I haven't checked out all the links in this article:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/government_agencies_in_49_states_giving_vote_registration_forms_to_illegal_aliens.html
...but I've seen quite a few articles referencing illegals voting in American elections. This should never be happening. I don't even want foreign visitors with green cards or work/student visas to vote in our elections, and I don't care how long they've been here or what they think of our country. They're free to speak on any issue, but without citizenship, they need to stay the hell away from polling places and ballots. They have no right. None.
It wasn't very long ago that some like Tucker Carlson were berated for suggesting a leftist movement called "Replacement Theory" (or some such). It was said to be a conspiracy theory of the right-wing extremists...whoever the hell they are. Yet the Dem policy regarding the border, along with these many stories of state and local bodies allowing non-citizens to vote seems a very blatant proof that yet another claim of "conspiracy" turns out to be nefarious Dem reality.
We are supposed to be a self-governing nation. Not only to we have too many who leave governing to politicians based only on what letter follows their names, or by leaving circumstances in the hands of God...as if we have no roll in our national destiny...but now some feel just fine with leaving outsiders to govern us by allowing them to vote.
This doesn't happen with good conservatives (or even middling conservatives) in the majority in all levls of government. It just doesn't, because conservatives understand what made us and will again make us great as a nation. The left doesn't. The left is evil. This is just one more manifestation of it and center-right political animal should be a part of it, or stand by and let it happen.
38 comments:
Yep. Anyone pushing for non-citizens to vote is malicious.
I just saw a video of Carlson destroying a reporter on this topic. His point was that as long as birthrates by native born US citizens stay low, and we continue to grow our population by non selective mass immigration, that native born US citizens will be replaced by immigrants at some point. Which is, of course, True. The fact that some try to make it a "racist" thing simply distorts this Truth.
I believe it was Carlson, but it could've been someone else, who played a montage of Dems/lefties referring to immigration as a means by which they can increase their degree and potential for control, by replacing Americans (who are on the right) with foreigners who will vote for them. While lying lefties try to say "the Great Replacement" is a right-wing, fear-mongering myth, this montage exposed the fact that it is the point of lax immigration standards and policies.
The leftists will pretend our objection to open borders is due to some fictional fear of some fictional monolithic group of "white Christian male oppressors" of losing their dominance. The reality is that there is a dilution of the culture from allowing those with no intention of assimilation to our culture.
Culture. It's something "white Christian male oppressors" are criticized for daring to alter in other nations (when dealing with other nations where true oppression of their people take place). But the reality is that few have any problem with a legal immigrant family maintaining cherished customs in their own homes or among their fellow immigrants from the same point of origin.
But no other culture should take precedent over the American culture, and if lefties want to pretend they don't know what that means, they need to study our nation's founding and history, rather than pretend they know it. No other culture should have any dominance. Somali culture isn't American culture and it has no place here, if the point is to make America more like Somalia. Go back to Somalia if that's what you want. Doesn't matter what other country one cares to reference, it's American culture which is important here. Not Mexican culture, Russian culture, black culture, and certainly not Democrat Party culture.
The flooding of our nation with millions of foreigners from dozens of nations who have no intention of becoming American is to replace Americans with non-Americans.
I saw a bit from James Madison who regarded immigration as "of favor, not of right", which means we're doing them a favor by allowing entry to those who have no right to be allowed entry...especially on their terms, to their advantage, with no concern for our laws, culture or people.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/video_tucker_carlson_destroys_as_mindless_reporter_bot_in_australia.html
The above isn't entirely on point, but the video of Tucker Carlson responding to an Aussie "journalist" is. It shows how the left chooses to corrupt what is said by better people in lieu of better policy proposals and opinions on their part. So it's not just Dan. But he's a perfect example of what is so common among the left at all levels of human existence.
To that, I include those lefties who are well meaning but incapable of really defending what they believe to be true. One can believe what one likes, have opinions one finds personally appealing, but to defend those beliefs and opinions is something anyone should be willing and able to do in order to hold those opinions. For example, I would love it if, say, having non-committal sexual relations with any female I find attractive was open to me. But it's not. I can even think it should be, but I don't really have any reason for that position other than whatever appeal it has to me personally. Thus, I can't defend so I shouldn't promote it. We can replace hot babes with ice cream and the premise stands. I'd love to eat nothing but ice cream, but I can't defend the position and to believe or hold the opinion that ice cream is all I need is without basis beyond the personal appeal of the notion.
But actual positions, beliefs and opinions which move one toward seeking changes or establishment of policies or laws requires an argument based on facts which are drawn from actual life. The left can't really provide any such thing, and instead will attack those who do because what those who do propose and promote is inconvenient to that which the left desires simply because of the personal appeal it provides them.
