11:58 am

nk, logic has something to do with knowing the difference between giving someone something they don’t now have, as opposed to taking something away from them that they do have.

There’s nothing ethereal about it.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 12:15 pm

nk,
all for it,
as long as you and I split the chancellorship.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 12:32 pm

I haven’t seen where Steve didn’t make a fairly clear point, Leviticus.

JD (86a5eb) — 2/5/2015 @ 1:03 pm

Could you restate his point, then? I think I’ve missed it. A failure in my reading comprehension, perhaps.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/5/2015 @ 1:29 pm

Doc, Prom Queen’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast are linked in the headline at Drudge. Yes, as you observed, as I had no doubt, they are every bit as despicable as anyone could have predicted.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150205/us–obama-prayer_breakfast-f3b989dcc5.html

Seriously, anyone. Here’s how I said President Yorkie Terrier would respond to ISIS and their barbarous murder of LT. Al-Kaseasbeh:

https://patterico.com/2015/02/03/jordanian-pilot-dies-horrific-death-at-the-hands-of-isis/#comment-1738282

No. He’ll give a speech at the UN about how this has nothing to do with Islam. Then he’ll talk about America’s imperfections. He’ll bring up Ferguson as an example. He’ll vow to fight anti-Jihad hate speech. He’ll accuse Republicans of hating US servicemembers if they don’t vote to close GITMO which is an ISIS recruiting tool.

So, what did I get right.

1) He gave a speech. This is his response; he talked about it, so it’s taken care of.

2) This had nothing to do with Islam. “Hey, look at how bad Christianity is, too!”

3) He talked about American imperfections. The Jim Crow South and Slavery.

Sure, I didn’t hit all the bases. He’s probably saving the UN speech for next week when ISIS draws and quarters a hostage in the town square of Raqaa. Then, he’ll denounce Ferguson. He’s just damning America for its sins in chronological order.

He doesn’t really have a beef with ISIS. It’s not like they’re Republicans, obstructing his domestic agenda. He will not lift a finger to do a thing. He’s going to kick the can down the road and let whoever is elected in 2017 deal with it.

In the meantime our ethereal President (thanks for reminding me of my vocabulary, Leviticus, and no I don’t want to play today) floats above it all, seeing what the rest of us don’t see. Sure, what ISIS is going to do next week will be really, really bad. But, hey, that Spanish inquisition was nasty, too. It’s so much easier to take the bold step of apologizing for something that happened 500 years ago then to take the easy, “cowboy” way out and do something about what’s going on now.

Stand by for more false equivalence theater as the world burns.

So, yes, this isn’t O/T. File this under remarks that shock no one except idiots.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 1:57 pm

I still expect him to hit every one of his marks. ISIS isn’t done.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 1:58 pm

I hate it when I get the block quote thingy fouled up.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 2:00 pm

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=354791

Obama at National Prayer Breakfast: You Know, American Christians Are Really No Better Than IS Terrorists, When You Think About It

Heh.

I’m going to have to take off in a few minutes and knock some old ladies down and steal their purses in the name of Christ (That’s a joke, NSA! You know, sarcasm?), but before I go I just wanted to point out this comment by President Mean Girl:

…How do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities –the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends? …

Nobody who took religion at all seriously, let alone someone who claims to have faith himself, could say that with a straight face.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 2:14 pm

“How does that hold true for the ethereal notion of “citizenship”?”

Leviticus – Which notion is more ethereal, gender or citizenship?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/5/2015 @ 2:28 pm

That depends, daley. Are we talking gay gender or straight gender?

If you are gay your same then gender is carved in stone. You are born that way; it is hard wired by nature. You are one gender, and you are only attracted to that gender, and that’s it! It is the one permanent, immutable human characteristic.

On the other hand if you are straight, gender is a mere social construct. Screw that propagation of the species nonsense. That’s just propaganda dreamed up by teh eevil patriarchy.

