968d548864a1bac6b642…

That said…I look forward to continued dialogue with all of you on the immigration topic. Until then…buy American, vote (with your dollar too!), and support the troops :)
Biffstir

(Is that popcorn in your nose, or are you just a Right-Wing fanatic?)

What he doesn’t see is that the President has moved so close to the Left, that those of us on the Right with clear vision refuse to follow him there.

jummy, consider this. Every issue in the current political spectrum finds the Left railing against President Bush EXCEPT:

1. Border enforcement/illegal alien citizenship
2. Education
3. Entitlements

They agree with him on ONLY those things where we on the Right believe they (and he) are wrong. Or did you support the President signing McCain/Feingold even though it was horrendous law?

(“Epsitemology” is a discilpine too new to have a name.)

Why the WSJ.

I guess they paid for their term papers in Philosophy, skipped as many classes as possible and avoided absorbing even the rudiments of Logic 101, Epsitemology 202, Critical Reasoning 303, and Comparative Ideologies 404.

Pathetic ad hominem irrationalism posing as Higher Wisdom.

Their Motto:

America, Sell It or Sublet it.

I think you are naive about your paper’s stance. I don’t see any evidence that Bob Bartley’s progeny are in any way troubled by illegal immigration, even to this day. Their editorials specifically expressed lack of such concern until just a few months before 9/11. “Open borders” to the WSJ means no fence, no guards …. basically no rules. I have NEVER seen the Journal identify illegal-immigrant enforcement mechanisms it would consider acceptable. I have NEVER seen the Journal acknowledge the illegal-immigrant crime wave. And I have NEVER seen the Journal acknowledge employers’ responsibility to make best efforts to hire only people who are here legally.

THOSE White dudes control the WSJ? I guess there’s nothing like advocating a new slavery class, eh?

SouthernGent on June 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Maybe instead of slavery they’d like to go old school on us and bring back the Serf class.

I got a fever! And the prescription is more Vent!

I think there must be a connection to Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to buy out the Dow Jones & Co which owns the WSJ. Maybe Gigot and company was trying to scare off Murdoch by appearing as a bunch of flakes running the WSJ Editorial Board.

My only response would be that there’s a huge difference between ‘open borders’ that allow legal transience of persons vs. ‘open borders’ that allow illegals. To a person I suspect that the edit board would tell you they’re against illegal immigration, don’t favor amnesty for those here illegally, and would push for logical immigration policy. However, the (now failed) bill of late was bad from the get-go as many on this site agree. My opinion is that the video segment showed the edit board calling a spade a spade (figure of speech, not a racist comment!): the Right has reacted rabidly to this bill and the President’s call to action. Our nation WILL NOT SURVIVE if we do not stem the tide of illegal immigration, but it will be torn apart from the inside if we do not agree on sensible policy for the illegals here now, and immigrants of the future. If the President has busted his @$$ to get a bipartisan compromise, and the Right has in effect filibustered(sp?) that effort, you can’t blame him for being testy. He’s getting beat up at every turn and is trying to make headway somehow, somewhere, with his administration. The beauty of the US is that we can, regardless of which side of the aisle we’re on, voice our displeasure and modify the course of history! I love this place :)

The Journal’s edit staff, as a post’r noted further up, is typically very hawkish/Right/conservative. So for them to lob a grenade within their own camp (Gigot more than the others) is IMHO puzzling to say the least. However, they have in the past and will continue to moving forward, press the hot button issues and keep them in play. Honestly, as I noted above, if this was the NYT’s edit board and they were slamming their own as bigots and racist, this blog would be 20 posts featuring e-high fives and the thread would close in about 24 hrs due to lack of interest. But it wasn’t…and the Right has, as a result, been even more fired up about the immigration bill and voila! It’s dead. Score two pts for the good guys.

SouthernGent, re: your comment: THOSE white dudes don’t control the WSJ. They’re responsible for the op-ed columns. In case you missed it, the Bancroft family et. al. control The Journal. For now, anyhow ;)

Enjoy your weekend and keep our troops in your thoughts folks.

I miss the old Vents and the grass roots collaborations of the men and women of the conservative net.

Oh well. I suppose everything matures and melts into everything out there.

Oh ya, I didn’t watch this Vent either. The Vent used to be the main reason to link in! Now I find myself linking here out of habit, but linking out by habit as well.

Similarly, you are welcome to be wrong on this one. Just realize that your insipid insistence on insults doesn’t help anything.

Regardless of what you believe, Jummy, for virtually all of those on the border-security side of this issue, this isn’t about maintaining some insane racial purity, whatever that might mean.

We aren’t anti-immigration. Some of us are first generation immigrants ourselves. Others of us pre-date the Mayflower.

This isn’t about ethnicity, or at this point even a common language. It’s about maintaining some semblance of law and order, and societal values that have a chance of allowing our society to survive.

I, as BizzyBlog, am the original “puller” of the 1984 “There Shall Be Open Borders” editorial. I have probably read or scanned through 90% or more of all the editorials the Journal has generated in the past 20-plus years since.

I “pulled” the 1984 editorial precisely because it was by no means an isolated one — just the earliest. I went back to the library database to make sure I’m right about the following:

- The 1984 editorial was the first of several that specifically recited the “There Shall Be Open Borders” theme, using those exact words.

- The Journal specifically reiterated its “There Shall Be Open Borders” mantra in different editorials on July 3, 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1990. Those editorials made clear that The Journal didn’t even like the idea of having border guards (this is from 1990):

Yet other, less noble images lurk in the background of our July 4th celebrations: the guards who patrol our 2,000-mile border with Mexico or reports by government agencies that the nation’s immigration law has indeed caused widespread hiring discrimination against non-whites.

- As late as July 2, 2001, three months before 9/11, the late Robert Bartley, who got so many things right but had this issue so terribly wrong, thought “open NAFTA borders” would be just peachy, and derided even the fitful border-enforcement efforts going on at the time. On July 3, 2000, Bartley wrote that “There is reason to hope that the anti-immigration wave is ebbing before reality.”

The fact is that The Journal, since that “puller” in 1984, has never visibly budged from a principle that is both incredibly naive and dangerous. I agreed with the Journal until the early 1990s, when it became obvious to me that my idealism about the contributions and nobility of legal immigrants wasn’t, and still isn’t, in any way transferable to those who come here illegally.

But no amount of “reality” will move your editorial board from its stubborn stance, including:
- downed 100-plus story towers mere miles away from where you are.
- rampant gang-related crime (including, in the past year, one Mexican gang murder and another group gang assault where no one was killed but many could have been — all within 5 miles of where I am, in supposedly serene suburban Cincinnati).
- a steadily eroding social fabric.

Even “your own” Peggy Noonan has called your nonsense out. Listen to her. Please.

Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

lol!

so, did you read the article about the radical leftwing environmentalist who invented the border-enforcement movement?

here’s that link again: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2608/

read it. i”ll be back around again when “the base” regains their heads.