Anyhow, the reporter carries on making unfounded assertions...straw men...expecting Carlson to defend them (like Dan does) or oppose them as if he has some obligation to address what SHE said he's said or what SHE insists he must believe because he's not a lefty, too. With regard to the Great Replacement issue, it's the racist angle so popular with lefties when trying to find some moral high ground in moral battles with better people...i.e., not lefties.
Just another way Demokrats cheat to get elected, so they can continue to destroy this country.
Anyone supporting non-citizens voting is malicious.
"The Great Replacement is Happening!!!"
Chapter 26 in the book, "Incredibly Stupid Conspiracy Theories Human Beings have Actually Believed! (and This, in Spite of the Evidence!)"
Other chapters include:
Moon Landing? Pfft! You Actually Believe in the Moon?!!
Man, Those Slaves Were Having Fun!
Of Course, the Election Was Stolen - Just Look at Chapter 26!!
Flat Earth and the Plot to Keep it a Secret!
And many, many more.
I hope one day you'll have the good sense to be embarrassed about all the nonsense you all have believed, and the courage to admit you were mistaken and apologize about it all.
Carlson dismantled the "journalist" because her entire premise was built on a lie, and he pointed it out. His most significant point, that using massive amounts of unregulated immigration to counter declining birthrates, will diminish the unique American culture is valid and not racist in the least. The unique thing about American culture is the assimilation of numerous other cultures into the "melting pot" which resulted in something new and different. This massive influx of unregulated immigration is people that seem to have no intention of assimilating and are intent on submerging US culture in their own.
Craig,
If that ain't replacing our people with foreigners, I don't know what is. Any foreigner who comes here legally with the intention of becoming an American citizen is by definition not replacing Americans, but adding to our number. Merely crossing the border doesn't do that.
Things have gotten so bad thanks to Biden and the jackasses who allowed him to ascend by choosing him or by rejecting a better, proven commodity, that the only way to correct it is to seal the border and deport each and everyone who crossed it illegally. Period. THEN we can talk about who and how many we allow to enter.
Dan.
What evidence do you have which negates the reality of what is happening, and those of your ilk who have promoted it? Anything, or just your weak attempt at humorous condescension? When a jackass from Jeff St. who asserts there actually is more than two genders, who actually thinks a person of one sex can engage in self-butchery and magically be the opposite sex, who actually thinks there's some difference between the humanity/personhood/unalienable right to life of someone near the end of his life versus one who's life was just begun at conception, who thinks there's actually some way to assert God might bless a same-sex union despite labeling same-sex relations as detestable, who thinks the wealthy paying the lion's share of all income tax revenues is still somehow not "Fair Share" enough, who actually thinks Biden and Obama were/are better presidents than Donald Trump...who thinks all these fictions and fantasies and more is true, but the replacing of our people with foreigners with no desire to assimilate is evidence of wild conspiracy theory, that's one very world class, grade A jackass of a deluded (or intentionally lying) individual. Worse, what Dan believes he believes without the slightest evidence, while dismissing all the evidence which supports what he rejects.
Glenn,
No. They're "fundamentally transforming" our nation, which...you know...is really the same thing as destroying it.
By whatever means, they will do all they can to gain and maintain power to serve that end.
Neil,
Not just malicious, but treasonous.
And speaking of fiction and fantasy, Dan wants to believe that it's altruism and compassion which compels the Biden/Democrat open border policy. He also likes to believe the conservative opposition to it is a matter of racism or xenophobia, rather than what it is, the welfare of our people. Dan wants to let in anyone with a sad story and worry about all the harm which comes with it later...as if it will ever be rectified. Conservatives want to stop the stupidity of open borders and take all the time needed to determine who's sob story is valid. In the meantime, there's no need to deny those who seek to enter on our terms, by our laws, as they are already proving themselves to be the type of people who will benefit us by their being here, simply by virtue of their following procedure.
Always remember: Dan's a moron and is dedicated to making sure that's never forgotten.
“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit... And then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back they can go back...
“If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”
~Jimmy Carter, that paragon of grace and wisdom
“It says something about our country that people around the world are willing to leave their homes and leave their families and risk everything to come to America.
Their talent and hard work and love of freedom have helped make America the leader of the world. And our generation will ensure that America remains a beacon of liberty and the most hope fill society this world has ever known.”
~Bill Clinton, a flawed man who nonetheless saw the wisdom of welcoming people in because we ARE a beacon of liberty and hope
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Emma Lazarus/State of Liberty, of course.
Listen to the wise ones.
Jimmy Carter--Until Obama-Biden he was the worst president in history.
Bill Clinton--One of the most immoral presidents in history.
The people Dan cites cracks me up.
Hey DAN--we are all for LEGAL immigration, which is the same thing Carter and Clinton were for. Don't twist their words to mean they were for illegal immigration.
Without laws we have anarchy--the very thing Demokrats want.