Homosexuality is something that can never be changed. It’s a law of nature. Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is as ethereal as citizenship.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 2:42 pm

* If you are gay ~~your same~~ then gender is …

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 2:43 pm

==What is the logical defense of hereditary citizenship?==

Most of us who were born into U.S. citizenship are very very lucky people. Yes, in effect we won the lottery on the day we were born. We did nothing ourselves at that moment to deserve citizenship. But our citizenship was not an accident either. It was made possible and planned for and prepared for by the people in our families who went before us. They didn’t know what our names would be or how we’d spend our days, or exactly what the future would look like, but they planned and sacrificed and worked their butts off not just for themselves, but also in hopes of providing a better life for succeeding generations of their progeny in this country. That matters.

Our ancestors, most going back several if not many generations made that citizenship happen for us and made citizenship valuable. They crossed oceans and/or fought off dangers and threats to be here and stay here. They created the country we have today with it’s blessings and warts and all. They didn’t have to be rich or famous to have had important roles, either. Some weren’t even initially free men. Some helped create our institutions, built infrastructure, taught children, defended our country, fed our people, paid taxes, contributed to arts and sciences and the culture that makes America America. You bet they wanted their progeny to be citizens of the United states and wanted to be sure down the road there was going to be an America for us to be citizens of. I rather doubt they viewed citizenship as “ethereal”
Naturalized citizens of the U.S. from other countries start the process over again for themselves and *their* future heirs here after learning and committing to this country’s laws and norms. They often have the same goals our ancestors did for themselves and for us, and they value U.S. citizenship. We celebrate with them when they take this step and take their oath of commitment to the United States.

For you to casually question whether I (for instance) who have had ancestors fighting for and building and working and contributing to the welfare of this country since before the civil war may “logically” have had from birth no more right or connection to U.S. citizenship than the guy who swam across the Rio last year is just absurd.

elissa (a34092) — 2/5/2015 @ 3:09 pm

You bought your house – it’s your property. How does that hold true for the ethereal notion of “citizenship”?

i gave 20+ years of my life, and a not inconsiderable amount of my health & future life expectancy to this country, so i sure as hell paid off any debt you might claim i owe for any & all privileges my birth right citizenship grants me.

that you would devalue them, and my payment, by giving the same to a criminal who steals said rights & privileges bu entering this country illegally, says more about how little you value your citizenship than it does about the immorality of the thief.

maybe you should consider emigrating, or, at least renouncing your citizenship, since it obviously means nothing to you.

redc1c4 (34e91b) — 2/5/2015 @ 5:33 pm

One world with one Robot Overlord as Supreme Commander!?!? Leviticus would think he’d died and gone to Heaven.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/5/2015 @ 6:14 pm

Leviticus:

What is the logical defense of hereditary citizenship?

With every right comes a responsibility. If non-citizens want the right to citizenship, they must shoulder the responsibilities that go along with that. Coming here legally — whether it’s through legal immigration or asylum — is one of those responsibilities.

You seem to think it’s unfair for one person, who happens to already be a citizen, to be able to escape that responsibility while a non-citizen can’t escape it. But as elissa said, our ancestors met those responsibilities and endured hardships on our behalf. Similarly, we would have to do the same things for ourselves and our descendants if we decided to immigrate to another country.

As nk suggests above, would it be nice to live in a world with no borders where everyone lived by the rules? Of course, but we don’t (as nk also suggests above). Until that happens, it’s important for us to protect our system and enforcing legal rules is an important part of what makes that system work. Every rule can be broken and it doesn’t destroy the system … until it does. My guess is your confidence in the strength of our system is greater than mine.

DRJ (e80d46) — 2/5/2015 @ 6:27 pm

If you want another analogy in the immigration debate, I see America as a foster parent willing to adopt more children, but who can’t take all the children and wants to make a good decision about who to add to the family. It makes sense that America would prefer to adopt those children who don’t have criminal records, even and perhaps especially if their crimes involve breaking into the foster home. The foster parent has an interest in promoting a good family, and putting lawbreakers at the front of the line doesn’t promote that interest.

