SIXTH COLUMN

"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address: 6thColumn@6thcolumnagainstjihad.com.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Demonstrations Came Just in Time for Talks in Cancun

Graphic via: Michelle Malkin

The timing is perfect. Today, in Cancun, Mexico, President Bush meets Mexican President Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss topics of mutual concern.

Last week hundreds of thousands of migrants "spontaneously" decided to get to get together in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities to flex their collective muscles. Yeah, right!

These demonstrations were planned long in advance with the collusion of individual American citizens, American Leftist Groups, American Business Associations, American politicians, but not in the fulfillment of the will of the people.

However, for decades Mexico's Fox and other Mexican politicians have been determined to create social policy in the United States, meddling and influencing the political process and demanding accommodation for Mexican citizens that he and his cronies should be caring for in Mexico. Instead these unfortunate people are sent north so that the American taxpayer and the American economy should provide what the Mexican elite refuse to do.

How do they convince their citizens to go north? Certainly by pointing out the disparity of wages in the U.S. vs. Mexico and by reminding their citizens in the United States and those remaining in Mexico that a very prosperous part of the United States once was part of Mexico and that Mexico should have jurisdiction over all American citizens of Mexican origin: Mexicans, regardless of place of birth should put Mexico first and maintain their "Mexicanness."

During World War II, President Roosevelt interned Japanese-American citizens, German-American citizens, and Italian-Americans for fear that they would sabotage the war effort. Some American citizens still held close emotional ties to both Japan and Germany and did spy for the enemy and did sabotage. Both governments found it to be in their interest to promote "Japanese-ness" and "German-ness" in the 1920's and 19330's, with predictable result.

But Germany and Japan did not abut the United States. Immigrants from those countries had to cross an ocean and enter in an orderly manner. Mexican immigrants must only step across a line in the sand.

Many Mexican-Americans are loyal citizens, but, again, others have been influenced by the policies of Fox and his cronies. They have refused to give up their emotional and legal ties to Mexico and are working against the United States. The recent demonstrations are proof of this pudding!

In Flag of Their Fathers by John Fonte at FrontPage, we see another graphic example of manipulation. Unconscionably school children from all over the United States have been recruited. Reminiscent of the Vietnam War Anti-War marches, students in school all over the Southwest and as far away as Wisconsin, students have been encouraged to walk out of class "in support of immigrants' rights."

Is immigration a right? Is citizenship a right? Is receipt of benefits at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer a right of immigrants? Of course not. None of these are rights, only possibilities, and machinations of meddling Mexicans and collusion of various Americans have made illegal immigrants hopeful of twisting the arms of the American taxpayer and extracting the goods and treasures of hard-working Americans, some of whom are Mexican-Americans that have lived here for centuries.

This is the hope that the Mexican government and others is holding out, benefits that they refuse to create for their own people. Instead, the constantly remind their citizens and former citizens that they are Mexican, "living in a stolen land," and Americans, the "gringoes," can pushed off into the sea or returned to Europe.

Michelle Marquez, a young Dallas student sums up the problem from a report in the Dallas Morning News. Although instructed to carry an American flag, she was rebuked by her classmates during a recent rally. As a defense, she replied to the crowd: “My heart is with the Mexican flag and with Mexico, but I’m standing on American ground and I’m Mexican-American.” Fox and the others are counting on that.

The recent demonstrations are a reminder to the American people and to President Bush of the riots in France. Could further machinations by meddling politicians set off that kind of violence? Surely that topic will come up in Cancun discussions at some point. How will our President and our Congress respond?

8 Comments:

  • At Thu Mar 30, 07:56:00 AM PST, Blogger John Sobieski said…

    To me, it was the last nail in Bush's coffin when he came out for amnesty (whether he calls it that or not). Bush is not a conservative, he is a spending liberal. The only thing he has done that I admire is appointing Roberts and Alito to the SC. That's it.

     
  • At Thu Mar 30, 01:12:00 PM PST, Blogger zama202 said…

    The views on immigration expressed on this site are not consistent with Objectivism. Eleanor despite her good intentions is peddling the same old tired conservative anti-immigration, protectionist nonsense. Here is a rational defense of immigration by Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger:

    http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0329-Binswanger.shtm

    This is what should be argued for in conjunction with strong, unrestrained, offensive warfare overseas aimed at obliterating the enemy. Deffenisve walls do not work. Ask Rome.