Dan,
Such replies demonstrate the depth of your moral depravity and dishonesty.
First, The Emma Lazarus line does not imply an open border to anyone who wishes to come here out of sheer greed and selfishness, with no desire to be American. The poem was inspired by anti-semitic treatment of Jews in Russia. Thus, the poem appeals to the truly oppressed knowing they can have refuge here, which is not something honest and intelligent people are opposing by pushing back on morally bankrupt morons like yourself.
Nor does her poem suggest, imply or encourage people in need to come here and sneak in through any area not an official port of entry. Like your dishonest corruption of OT commandments with regard to "the sojourner", only a progressive would lie and suggest her poem can justly be used to attack better people concerned with their own fellow citizens.
2. Bill Clinton...your pervert king...wasn't suggesting a Biden/Trabue open border policy, either. He was acknowledging the greatness of our country which continues to lure those from elsewhere, despite vile criticisms against it by progressives. His quote also presumes those who seek to enter legally and by our laws and procedures...not illegally as you would allow.
3. Jimmy Carter...that paragon of stupidity and failure as a president...ignores that we already had the means by which folks could legally enter to work and eventually become citizens. He's talking out his sorry ass and there's not a shred of wisdom to encourage what already exists.
Because of stupid people...A.K.A. Democrats/progressives/marxists (same things)...we have a desperate situation which requires desperate actions and solutions. The first among them is to close the border as completely as is physically possible. The only openings should be through legal ports of entry and treacherous geographical obstacles which inhibit the ability to put of a wall. The strictest of entry policies can accommodate the truly "oppressed", defined by people with actual brains and true compassion for both our people and those who seek refuge...not by assholes like you or your kind. This should last until we have confidence that all who entered illegally are deported without regard for whether or not they themselves are criminals/terrorists or just poor, sad families looking for a better life...which they could have had had they not sneaked in illegally.
Your kind is responsible for this horrible mess and the deaths, rapes and overdoses which have resulted. You don't get to participate in how to resolve it, because your stupidity is proven. Our leadership in the world doesn't mean shit if we aren't capable of leading, and as your kind is destroying this nation, or leadership position is far more jeopardized than a closed border could ever have made it.
Sorry, those were Reagan/ Bush quotes, not Carter/Clinton. The point stands though.
1. It is legal for refugees to seek to immigrate from dangerous places.
2. It is reasonable to accommodate such refugees. Even Reagan/Bush said so.
3. No one is saying immigrants/refugees should not be vetted.
4. Congress could change this now by providing funds to pay for resources to vet immigrants. But your pervert king told the GOP not to cooperate and they obeyed the idiot king.
Laws not being passed to take care of this are squarely the fault of Trump and the modern HOP. Even Reagan/Bush could have agreed to taking action.
5. It is a moral and rational imperative to make room for and welcome the oppressed. Even Reagan/Bush would have agreed.
Dan
Dan
Dan,
So you intentionally lied about the source of those quotes. Typical given you're a known inveterate liar.
But the jokes on you, asshat. The responses don't change because you fessed up as to the actual people making those statements. So insert the proper names with the false ones you purposely posted and there will be no difference whatsoever.
Now let's look at your list:
"1. It is legal for refugees to seek to immigrate from dangerous places."
No. It's not illegal to seek refuge from actual danger. What's illegal is a matter of how that refuge is sought. To simply cross our border anywhere but official ports of entry and then assert one is a poor refugee fleeing danger is illegal. We have our rules and procedures and they must be followed for the benefit of our nation first. Period. There's nothing at all immoral about this reality and obligation of our government in the response to refugee claims. Nothing whatsoever.
"2. It is reasonable to accommodate such refugees. Even Reagan/Bush said so."
No one on the right, particularly Trump, is suggesting that true victims of direct danger cannot be accommodated. At the same time, it's more than merely reasonable to suspend any such accommodating until the mess your moronic pick for president who was never fit for the job even in his younger years has foisted upon the nation. There's no way honest migrants believe it's truly OK to just cross anywhere they like except that your shit-for-brains choice for president has told them they could.
And exactly what do you mean by "accommodate". I'm sure it's the stupidity we're seeing whereby these law breakers are given more than our own people who are in need. But at present, there's nothing at all reasonable about accommodating anyone who crosses at unapproved points of entry.
"3. No one is saying immigrants/refugees should not be vetted."
Not in words, but certainly in actions and your special brand of stupid approves. We're using our people who should be keeping these people out to ram through as many as they can handle in hopes they will return for their hearings to determine whether their stories are true. More don't than do and your asshat party is good with that.
"4. Congress could change this now by providing funds to pay for resources to vet immigrants. But your pervert king told the GOP not to cooperate and they obeyed the idiot king."
First of all, I've seen no evidence that Biden told the GOP to oppose the Dem crap-sandwich immigration bill.