DRJ (e80d46) — 2/5/2015 @ 6:31 pm

Well said, DRJ. Somehow I don’t think Leviticus’ innocent optimism about open immigration tracks very well with his well known cynicism about nearly everything else.

elissa (a34092) — 2/5/2015 @ 6:43 pm

I don’t agree with Leviticus here, but Steve57, the “hormonal hissy fit” comment to me seemed ill-suited to the goal of having a respectful exchange of views between people who disagree, which is something I strive for here. Please try to keep that goal in mind if you feel tempted to insult someone.

Patterico (9c670f) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:14 pm

Sorry, Pat. I was still trying to get over Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Steve57 (f0ee0c) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:23 pm

Why? Are immigration laws more sacred than other laws? Should we revoke the citizenship of all lawbreakers, regardless of their offense?

This has probably been answered by others, but: We already remove LEGAL immigrants who commit felonies and some misdemeanors and deny them the chance of getting citizenship.

Why would you treat ILLEGAL immigrants better?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:33 pm

And, in case it is unclear, CITIZENS aren’t asking to become citizens.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:34 pm

I have no problem with no citizenship for anyone, if it includes no permanent residency either. It just does not seem right to me to have a permanent immigrant class. Join us, be one of us, make our goals yours, or get out.

nk,

If they stay, their children and grandchildren will be citizens. That gives them a solid connection. They want to be here, in part, to accomplish that. That they can’t vote and cannot do a few other things that only citizens can do is the price they had to pay for barging in ahead of those that played by the rules.

If there is not a serious cost, no one will stand in line. But if they still want to be in this country so very badly that they accept that cost, fine. Their children will value their citizenship that much more.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:38 pm

Why not? Practically speaking, it has the same result: “X is not a citizen.”

So, the penaly for shooting a person in the head, and shooting a corpse in the head should be the same? After all, the result is the same: They are both dead.

You usually argue better than this.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:41 pm

Heh. I texted this joke to my daughter just a little bit earlier:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

It’s a Chemistry joke, but, you know …. 😉

nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2015 @ 7:42 pm

What is the logical defense of hereditary citizenship?

Because otherwise you get someone deciding and they almost always decide for the wrong reasons. See, for example, Jim Crow.

And besides, if we took that idea out even a LITTLE way, and say had literacy tests, fairly administrated, to qualify to vote, you would be the first to call it fascism.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2015 @ 8:06 pm

hey nk,
I don’t know how to do it or I would show you,
but draw a benzene ring,
draw a line from the top and connect it to a Mercedes-Benz logo,
now you have Mercedes benzene.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/5/2015 @ 8:22 pm

It’s disappointing to see several commenters talk about Leviticus or sarcastically respond to him sneeringly. Only a couple of folks actually attempt the discussion with him. Most interpret his disagreement as cause to diagnose him, which is disrespectful. And I realize most of you are well aware you have been disrespectful and think that’s really awesome, because you are a loyal member of the partisan defense force and have applied your pressure against someone expressing the wrong idea. In reality, you are boring and insecure.

If you guys would try to be more like DRJ you would enjoy the discussion and the discussion would enjoy you.

2. How does a preference for hereditary “citizens” over hereditary “non-citizens” factor into the thinking of anyone who thinks that 50% of the hereditary “citizens” of this country have abdicated the most meaningful responsibilities of citizenship?

Leviticus (f9a067)

Citizenship is not purely or intrinsically a morality thing. Laws also have a regulatory function with is quite important and legitimate. Citizens having a stake in the country’s future, because it is their homeland and the world they leave for their loved ones is not only normal, it’s very good.