     
  • At Thu Mar 30, 07:26:00 PM PST, Blogger George Mason said…

    John: Bush is making it damnable much harder for America to come back to rational principles in any expeditious time.

    Zama202: Thank you for your thoughts, and for the link to the Binswanger article. We will be responding via comments here or separate blogs, or both, at a later time--rather than trying to "shoot from the hip," so to speak.

     
  • At Fri Mar 31, 09:41:00 AM PST, Blogger Always On Watch said…

    I just saw GWB's news conference from Cancun. He's selling out America, folks.

     
  • At Fri Mar 31, 11:42:00 AM PST, Blogger George Mason said…

    AOW:

    Did not see this--I just could not stand another minute of GWB on tv. Got to the same point with Clinton. As for "selling out America," I have with great reluctance had to conclude that GWB has already sold us out.

    Among bad presidents, he is among the worst. Under the veneer of professed Americanism, patriotism, and national security, he has set into motion problems that only future generations could possibly finish unravelling. What he has done has (properly) alarmed the Democrats, but they are so provincial they cannot see what they emote about or get to core issues. In short, without getting detailed (as I know I should when I make these statements), the policies of Mr. Bush build on lousy 20th century presidential and national policies and lead us, albeit blindly to many, to the brink of destruction. I wish I could live another lifetime to keep the fight to return reason to America, only without the deadly contradictions we have been literally dying because of.

     
  • At Fri Mar 31, 12:27:00 PM PST, Blogger Cubed © said…

    AOW,

    Bush has definitely sold us out, and he isn't the first in his family to want to dissolve our borders and destroy our sovereignty as a nation. Bush the Father stated his support for a "New World Order" over two hundred times during his tenure in office, and there can be no question that Bush the Son holds the same ambitions.

    There is simply nothing else that explains his contempt for securing the points of entry into our country.

    We are either a sovereign nation or we are not. A is A.

     
  • At Tue Apr 04, 05:23:00 PM PDT, Blogger George Mason said…

    Zama202:

    Many of your comments have been answered previously in AS WE SEE IT: LIVING TOMORROW TODAY, 4 December 2005, this blog. However, I will reiterate that you and any others are free to comment, critique, and criticize anything we publish, and we welcome your comments.

    The article on open borders I really looked forward to reading, since I admire so much of what its author has produced. Sadly, I must tell you that it was disappointing.

    Mind you, many elements of the article are outstanding, and the article is well-worth reading for its many points-to-ponder.

    Overall, however, it has some incompletenesses (for example, only there is just one mention of foreign agents flowing into America through open borders and being detected, and our being at war). It omits relevant context, such as our being at war with an enemy unique to us and our history, namely Islam; and the difference that makes. It fails to deal with some concepts essential to the central issue, namely nation and citizenship. And so on.

    I am citing only enough to give some indications that this article is not the best example of this author’s work that I have seen.

    Your concerns about our violating rational principles seem to come from incompletely held context, not the least of which is "purity" of allies. Please rethink this.

    The issues of immigration IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT require people to address what we have right now, issues thrust upon us with which we must live and try to survive. The open borders article addressed a world that might be and ought to be, but is NOT. We have no choice about the hand dealt us, and, above all, we must not make things worse by blinding ourselves to any and all aspects of the immigration issues and principles. We can take the open borders article as a preamble, but nothing more.

    We invite you to join us in commenting or even blogging. We sincerely would love to have your thoughts, whether anti- or pro-.

     
  • At Wed Apr 05, 10:05:00 AM PDT, Blogger Cubed © said…

    Zama202,

    I've been involved with Objectivism since around 1964, and in all that time, I have found nothing to disagree with - until now.

    I can't tell you how unhappy it makes me to disagree so seriously with an author of Mr. Binswanger's stature.

    I originally had four pages of point-counterpoint, but I will simply limit my response to this:

    Mr. Binswanger drops context; Miss Rand wrote quite a lot about "emergency ethics," and for us, the goal of our enemy of establishing a world-wide caliphate constitutes an emergency.

    During times where people who do not wish to violate one anothers' rights wish to trade and travel freely, an "open" (although not unmonitored) border makes some sense. Nevertheless, our right, as individuals and as an association of individuals who have volunteered to live together under the terms of the Constitution, to exclude someone from our homes and the territory governed by the Constitution, must remain intact.