Secondly, I've seen nothing which confirms that the GOP legislators wait for approval from Trump to do anything. He's currently not a part of our government and the GOP aren't Dems, so they don't kowtow in perfect harmony with even party leaders currently serving.
Congress must agree on a bill for any funding and what they should be doing is funding border security to funnel all migrants to legal ports of entry, where they must wait until there is someone who can determine the validity of their sad story. They must also spend money on that part of ICE which deals with tracking down illegals in order to deport them. Because of the stupidity of your dumb-fuck presidential choice, moronically suggested as more fit for office and a better man than Trump, this situation is out of hand and the tiny percentage of true refugees/asylum seekers will have to wait until the law breakers are denied entry and those already in are rounded up and sent out of the country. THAT serves the nation and will eventually allow us to properly managed asylum seekers.
"Laws not being passed to take care of this are squarely the fault of Trump and the modern HOP."
Bullshit. Your party of death and perversion are still the majority in Congress overall. They continually come up with bullshit proposals which don't address the most major concerns surrounding their open border policies, about which they've lied like a fucking Trabue to the American people for years. They put foreigners first and Americans have been suffering...even to the point of death...as a result. You're a liar and part of the evil which plagues this nation. The man you wish was actually a "pervert king" or "idiot king" has done more to rectify this problem and the true moron you supported as being better than him...because you're just that fucking stupid and evil...needed only to continue the policies he instituted which were working. This is not even debatable, from Biden being a moron who caused this problem to get out of hand, to Trump having had a far better handle on it, to you being just that fucking stupid and evil.
It's bad enough you're an incredibly stupid individual, but your pathological lying is far worse. Keep that crap for your Blog of Lies. It has no place here.
"5. It is a moral and rational imperative to make room for and welcome the oppressed."
It was before you and your kind made the situation the deadly clusterfuck it now is. Now the prime directive for immigration and the border is to close the latter and suspend the former until we rid ourselves of the slugs and vermin your assholes welcomed with open arms. With every woman/girl raped and or murdered, with every cop assaulted and/or murdered, with every case of illegals pretending to be Amazon delivery drivers in order to rob and/or assault an American homeowner, with every tale of another person dying from fentanyl poisoning...etc., etc., etc., I think of a moron from a store front church on Jeff St. in Louisville who mocks Christ by claiming to be a Christian while supporting what led to all of the above in order to posture as "Christian".
And the worst part is how many of these migrants are being victimized as well because of your stupidity and false "Christian" sanctimony.
You're one vile piece of shit. You like to condescend to your betters by saying, "Be a better man". I'd recommend the same to you but you've proven you have no idea what that would even look like. Just stop lying and supporting evil and perversion. Study truth. Apologize for falsely claiming to be a Christian and humble yourself before the Lord.
What's interesting about people who deny that the US is/will be fundamentally changed by unchecked/unregulated immigration, is that we are literally watching a great replacement happening right now across Europe.
"No one is saying immigrants/refugees should not be vetted."
Yet millions on unvetted immigrants cross the border regularly. Not to mention the conflation of immigrants and refugees.
"Congress could change this now by providing funds to pay for resources to vet immigrants. But your pervert king told the GOP not to cooperate and they obeyed the idiot king."
Donald Trump isn't president and has absolutely zero power to do anything. The DFL controls half of congress and the presidency, yet it is somehow 100% the fault of someone who is not currently in office. When immigrants do not cross the border legally, when we have no way to limit border crossings to vet immigrants, when immigrants are released into the US unfettered while the vetting is going on, and while we regularly see immigrants who commit felonies not be deported, it seems strange to try to sell this bullshit.
"It is a moral and rational imperative to make room for and welcome the oppressed."
1. No it's not.
2. In a world where there is no (knowable) universal, objective, moral code, this objective claim makes literally no sense.
3. Look at Europe and tell me how that's going.
4. Even if you could prove your claim, it would still require a level of control of entry and vetting that goes far beyond what Biden is doing.
"In a world where there is no (knowable) universal, objective, moral code, this objective claim makes literally no sense."
The thing is, Craig, that in a world where you, Craig, can't objectively prove even one moral hunch you, Craig, hold, it is all the more imperative that we come up with rational moral standards that reasonable people can agree upon.
You'd think, based on how much you run in hiding from even beginning to try and prove any of your hunches that you'd be more open to some basic moral reasoning.
You always present yourself as a moral anarchist. It's not a good look.
This response of yours (the both of you) to my extremely rational and Christ-ian suggestion...
"It is a moral and rational imperative to make room for and welcome the oppressed."
1. No it's not.
Wow. Point blank. No. Are you really saying that it's NOT rational and moral to make room for the oppressed??
That's mind-boggling.