I do not think voting (if that’s what you meant… I think this thread is mostly awful and skipped some of it) is a duty. If you are happy with your life here in America, and do not understand politics, or understand it well enough to understand your vote is not always meaningful, then you can simply find something more useful to do with your time. Encouraging those who aren’t interested in voting to vote is bizarre to me, as it encourages less informed results (and more easily manipulated and bought results).

I want to see wide gates with many people entering America to naturalize through hard work. It is obvious that the many Mexicans who come here to work hard and get a better life away from the sad situation in Mexico are not doing something intrinsically immoral beyond the mere fact they are breaking the rules. But they are doing something unlawful, and we cannot have a functional society if lawlessness is preferred over lawfulness. It’s unfair to immigrants from the rest of the world (and lawful immigrants from Mexico). Long term, we wind up with looming welfare and more misery and a less prosperous place (for the immigrants too).

So what I think the immigration focus should be on is increasing lawful immigration by revamping that process. Those who are unlawful really shouldn’t be afforded any kind of preference over the lawful, and we should think long term. The real problem isn’t the millions here, but the hundreds of millions over the next 50 years. Make it so that hard work, law fulness, and in my opinion, melting in with language and basic human rights ideals, leads to opportunity here, and the opposite leads to being kicked out. Long term, that means far more happy situations and a better country for citizen and immigrant alike.

Trying to be as ruthlessly fair as you are would lead to chaos and poverty. Remember also that Mexico cannot be reformed until those who are there make it happen. Right now I would just come to the USA instead, but if that wasn’t an option…

Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/5/2015 @ 9:30 pm

Is that like the Lebowski Junior Achievers?

mojo (a3d457) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:37 am

This beats all: sophmoric head of org with history of religious hatred and crimes against humanity to address Congress!

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/05/gops-invitation-to-pope-to-address-congress-brilliantly-exposes-dems-netanyahu-hatred/

DNF (03c631) — 2/6/2015 @ 5:33 am

Why is it that the adolesent in the WH saves his most immature bloviating for Prayer Breakfasts?

DNF (03c631) — 2/6/2015 @ 5:38 am

88. lol, thats a pun?

91. In agreeing with your comment directed at Leviticus’ impulse for its perspicuity i take some exception to a general disparaging of snark and vulgar push-back versus disingenuous sanctimony.

Pleasant discussion with the purposefully dishonest is often futile and boring.

DNF (03c631) — 2/6/2015 @ 5:58 am

Had his brother pursued something like the DREAM act, Hispanic voters would be a GOP lock.

That’s a very naive conclusion, Dana (even more so if you’re “the realistic Dana”). You might just as well say that a large percentage of people in Mexico think and vote pretty much like typical urban Americans (ie, of the left) because, well, our neighbor’s version of the Republican Party has a long history of alienating the “undocumented” of Mexico. Or that people farther south, in Argentina, show similar foolishness because, well, the nation of Evita Peron loves its left-leaning politicians due to their fantastic record of embracing a south-American counterpart to the DREAM act.

Mark (c160ec) — 2/6/2015 @ 7:40 am

Why? Are immigration laws more sacred than other laws? Should we revoke the citizenship of all lawbreakers, regardless of their offense?

No, we should require that people who think and respond like you be given a one-way, all-expenses-paid bus ticket to a typical border town in Mexico. Yea, that’s a snarky, flippant remark, but, quite honestly, how many people of the left (or shortsighted people of the right—who love cheap labor) have a long record of saying one thing in public, then belying their idealism (or purposeful naivete) by voting with their feet and the moving van?

BTW, I wonder if the wonderful, compassionate, tolerant, big-hearted couple in the White House (and their ilk) would have ever sent their two precious daughters to a public school full of the “undocumented”?

Mark (c160ec) — 2/6/2015 @ 7:48 am

is it federal or state level law that says convicted felons can not vote?

seeRpea (9a7f2e) — 2/6/2015 @ 8:28 am

96. DNF (03c631) — 2/6/2015 @ 5:38 am

Why is it that the adolescent in the WH saves his most immature bloviating for Prayer Breakfasts

It’s Elementary: (Yes, that doesn’t look like a bad observation, and yes, this has an answer.)

