If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.
Let me lay this out front - this is the type of talk that leads people to ask questions about the opponents to the President's plan. Questions about just what, exactly, it is they want. Questions about whether they went off their anti-psychotic medications - or need to be on them. Questions about just what the hell it is the really want. And the answer never come. They cry "race-baiting" and then claim that nobody wishes to debate them honestly.
I'm sorry, but this is the type of talk - and conduct - that has royally turned me off. What is just as bad is the fact that too many conservatives turn a blind eye to all of this. Other tacitly embrace it. Michelle Malkin, for instance, gives VDARE a one-day head start on her columns (as opposed to Townhall.com). She has also approvingly cited Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer. She recommends VDARE, despite the fact that it runs stuff from Jared Taylor, who happens to be buddy-buddy with the likes of David Duke and Don Black - the webmaster of Stormfront. See what founders of the site RedState.com (no bastion of political correctness) had to say about Auster and Sailer. Decide for yourself if her claims that those who question these connections are engaged in mischaracterization, as she claimed during the controversy over the UAE's ports deal, or if she has been turning a blind eye to some serious slime.
Do you even give a damn that he's drawing upon Nazi Germany? Or do you not care as long as the checks clear? Do you really stand with all of this? Do you consider that sort of stuff acceptable? Michelle, do you believe in this stuff?
As far as I am concerned, Michelle, Master Gunnery Sergeant Guadalupe Denogean is far more of an American than Taylor, Auster, and Sailer combined. He has certainly risked a lot more for this country and gave far more than Tom Tancredo ever has.
If it sounds like I'm in the mood for a fight, it's because I am. I'm sick of being told that somehow, I believe in "post-America" and that my level of commitment to this country is no more than shacking up. I've had enough of the abuse that Malkin and others heap on me for not being quiet about the thoughts I have on this issue - all because I have disagreed with them.
I'm not running away. I'm in the mood for a fight. Bring it on.
12 comments:
Harold - glad to see I'm not the only conservative who feels this way. I am getting rather sick of this demagoguery as well, but as long as it sells books and inflames passions, it will continue. And that's a shame, because we need strong leadership right now.
These people are starting to freak me out. Actually Scare me.
I have asked that question too. Just what do they want? 11 million people is roughly the population of the state of Ohio.... can they imagine mass deportation of that many people? What do they want?
I honestly wish I knew, terrye.
But it is clear there is a very slimy area that exists. And it is one that some people don't want us to look at.
Why?
For what it's worth, the official line in Nazi Germany was that the Jews were being "deported."
Psychologists will have all manner of fun with that column; I cheerfully leave them to it.
Illegal immigration has been a huge problem just about as long as I've been alive. It's going to take a lot of effort to get it down to a manageable level. A$$hats like Malkin, Vox Day, Tom Tancredo, and the Rest of the Axis of Grift make actually solving the problem almost impossible.
One idea I've heard mooted is the notion that, if America becomes unpleasant enough for them, the Mexicans will self-deport. The problem: you would have to make America extremely unpleasant for the Mexicans for this to happen--significantly worse than Mexico is now, in all aspects--and that would make America equally as unpleasant a place for U.S. citizens. Only on the pages of The Turner Diaries do you find an America where the effects of that unpleasantness is restricted only to brown-skinned folk. (That is extremely interesting when juxtaposed with the Vox Day column.)
Special note to Joe Farah: it's on your website, Joe. You own it. I guess, as long as people are signing up for your G2 Bulletin and buying those lurid, fact-free books, you're okay with it.
Special message for the Axis of Grift:
Yob' tvoyu maht', y'all.
turin turambar
I think I read and comprehended what he wrote. At best, he is stupid. At worst, he was endorsing stuff that ranks among the most evil acts of history.
Sorry, but there was no excuse for it. If you want to defend crap like that, there are other places to do so. But not here.
But I thought you were spoiling for a fight? What happened to your trite invitation to "Bring It On?"
Was Turin Turambar not phlegm-fleckedly indignant enough for your style of debate?
I'm not running away. I'm in the mood for a fight. Bring it on.
posted by Harold C. Hutchison at 9:03 PM
If you want to defend crap like that, there are other places to do so. But not here.
6:55 PM - HCH
So, you'd rather get your butt kicked at Vox Popoli than soil your blog with your beaten corpse.