Dan
Dan,
There's a difference between something being "moral and rational" versus being "a moral and rational imperative". It's not an imperative which overshadows our governments imperative to protect us and act to insure and enhance the general welfare of us.
But again, no one (aside from me as far as I can tell) is suggesting withholding refuge to the truly needy, and then only until it can be determine true need exists. At the same time, when so many such people are crossing through other countries closer to their own and willing to provide refuge, I see no reason to accept their sob stories as true.
What's mind boggling is how easily and willingly you ignore the many desperately serious problems now before us because of stupidity of people like you and those you support with your vote.
As to objectively proving "moral hunches", you continue with this crap despite so many discussions and arguments where these "moral hunches" have been objectively supported if not entirely proven. In the meantime, you offer nothing but wild ass preferences, not actual moral beliefs backed by anything substantive.
And if you dare wish to speak of "moral imperatives", it seems to me far more imperative is the elimination of that which compels one to flee to another country...specifically to ours. Go to those countries, Dan. End their misery...non-violently, of course. We await your results.
There's a difference between something being "moral and rational" versus being "a moral and rational imperative".
So, you're agreeing that it is moral and rational to make room for oppressed refugees?
...It's not an imperative which overshadows our governments imperative to protect us and act to insure and enhance the general welfare of us.
1. Are you suggesting that there are some moral actions that are okay NOT to do if you are afraid that there might be some few instances of bad consequences as a possible reaction? Because, I hope you can appreciate how immoral and cowardly that sounds.
2. If I think a behavior is a good and right behavior, then I will do it, even if something bad might happen possibly, once in a while.
That is, if I and the people I know/associate with think it is moral and reasonable to help out people who don't have housing - allowing them to use our garden hose for cleaning off, giving them employment opportunities, inviting them in for dinner, maybe inviting them to live with us temporarily in some circumstances, letting them use our church mailing address to receive mail, adopting orphaned children, etc, the things good people in my church and beyond have regularly done - then we will do it. AND we do it knowing that sometimes, someone will abuse that trust, that opportunity. Maybe steal something. Maybe strike out at one of us. We know that bad things happen because they have. But we still believe such actions/behaviors/policies are the right thing to do. We don't let the fear of what might (or will, even) happen stop us. We might put procedures and policies in place to protect folks, but we're not so cowardly that we would not do what we know to be right because of fear of what might happen.
I can't believe you're that cowardly or lacking in moral wherewithal, either, but you tell me.
3. Who was it who said, If you only love (help out, greet, etc) those who love you and those you're comfortable with, you are not moral or of God?
4. IF it were the case that every time a refugee or immigrant came to our nation, they turned out to be a terrorist, well, that would be different. OR even if it happened regularly, like 3 out of 10 times... that might be different. But if we're not doing those actions we know to be right and good and reasonable because there is a tiny chance that one in a million times, something bad will happen, well, that just doesn't speak well of our morality, it seems to me.
5. "Those countries" don't need the great white savior to come and fix them, Marshal. They've had enough of that, thank you very much. But providing aid and assistance to those nations that struggle? That's something good people do, too. And, from a national interest point of view, that's reasonable and moral, too, for nations like ours to provide helpful aid (not coming in and telling them how to fix things). And Democrats tend to support that kind of action. But not the GOP.
You know what would help Nicaragua out? IF the US paid the millions (billions?) in war crime money owed to them by us for our war crimes we committed there.
Being helpful and compassionate is not a wimpy little thing to do. It DOES take some courage and intelligence and cooperation with those who are suffering. It's moral and reasonable. That you all oppose it is just hard to fathom.
"The thing is, Craig, that in a world where you, Craig, can't objectively prove even one moral hunch you, Craig, hold, it is all the more imperative that we come up with rational moral standards that reasonable people can agree upon."
It's interesting that in your response, you choose to focus on my inability while not mentioning your inability. The notion that you ("we") are somehow responsible for coming up with "moral standards" that can be imposed on others is concerning. The reality is that you have no grounding to make the claim you made.
"You'd think, based on how much you run in hiding from even beginning to try and prove any of your hunches that you'd be more open to some basic moral reasoning."
Given the total lack of evidence in the above that you have the ability to reason and watching how your morality plays out, I see nothing that would entice me to look to you for moral guidance. I always appreciate you making bullshit, unproven claims like this as if it somehow magically covers for your lack of grounding to impose your subjective moral code on others.
"You always present yourself as a moral anarchist. It's not a good look."
When you blatantly lie like this it's really not a good look and it calls into question a moral code that is so reliant on lying about others.
"This response of yours (the both of you) to my extremely rational and Christ-ian suggestion..."
Nice job of making up a brand new category to try to associate your made up, subjective moral code with Christ.
"Wow. Point blank. No. Are you really saying that it's NOT rational and moral to make room for the oppressed??"