A. Because people don’t examine that closely what is said at prayer breakfasts.

A lot of what is said at prayer breakfasts probably can’t stand up to scrutiny.

However, he may have failed to realize this: Everything that a president says undergoes close scrutiny, especially where it touches on a matter about which he is being critized elsewhere.

Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 2/6/2015 @ 8:32 am

Heh. More Prayer Breakfast fallout:

Bobby Jindal gets in his digs.

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal [wrote in a statement]. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

I wonder if the president is wishing he’d called in sick for the prayer breakfast. What are the odds he’ll find an excuse not to go next year?

elissa (ff048d) — 2/6/2015 @ 12:42 pm

100. seeRpea (9a7f2e) — 2/6/2015 @ 8:28 am

is it federal or state level law that says convicted felons can not vote?

Federal law has no voter qualifications whatsoever, except maybe U.S. citizenship I think, except that some possible exclusions, like race, sex, anyone above 18, failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax, cannot be grounds for excluding someone from voting.

The requirememts for voting for president or a member of Congressis whatever it is/was whatever they are for the most numerous branch of the state legislature. The rules are not the same in every state.

Some states don’t exclude anyone at all from voting. One or two states (Maine and Vermont) allow votes to be cast from prison.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

Those used to be very Republican states. They were the only two states ALf Landoo carried in 1936.

Leading, I think, James Farley to say: “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.” (For a long period in the 1800s’ Maine used to vote two months ahead of the rest of the country. The saying became:”As Maine goes, so goes the nation,” although it wasn’t really accurate)

In 1912, Taft carried Vermont and Utah but not Maine.

Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 2/6/2015 @ 12:58 pm

Lots of good comments since I left! I’m gonna try to answer each separately for the sake of clarity.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:16 pm

“So, the penaly for shooting a person in the head, and shooting a corpse in the head should be the same? After all, the result is the same: They are both dead.”

– Kevin M

I get what you are saying, but I think you analogy begs the question as to whether there is a fundamental difference between a citizen and a non-citizen. That’s the point I (thought I was) trying to make: that being born somewhere isn’t a self-evident argument for citizenship of that place. You picked an analogy where there is a clear difference between the two objects. The penalty for shooting a citizen and a non-citizen in the head SHOULD be the same, and I think that makes my point more than it makes yours.

This comment can also serve as a quick response to redC1C4: your military service is an excellent defense of your citizenship, as is Steve57’s – I think using military service as a metric for citizenship is far more defensible metric than using birthplace, because the military service metric doesn’t rely on fallacious notions of “tacit consent” that represent the weakest parts of democratic theory. It would represent active buy-in, and would typically self-validate in terms of adherence to a set of “American Values” which could be objectively assessed. No free-riders, in other words. If you wanna talk more about that idea, I’m all for it.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:24 pm

DRJ and elissa,

I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, and I think your comments make similar important points (which nk made also): that at its best, the notion of citizenship evokes a history of hard work, sacrifice, and general buy-in to/for a country and in service of its values. By that measure, though, “citizenship” describes a whole bundle of traits, all of them existing independently of one’s birthplace. At the same time, we have a binary definition of citizenship. In our minds, is one more or less a citizen because his family has in this country for three generations, and his neighbor’s family has been here four or five? Or one?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:34 pm

How about some ethereal border fences? They are what’s for breakfast!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:40 pm

“I want to see wide gates with many people entering America to naturalize through hard work. It is obvious that the many Mexicans who come here to work hard and get a better life away from the sad situation in Mexico are not doing something intrinsically immoral beyond the mere fact they are breaking the rules. But they are doing something unlawful, and we cannot have a functional society if lawlessness is preferred over lawfulness. It’s unfair to immigrants from the rest of the world (and lawful immigrants from Mexico). Long term, we wind up with looming welfare and more misery and a less prosperous place (for the immigrants too).

