It’s Not ‘Only Words’

1
423

tenth amend

A few years back I wrote a piece entitled ‘We Reject the Premise’ which lamented the blind acceptance, by all sorts of supposedly educated, supposedly well-meaning people, of Leftist propositions requiring the necessity of…action.  That situation has not improved itself much, as illustrated by the latest offering by Ross Kaminsky at American Spectator, in which he says just about everyone agrees that some form of “immigration reform” is necessary, going so far as to indicate that a large percentage of Americans think it’s a good idea to provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, sometimes called illegal immigrants, often called undocumented “workers” living in the United States.

It is very frustrating  to constantly see monologue, dialogue and debate about reforming our “immigration system.”  When an immigrant, with proper visa or green card or whatever document, is admitted to the United States for a specific purpose, or under a pre-determined quota of people able to be accommodated, or needed for a specific condition to be met, or to allow for compassionate asylum or refuge, what about that needs reformed?

We have a Department of Immigration and Naturalization supervised by the Department of State and the Department of Justice, and by Congress.  What needs changed about that?  Every civilized country in the world has something similar.  It is just a routine, normal way of handling the movements of people across borders, either temporarily or permanently. The whole brouhaha over “immigration reform” is about what to do with 11 million people who sneaked across the border from Mexico, or came across legally but never exited as per agreement.  Period.  It is about enforcement, or what to do about past unenforcement, or amnesty.  Period.

There is nothing cruel or unusual about requiring people entering the country, or staying in the country for a specified time, to have papers or to be deported if they don’t, or if they disobey the rules governing their residence.  That is the institutional right of every sovereign nation in the world.  If a legislature or executive wants to allow 50,000 more Mexicans, or Armenians, to go through the naturalization process next year than did last year, or to issue 100,000 more Green Cards, it doesn’t require “reform” of the body of immigration laws. Similarly, securing the borders of the country is an entirely separate issue from what to do with people living here illegally.  “Compromise” or tying  border control to legislation dealing with ordinary law enforcement regarding illegal aliens is an abomination, as is tying it to mundane issues of how many nationals of this or that country we want to import. We cannot continue to accept the premise that our immigration system is “broken”. That is absurd.  What is broken is enforcement and what to do about social conditions and arrangements and non-enforcement and prior amnesty years and decades after the fact is a matter of policy, not of any “system.”

Words mean things.  When the envirowhackos changed their dialectic from global warming to “climate change,” they acknowledged that.  They knew the jig was up unless they evolved in their use of ‘words’.  Just as the ‘liberals’ started calling themselves ‘progressive’.  And just as sure as the sun rises in the East, many of the same Republicans who used to say “Yes, of course the globe is warming.  We just don’t agree with the Democrats on what to do about it” are now saying “My goodness we are seeing so much change in weather these days, we need to meet these challenges responsibly.”  Sheesh.

Do we even need to get into the whole “Health Care Reform” fiasco?  Starting from the fact that the entire hullaballoo was never about caring for people’s health (which by the way is not an enumerated power) but was about who is supposed to pay for the care of the people’s health, and progressing to the fact that the licensing and regulation of medical professionals and, indeed insurance companies, is entirely a purview of individual states.  There is nothing about the act of “caring” for a patient that needs ‘reform’ by the national government.  Those words just to be taken out of the federal lexicon, along with a cabinet-level department or two.

And so much more.  “Early childhood education”.  You cannot ‘educate’ 2 and three year old children. That is folly.  The hype and the propaganda is that if you start early with formal education programs, the tykes will be better equipped later on to be successful.  What is never discussed is whose definition of “success” is operative.  And of course the fact that the sacred Head Start Program has been proven to be a waste of the billions and billions expended on it is never even brought into the discussion.  It’s not allowed to be discussed.  Because it’s “racist” to do so, or something.

And that segues us into the use of “racism”.  It is automatically a pejorative because it is automatically associated with illegal, unconstitutional, unequal treatment.  It has progressed to the absolute Orwellian absurdity of official US government forms including census data listing categories of “race” as “African American” or “black” or “Pacific Islander.”  It is a joke.  It is the abandonment of science, definition and rational thought in an insane, ultimately destined-to-fail pipe dream soap opera drama of not offending some sensibility or other. And on and on.

There is a new proposal being floated by our friend Vassar Bushmills to instigate a new era of debate – serious, pointed and purposeful debate to accomplish certain goals, which appear to be 1. To shine a light on the folly and inanity of New Age liberal thought processes and agenda motivation, and 2. To use that light to inspire and recruit however large or small a number of acolytes to the cause of constitutional conservatism.  But we’ll let him explain it here.

To that proposition, we say “Good!”  The two cents’ worth we would like to add is that in the promotion and conducting of these debates, and out here in everyday discourse and the Save The Republic Campaign as well, a conscious and determined effort be made to reject the premises for socio-political debate that have held sway for lo these past fifty years.  We are not going to debate how to ‘save the environment’ because  we cannot; it’s too big, too complex and it’s not our job. For example, we have pollution standards now approaching the levels of those concentrations found in nature.  It’s ridiculous.  This is civilization, not pre-history, nor Utopia.  We’re done with that. We can’t defeat God and we’re not going to try to. So just shut up, Progressives.  Next question…Answer: No, we’re not going to talk about education.  We’re going to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, and anyway Hillary Clinton said it took a village to raise a child, not a federal government.  And her husband said we have to take even the smallest of words, such as “is” – in context.  Words mean things. Go talk amongst yourselves and come back when you agree to the terms of the debate. This is a new day.

That sort of thing.

Dictionary

{With apologies to the BeeGees, and especially to Paula Gardner}

0 0 votes
Article Rating
bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.
Previous articleAre Either of Your Senators a Bobblehead Doll?
Next articleLet Texas Lead
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
vassar bushmills
February 8, 2014 8:10 am

Lassier les bons temps rouler