No, I'm saying that under your subjective, allegedly consensus based, "moral code' that you have no grounding to assert that your subjective hunch is a "moral imperative" for anyone else. I'm saying that to assert that a subjective hunch magically becomes an objective "moral imperative" is quite a leap. I'm saying that while under some moral codes their might be a "rational and moral" case to be made for a general premise that "making room" for the "oppressed" is a good thing, there is nothing that demands that the US "make room" for all of the "oppressed" with no regulation. Europe tried your "moral imperative" and look what happened. Isn't there a "moral imperative" for the "oppressed' to assimilate and do crazy things like follow laws?
"That's mind-boggling."
Yes, your hunch that you can impose your subjective "moral imperative" on others is mind boggling.
"So, you're agreeing that it is moral and rational to make room for oppressed refugees?"
In general, it is always moral to help the needy. "Rational" plays no role in it, except as it pertains to the current situation at our border and within our borders due to morons like you and the morons you elect. This is the case even when allowing that "rational" implies a personal profit or benefit of some kind by taking said "rational" action.
"1. Are you suggesting that there are some moral actions that are okay NOT to do if you are afraid that there might be some few instances of bad consequences as a possible reaction? Because, I hope you can appreciate how immoral and cowardly that sounds."
Not cowardly at all given the reality, which your dishonest corruption of it enables. We are not at all talking about "some 'few' instances of bad consequences" with regard to our border situation. They're great in number and many of them negatively impact the illegals themselves. The bad consequences are many in type as well, as they run from the violent to the financial. They also include subordinating the rights and opinions of actual Americans which is meant to inevitably overwhelm those of us who are conservative in nature and more than a little fond of the ideals of our founding fathers, upon which this false compassion craps.
As such, your dishonest question implies there is no moral considerations on the other side of the issue. Only the illegals and if they claim to be fleeing danger, we are not to question them and damn the consequences which fall upon your fellow countrymen.
"2. If I think a behavior is a good and right behavior, then I will do it, even if something bad might happen possibly, once in a while."
Oh, shut up and cram your false bravado. It's really Christian that you would allow your wife or daughter to be raped just so you can posture. May God protect them because you're a clear and present danger to them.
And know that every time you present these sweet anecdotal tales involving these friends and associates you claim to have (hard to believe), they are immediately disqualified under your own rules for supporting claims and opinions. They are totally worthless. You waste your time trying to convince us of what you want us to believe about you, when your basic positions are so flawed and generally morally corrupt.
"We might put procedures and policies in place to protect folks, but we're not so cowardly that we would not do what we know to be right because of fear of what might happen."
So you're taking precautions against harm, but denying that to our government on behalf of us all. Nice. What an abject dick you are. If you're not afraid, how does putting procedures and policies to protect folks affirm that claim? Cut the crap. It's this sort of thing which confirms you're not fit to be involved in immigration policy of any kind.
"3. Who was it who said, If you only love (help out, greet, etc) those who love you and those you're comfortable with, you are not moral or of God?"
There you go again perverting Scripture in order to promote your immoral immigration positions. How is one demonstrating love for others by endangering their own? As with your anecdotes, whenever you try to cite Scripture to make your case, I immediately know you're lying.
4. You lie by trying to minimize the negative consequences of open border policies and releasing those claiming asylum to return if they feel like it to confirm their claims. The problems which have been imposed upon us by morons like you and those you elect are not few in number and you're a rank liar trying to pretend we're overstating the case. That kind of thing might fly at your Blog of Lies, but not here.
"5. "Those countries" don't need the great white savior to come and fix them, Marshal."
I don't care what race the savior might be, but leave it to a racist like you to make this a racial issue. The point is that you claim to have compassion for these sad and defenseless refugees, but aren't willing to a damned thing to mitigate the possibility they will be followed by hordes of others making the same claims you'll never verify. Are you afraid of the negative consequences of going where the problem is to help rectify it? Are you unwilling to risk to help those in need? Clearly you are, and you dishonestly try to make the suggestion out to be some sort of racist thing. You accuse us of cowardice, but you won't make a real sacrifice on behalf of those suffering but unable to leave. That's because you insist that others foot the bill here and make sacrifices YOU insist they must in order for YOU to feel you're their GREAT WHITE SAVIOR!! Always keep in mind, Dan. When you come here, you're not dealing with another moron lefty like yourself.
Your crap about sending these nations our money (actually the money of others...not your own)...doesn't change a thing when the oppressors you insist compel their flight are in control. They take aid for themselves and little is done for those in need that has any sustaining value or benefit to them. There conditions remain the same and you want to pretend that's the moral thing...a large scale "give them a fish" situation. It's not until their oppressors can be overthrown and replaced by real leaders will they stop coming here begging for refuge. Cut the crap.