So what I think the immigration focus should be on is increasing lawful immigration by revamping that process. Those who are unlawful really shouldn’t be afforded any kind of preference over the lawful, and we should think long term. The real problem isn’t the millions here, but the hundreds of millions over the next 50 years. Make it so that hard work, law fulness, and in my opinion, melting in with language and basic human rights ideals, leads to opportunity here, and the opposite leads to being kicked out. Long term, that means far more happy situations and a better country for citizen and immigrant alike.”

– Dustin

First, it’s wonderful to see you around! This is a great comment, and I think it’s almost entirely spot-on, and comes very close to stating my own position better than I have done so far.

I offer this, though:

How many of us speed on the interstate, by a show of hands? When we do so, we are breaking the law. We are breaking the law to get where we want to get faster than the law allows. We think the speed limit is unreasonable, given the circumstances, and we weigh the risk of getting pulled over, and (sometimes) we decide it’s worth it to speed.

How is this different than entering the country illegally? Does anything but economic protectionism justify the one and not the other? It’s a logic that makes perfect when citizens do it to get home from work, but makes no sense when non-citizens do it to get a job?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:42 pm

Hereditary citizenship is an ethereal social construct created by the patriarchy to oppress women. The U.S. is the only nation in the world which honors this practice.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:44 pm

Leviticus, I’m glad you don’t disagree with what DRJ or and I said, but I also don’t think you really understood what DRJ and I said (not to suggest that we said exactly the same things because we did not). I think that because of the question you just asked at the end of your comment. Also, when you use words like “binary” or “ethereal” with respect to ours or any country’s citizenship in your responses, it’s clear we are just not on the same page and that our views are sufficiently divergent that we probably can’t really discuss the issue effectively.

elissa (7a2eff) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:58 pm

“it’s clear we are just not on the same page and that our views are sufficiently divergent that we probably can’t really discuss the issue effectively.”

– elissa

Alright.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:12 pm

After reading Leviticus at 107, I take pride in being degree free.
Walker\West 2014
Walker/Fiornia 2014

mg (31009b) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:27 pm

== It’s a logic that makes perfect when citizens do it (speeding)to get home from work, but makes no sense when non-citizens do it to get a job?==

Apparently, (and surprisingly) you do, but I don’t think most people anywhere in the world would equate “unlawfully” going 70 in a 65 mph zone as logically similar in unlawfulness to using fake United States Government Social Security numbers, or stealing someone else’s identity “to get a job”.

elissa (7a2eff) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:28 pm

Record numbers of Americans have been renouncing their ethereal U.S. citizenship’s under the reign of Barack “The High Horse” Obama.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:39 pm

Well, then let’s stipulate to identity theft being bad and talk about the actual act of illegally crossing a border.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:40 pm

As soon as the illegal aliens cross the border it’s a felony, PERIOD.

mg (31009b) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:45 pm

Let’s don’t and say we did.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:47 pm

I would like to see gigantic robot overlords constructed and placed at strategic spots along our southern border… to keep an eye on the thousands who illegally cross in search of their ethereal citizenship.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:50 pm

Barring that, I’d like to see the illegal crossers all funneled into New Mexico.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:52 pm

We actually get quite a few of them. They’re not as scary as you and Mark think they are.