    It's important to refer to the Constitution; a constitution is a document which describes the relationship between an organization and its membership, whether that organization is a garden club or the United States of America.

    The U.S. Constitution describes how the government shall be organized, what its responsibilities are, and restricts what its powers are with respect to individuals. It promises to protect the rights of all citizens, who, in exchange, have delegated certain powers (police, courts, and armed forces) to the government. That's the government's job, and we have hired them on to do this.

    No one, just because he is a human being, has a right to enter my home or my country. I own my home, and participate, much like a shareholder in a corporation, in the ownership of my nation. In each case, it is I who have a right to my property, not a visitor.

    Now that we face annihilation at the hands of an entity - Islam - which ascribes to a philosophy that is 180 degrees from our own, we must scrutinize all who enter our homes and our nation, and be sure that they do not succeed in their goal of destruction either by entering our country, or by sending things into it, which could harm any among us.

    Just look at their philosophy compared to ours. Here it is, in a nutshell:

    Ethics: Us - our "standard of the good" is "life qua human being"; Islam's is "the spread of Islam."

    Since a moral code is a set of values chosen to guide our thoughts and behavior, you can see what a difference the choice of the "standard of the good" makes. For us, anything that tends to promote a proper human life is "good."

    For them, anything that tends to promote Islam is "good," even if it involves murder and mayhem.

    That's why after one of them blows up a school full of children, they can look at themselves in the mirror and say, "I did something good."

    Epistemology: Us - reason. Them - revelation.

    That makes a huge difference in the way we look at knowledge. They say, "All knowledge worth knowing is 'revealed' in the Koran; to try to change that is a sin." In fact, Islam is so hostile to reason and knowledge that in one year, Arab Muslims had fewer than 400 patents registered in the U.S., while during the same period, South Korea ALONE had nearly 17,000. In one year, more books were translated into Spanish than have been translated into Arabic in the ENTIRE HISTORY of Islam. In Davos, Switzerland, a discussion took place by some American hi-tech companies about outsourcing; India, China, Mexico, and Ireland were all mentioned, but no Arab country was because they do not have the educational level or infrastructure needed. At Google, there is a large map on the wall which has a light at every location where a seaarch is being made; lights are bright all over the populated world, with few exceptions, like North Korea AND the Arab world, stretching across North Africa to the coast of India. The literacy rate in the Arab world, depending on your source, is between 50% and 80%.

    Metaphysics: Us - Existence follows natural law and is "knowable" by the human mind. As a result, the universe is benign. Them - Existence exists at the pleasure and whim of Allah, who controls every nanoevent every nanosecond; anything could change at any moment, for no reason, just simply because Allah willed it. As a result, the universe is malignant.

    In fact, when some poor Muslim ends a sentence with "If Allah wills," that's not just some social convention or tradition showing respect for Allah; the poor bastard means it. If Allah gets out of the wrong side of the bed some morning, the universe, and us along with it, are in deep doo-doo.

    Esthetics: Us - art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical values. We can express our values however and whenever we wish through any artform. Theirs - Life, especially human life, cannot be shown in art because to do so would be an attempt by lowly humans to compete with the act of creation that only Allah has the power to perform. Read that to mean: We must restrict your mere human values from being expressed, because they might conflict with Allah's, and that conflict might be communicated to others, which might cause them to (gasp!) think, and thinking might lead (gasp!) to change.

    Every totalitarian society on the planet fears art because of its ability to communicate values without words.

    Politics (the application of ethics to social behavior): Us - Capitalism, a society organized on the principle that the rights of individual human beings are supreme, and that principle governs everything. Them - totalitarianism, a society where each individual exists only to support the group, and that no individual has any importance beyond the support of the group. If you can convince your people of this, then you can have things like martyrs.

    We have a right to restrict entry to anyone or anything when we deem it to be in the interests of our survival. Certain activities, even when we want to do them on our own property, can be restricted. We cannot recklessly endanger the property or life of the person next door by burning leaves on a dry, windy day; we cannot walk about feely among our fellows if we are ill with a serious contagious disease such as typhoid or smallpox; and we have a right to stop at the edge of our property or border anyone who, for whatever reason, may wish to harm us, either by coming into our home or country or by bringing something dangerous into our home or country.

    Self-defense is morally appropriate. It was this sort of context-dropping that caused me to leave the Libertarian Party.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home