"You know what would help Nicaragua out? IF the US paid the millions (billions?) in war crime money owed to them by us for our war crimes we committed there."
Says the shit-for-brains who believes the communist Sandinistas. You're a moron.
No one here is opposing support for the truly needy. We're opposed to a flood of people crossing our borders in such large and continuing masses that it overwhelms or ability to determine which few of these hordes are truly such needy people. And even those who are truly needy must understand our laws and procedures must be respected and obeyed if they truly hope to benefit from our compassion and charity. The adage "beggars can't be choosers" is a solid principle and what constitutes "truly needy" can never be defined by the likes of you and those you elect. We need adults for that job, not asshats.
. And even those who are truly needy must understand our laws and procedures must be respected and obeyed if they truly hope to benefit from our compassion and charity.
So, the very poorest and most destitute - those with the fewest resources in their own nation... these people need to familiarize themselves with the specifics of the laws of our nation, in all their intricacies and specifics, in a language they don't speak? They need to do this before you will deign to consider any compassion and "charity..."?
Do you not see how grade school shitty that thinking is? How very un-Christian/anti-christ-ian that is?
If you can't see how graceless and elitist that is, why not? Has your great privilege and emotional irrationality blinded you to basic human kindness?
"So, you're agreeing that it is moral and rational to make room for oppressed refugees?"
I'm "agreeing" that a case could be made on subjective moral and rational grounds that a specific nation could/should accept a limited number of refugees on a temporary basis as long as they met certain criteria and followed the established legal process."
1. I'm suggesting that the primary purpose of the US government is to act in ways that benefit US citizens first. I'm suggesting that they have a moral duty to look out for US citizens ahead of anyone else. I'm suggesting that if two ostensibly moral actions conflict that the deciding factor should be what benefits US citizens. What's cowardly is watching European governments sanction their own citizens for publicly disseminating accurate statistical data about the demographics of the majority of rapists, and the refusal to prosecute rapists because they don't want riots.
2. Interesting. It sounds as if you are willing to pay the price of a few rapes and murders of innocent civilians or a few hundred Fentanyl deaths as long as the immigrant spigot stays unregulated. Seems like a high price.
It's always amusing when Dan uses a hypothetical based on a situation that bears no relationship to the national immigration crisis to justify virtually unfettered immigration.
3. Ahh the cherry picking/paraphrasing of Jesus' words to justify liberal government policy.
4. SO, what's the magic number of rapes/murders/overdoses/robberies/other violent crimes that tips your moral scale? How many innocent civilians have to be harmed before you advocate for change? How many times does the same immigrant get to be arrested for violent crimes before you'll finally send them back? How many times do immigrants who commit violent crimes receive a get out of jail free card from a sanctuary city?
It's strange how when it comes to gun violence the standard is "If was can save one life.", but when it comes to violent crimes by immigrants there's a price that must be paid in innocent victims before Dan's moral code kicks in.
5. They don't need a "great white savior", but they do need some help from the "white saviors". What a bizarre notion.
"You know what would help Nicaragua out? IF the US paid the millions (billions?) in war crime money owed to them by us for our war crimes we committed there."
Absolutely, because giving the rich ruling class of Nicaragua more millions of dollars to pad their numbered accounts in the Caymans is an excellent idea. Because obviously getting rid of a corrupt, oppressive, criminal, communist, dictatorship isn't going to help at all.
You know what'd help Haiti? If the Clintons and their cronies hadn't stolen millions of dollars donated for earthquake relief. You know what'd help Haiti? A couple of battalions of mechanized infantry to surround Port Au Prince to eradicate the gangs and provide stability for the legitimate government.
Being helpful and compassionate with one's own resources is a good thing to do, especially as that will likely include some limits. Being helpful and compassionate with other people's resources, and in ways that harm others, is what's truly cowardly.
What Dan seems to want for the US is what we are seeing in Europe. I personally think that having entire sections of cities where the police are unable to go, is a bad thing. I personally think that immigrants coming to countries then demanding that those countries allow them free reign because "their culture" is a problem. Hopefully we'll learn from Europe and prevent the US from getting as bad and making the inevitable correction less difficult.
"Do you not see how grade school shitty that thinking is? How very un-Christian/anti-christ-ian that is?"
What's "shitty" is a shithead Jeff St. fake Christian implying in his racist manner that foreigners are too stupid and ignorant to plan a trip. If you can't see how graceless and elitist that is, why not?
"Has your great privilege and emotional irrationality blinded you to basic human kindness?"
I'm neither greatly privileged nor am I in any way irrational...emotionally or otherwise. Indeed, because I think...that is, actually use the brain God gave me, and am smart enough to understand this issue as it stands, my vision is damned near perfect.