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 2:56 pm

109. I hope you leave your doors open for those extremely delicate felons to live freely amongst your belongings.

mg (31009b) — 2/6/2015 @ 3:09 pm

I mean 119.
apologies elissa.

mg (31009b) — 2/6/2015 @ 3:10 pm

I think we can all agree that we should deport the criminals first, amirite?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 3:16 pm

119… never said they were scary, young whelp. You are welcome to all of ’em.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/6/2015 @ 3:23 pm

Instant Felons.
http://waittilyouhearthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/illegal_alien_border.jpg

mg (31009b) — 2/6/2015 @ 3:25 pm

Just say “no!” to depressed wages, Leviticus. Don’t illegally import the contributors.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/6/2015 @ 3:28 pm

The first questions to ask is, “Are immigrants necessary to anything?” The second is, “What are they worth? To us!” And then, your duly constituted government makes laws to provide for their admission or exclusion. Everything else is love beads and moonbeams.

nk channeling Donald Hamilton (dbc370) — 2/6/2015 @ 4:52 pm

Cookies!

nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2015 @ 4:54 pm

I find it extraordinary that from someone studying the law, he compared illegally entering the country to speeding.

JD (86a5eb) — 2/6/2015 @ 6:51 pm

well I’m not terribly surprised considering Fluke, Dadgum of thinkregress, and other stars of the legal firmament,

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/6/2015 @ 6:59 pm

Forget it, Jake D, it’s New Mexico…

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/6/2015 @ 7:00 pm

Saul is that you? snorfle

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/6/2015 @ 7:02 pm

Ask not what your country can do for Julio, but what Julio can do for your country.

nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2015 @ 7:21 pm

Hereditary citizenship: Do pleasant folk who accept mendacious premises dignify discussions in which they participate?

I’m with sicko, this postliterate meandering.

There, vulgarity free for your precious sensibilities.

DNF (a41485) — 2/7/2015 @ 7:49 am

well socratic dialogue is useful to a point, but some basic principles have to be established

narciso (ee1f88) — 2/7/2015 @ 7:55 am

Buying products from a member of the Chamber of Commerce in your community is contributing to wage stagnation of the middle class. Make the proper choice if possible.
Thank You.

mg (31009b) — 2/7/2015 @ 8:02 am

They’re not as scary as you and Mark think they are.

Leviticus, I know there are well-educated, rather prosperous liberals like yourself who are a part of the gentrification of long-dormant urban areas, and, in that instance, your type of people is walking the walk and talking the talk. But when children enter the equation, and mom and dad are looking around for a nice, safe school to send their sons and daughters to, and a nice, safe place for them to hang around in, in too many instances the kumbaya-ism of “everyone makes good neighbors!” goes straight out the door — perhaps flushed quickly down the toilet — and so-called “latte liberals” suddenly are no different from those who think things can be rather “scary.”

BTW, I always think of the various Hollywood liberals who when threatening to leave the US due to presidential elections or politics in general not going their way, rarely, if ever, say they’ll move to Mexico or similar such places. Often, they’ll be eyeing a location in Europe, Canada, perhaps Australia. RACIST!!! XENOPHOBIC!!!

Mark (c160ec) — 2/7/2015 @ 8:16 am

If any group of illegals deserve a path to citizenship, people brought here as toddlers and growing up in our society would be the ones.

I live in Florida. Bush has a Hispanic wife. Like he could walk safely around his own home if he didn’t promote at least SOME immigration amnesties. Yeesh. Let’s make up some shit so we can then stir up some shit.

Typical media lies.

IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 2/7/2015 @ 9:53 am

In our minds, is one more or less a citizen because his family has in this country for three generations, and his neighbor’s family has been here four or five? Or one?

… or none?

Part of it is attitude. To be a citizen of the USA, you have to have the ATTITUDE of a citizen of the USA. Which is “I am an American!” not “I am a Mexican, here in America!”

This nation — just like all the others of this world — has the right and power, though not the will — to enforce its borders.

That it fails to do so is one of the problems, because it allows too large an influx from specific areas with too little of that attitude described above. Hence you get bovine excreta like “La Raza” increasing in popularity.

To contrast the nature of the problem, use this interactive map

Click on the date slider, run it back to 1880. Click on the nation slider, say, “India”.
Now move the date slider forwards.

Now slide it back to 1880 again. Pick another nation, say, “Germany”.
Now move the date slider forwards.