I see some trash talk about a "beaten corpse" and insults about whether or not someone can comprehend what Vox Day wrote. I don't see anyone actually trying to defend what Mr. Day wrote.
I think what Harold meant was he was itching for a pillow fight. Anything "more contact" would bruise his sensitive intellectual skin.
OK Ken, I'll defend it.
1) He's anti-death penalty, which automatically rules out any support for extra-judicial executions.
2) He's anti border wall because he believes Americans should be able to come and go as they please, regardless of race or where they're coming from.
3) The Nazis were extremely efficient at running their government. Their evil aside, they are an excellent benchmark because they prove that a government that is incredibly focused on doing something can be extremely competent at doing it.
4) The fact that our government is so bad at border security, when benchmarked against other governments that were too good at security proves that our government doesn't take security seriously. If they did, they wouldn't be so disorganized and lax in enforcing the laws.
5) Vox has been one of the only libertarians to point out that if we don't get the border under control, it will lead to bloodshed. In fact, Vox has in numerous blog posts pointed out that if the government doesn't take things VERY seriously, we may very well end up in an openly racist society again with a very abusive government, especially toward minorities.
From what I have seen, Vox actually has a farther reaching idea of where this issue can go.
If you are automatically opposed to anything that is proposed as long as the word "Nazi" is in it, then here are some suggestions: don't fly in a jet plane, denounce NASA, don't EVER drive on the interstate highway system, and denounce George W. Bush's whole family. Why? Let's see.
The jet engine was invented practically by Messerschmitt and used in the me-262 during the last days of WWII.
NASA owes much of its existence to Werhner Von Braun, a Nazi scientist who was brought here after WWII. He was responsible in a large part for the development of the V-2 buzz bomb.
The interstate highway system was modeled after the Autobahn. The Autobahn was conceived by the Fuhrer himself as a way to show Germany's industrial prowess, national resolve and capacity for technical innovation. Why, every time I get on I-10 I can feel the evil soaking through the floor mats.
George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a noted financier of the Nazi's. In fact, the government shut down his bank for that very same reason.
Any more reasons? just because someone uses the word "Nazi", which by the way is an contraction for the German words meaning "National Socialism", doesn't mean they have red armbands on and sing the "Horst Wessel". Pleae slow down and think before you commit electronic verbal diarrhea.
I think I read and comprehended what he wrote.
No, the statement below clearly indicates you didn't:
At worst, he was endorsing stuff that ranks among the most evil acts of history.
I'm bursting with curiosity as to what exactly is it you think he endorsed.
Is it the nazi genocide? No.
Is it mass deportation? No.
So what is it that he's endorsing that "ranks among the most evil acts of history?"
Before you attempt to answer, let me break down the clear (to most people) logic of the paragraph you are so incensed about:
The president said that task A - finding the illegals, and task B, transporting them outside the USA, are impossible. Vox pointed out that another country, with less technology to work with, was able to carry out task A and B, with a population that was better able to hide. The fact that the other country in the past also subsequently carried out task X (rather than C, because the progression is NOT inevitable) that being killing the people, is not relevant to the point he was making. No one is suggesting task X - the fact that the example country added task X at the end of the process in no way diminishes the relevance of their success with task A and B to this LOGISTICAL, NOT MORAL comparison.
Now, is his comparison valid? I don't necessarily think so - the government in his example enjoyed more power than ours does today, and as others have pointed out, the population being found and moved then was much more passively compliant than the one in question today. However, he could counter that, in his example, task X was reasonably foreseeable because of the government's rhetoric and other actions, which would certainly increase the target population's incentive to work against the success of task A and B. However, none of this makes his comparison monstrous or morally questionable.
So what's your issue? It sounds like you think he's advocating genocide, task X, when he's not even advocating A and B. Allow me to correct your fallacy - Exposition does not equal advocacy.
Your assumption that he is endorsing genocide depends upon a line of reasoning that gives us the following absurdities:
-To say that the number of murderers who get their guns on the street proves that gun control is ineffective, and that it's easy to get a gun on the street,.is to advocate murder.
-To say that the number of underage drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents shows that it's easy for kids to get booze is to advocate running down pedestrians in a drunken haze.
Post a Comment