The issue here is the current leftist lie that there is no intention in inviting this flood of people we haven't the resources to easily vet, to gain more political power on the presumption the vast majority of these people with no particular desire or care for our nation beyond what they can get from it will vote Dem and by doing so, replace the voice and desires of actual Americans. Within this ten million or more lawbreakers are likely a tiny percentage truly fleeing actual life-threatening danger, and you want to pretend this massive crowd must be allowed to enter in any means of their choosing and we're somehow meanies by seeking to restore order.
The vast majority of these people...if not freaking all of them...are schooled in how and where to cross and what to do when they do so or are caught doing so. And you're going to pretend there are large numbers of ignoramuses who need the Great White Savior Dan Trabue to take them in his care on the dime of the nation, otherwise they'd just be lost as to how to enter our country after making the long journey. That's just another argument for the Wall, to funnel them all toward the official ports of entry where all their refugee questions can be answered.
"So, the very poorest and most destitute - those with the fewest resources in their own nation... these people need to familiarize themselves with the specifics of the laws of our nation, in all their intricacies and specifics, in a language they don't speak?"
What a ridiculous question. Obviously they don't have to memorize the entire US criminal code. But it's reasonable to expect them to be able to figure out that they go to a specific place to legally claim asylum, follow the instructions given, maybe figure out that things like theft, rape, murder, assault, battery, and the like are frowned upon.
Of course, if they plan to assimilate, none of this will be a problem.
https://winteryknight.com/2024/07/03/young-women-in-europe-disappointed-with-the-results-of-their-own-votes/
This is what Dan wants. Of course, he'll deny that he wants the negative effects, but the negative effects seem inextricably linked to the left wing immigration policies that spawned them. Europe is ahead of us when it comes to these kinds of things. They jumped in to the whole "trans" everyone who wants whenever they want craze, and now they've realized what a mistake it was. They went crazy on unlimited, unregulated immigration and now they're realizing what the cost of that is. We can learn from their mistakes, or we can follow them down the toilet.
I'll bet ya Dan isn't willing to take any of these illegals into his home.
Glenn,
I'll bet ya that he is. But the thing is, he doesn't do it in the manner he expects the United States to do it with the hordes of invaders constantly invading. He will "vet" them to the bets of his inability to do such things competently, and he's willing to put his wife and whomever else lives with him in jeopardy in order to posture as a "Christian" with compassion for "the least of these". That's fine, and good luck to his wife and whomever else lives with them.
But can I wager that he's making sure the authorities are aware of the illegals' presence and that he's taking full responsibility for any negative consequences which result? Don't think so. And while he's certain to proclaim himself taking on that responsibility, if it isn't above board legally, it matters not and as such not just his own family is at risk.
What's more, there's this little issue of semantic games. Are those he claims to serve legit refugees (as if he and his kind can actually tell) who came through government services before being taken in by him, or just illegals who found their way to him without any contact with the authorities? That would be aiding and abetting until he himself does the contacting of the local authorities. And in such a situation, does he even have a legal ability to take responsibility for the actions of illegal invaders in the first place? So many questions, but the one that counts here is why stray from the topic, which is the Great Replacement? I mention that which goes along with it and he pounces on this nonsense about those in need as if such constitutes the bulk of the invasive hordes. They don't.
Craig,
Dan's scraping the barrel in trying to legitimize illegal behavior. The further a poor illiterate unfortunate must travel to take refuge here, rather than in any of the worthy options on the way, the more some level of intelligence and planning took place. That would include knowing that we're suffering from the infection of so many Trabues who "feel" rather than think because their heads are so firmly up their own asses. Among the scant few who are actually fleeing actual life-threatening danger, the percentage of them who don't know enough about this country is likely minuscule at best.
Given the reality that some of those who have entered our country illegally have made the news for some horrific crimes they've committed (as well as what's happening in Europe), isn't this becoming a moral question? Do not those who advocate unregulated, unlimited, immigration with no vetting before admission, bear any moral responsibility for the crimes committed by those they allow to enter? Clearly these crimes would not have been committed had they perpetrators been prevented from entering the country or been deported for other crimes.
Of course, Craig, you're denying these thugs, terrorists and other criminals their "right" of "self-determination"....you white bigot!
Without question, those who advocate for the current situation are indeed culpable for all the harm done to our people and other illegals. As we both know so well, the prime directive is "do no harm" from which all Godliness comes. But in this case, a little harm ain't so bad so long as millions of sad peasants and peons fleeing direct personal danger has a warm, safe place to take refuge, along with around 4%0-$100K is American goodies and non-refundable handouts.
The modern progressive will defend their stupidity by saying they're not talking about not vetting illegals, but the reality is that so many are allowed entry prior to that vetting, on the promise they will return for their hearings to determine their eligibility to remain. So few actually show up and where those who don't go, what they plan to do...none of that is known and none of it is worthy of the concern of the modern progressives, who only care about posturing.
Post a Comment