Now slide it back to 1880 again. THIS time, pick “Mexico”.
Now move the date slider forwards.

If you don’t grasp there’s a qualitative, not just quantitative, difference in what that shows, then you’re too clueless to have an opinion on this issue.
The influx from Mexico, during 1980, 1990, and 2000 was substantially larger than the influx from Germany at its peaks in 1880, 1890, and 1900… in multiple places.

You cannot tell me all those illegals are not going to have a different attitude than people who came here with the intention of becoming Americans common to previous influxes.

IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 2/7/2015 @ 10:08 am

How many of us speed on the interstate, by a show of hands? When we do so, we are breaking the law. We are breaking the law to get where we want to get faster than the law allows. We think the speed limit is unreasonable, given the circumstances, and we weigh the risk of getting pulled over, and (sometimes) we decide it’s worth it to speed.

How is this different than entering the country illegally? Does anything but economic protectionism justify the one and not the other? It’s a logic that makes perfect when citizens do it to get home from work, but makes no sense when non-citizens do it to get a job?

Leviticus (f9a067) — 2/6/2015 @ 1:42 pm

I have definitely sped, and when I’m cited for it, my thought isn’t ‘the law is unjust’, but something like ‘I messed up’. I am glad the speed limit is enforced and it does tend to modify what my behavior would otherwise be. This keeps the roads a lot safer for everyone, and I benefit more from that than the earlier times I need to leave home.

It’s similar to my view that immigration laws being enforced would make the country a better place, even though it would mean those who seek citizenship must modify their behavior. The real difference is that in all honesty many wouldn’t even become citizens in any way, but I think they would then have to do something about Mexico’s societal problems, which is the ultimate immigration solution.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/7/2015 @ 12:51 pm

I think we can all agree that we should deport the criminals first, amirite?

and, since all illegal aliens are, by definition, criminals, you agree we should deport them all.

nice of you to come to your senses.

redc1c4 (4db2c8) — 2/7/2015 @ 1:14 pm

from #10

Had his brother pursued something like the DREAM act, Hispanic voters would be a GOP lock.

i have to throw the BS flag on this oft repeated bit of “wisdom”… the illegals here in SoCal vote lockstep Demonrat, because “free 5hit”, as do their legal relatives. they might be somewhat socially conservative, as seen with Prop 108, but if you look at the election returns for districts that are heavily latino, they all elect Leftards. if you don’t believe me, kindly name one elected latino politician here who is conservative… i’ll wait.

one need only look at which parties have been in charge of Mexico, and other countries in Latin/South America over the last 100 years or so to see that the masses routinely vote left/socialist more often than not, even though doing so has kept them mired in poverty that whole time.

this isn’t going to change, just because the GOPe suddenly supports illegal aliens. legalizing these criminals is to the benefit of the Demonrats, no one else.

redc1c4 (b340a6) — 2/7/2015 @ 2:25 pm

one need only look at which parties have been in charge of Mexico, and other countries in Latin/South America over the last 100 years or so to see that the masses routinely vote left/socialist more often than not, even though doing so has kept them mired in poverty that whole time.

Exactly! That’s why I think people — unless they’re liberals who tend to love philosophical subterfuge and left/right gameplaying — have to start becoming focused like a laser beam on the ideological orientation of both individuals and groups of individuals.

Another thing: If countries like Mexico or cities like Detroit had been managed for decades and decades by conservative politicians and epitomized a right-leaning culture and thinking, and yet were still as dysfunctional and mediocre as they’ve ever been, I’d have no problem recommending they perhaps start leaning left.

Mark (c160ec) — 2/7/2015 @ 5:01 pm

2/5/2015

CNN: Why, Those Jeb Bush Remarks About DREAMers Have Just SHOCKED Conservatives!!!

143 Responses to “CNN: Why, Those Jeb Bush Remarks About DREAMers Have Just SHOCKED Conservatives!!!”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out