Time: if you oppose illegal immigration, you might be a Nazi

Hot Air ^ | 5/30/2005 | Allahpundit

[Jameison]

Time: if you oppose illegal immigration, you might be a Nazi, or a Klansman, or maybe even a member of the Minutemen. And to think Kaus thought the media was going to line up with the Senate against the House. You’re too young to be so cynical, Mickey. A quick check of the Time archives reveals no mentions whatsoever of “MEChA,” let alone the fact that the lieutenant governor of California and the mayor of Los Angeles once belonged to the organization. If you can find any, let me know and I’ll update here. Meanwhile, it’s a very special edition of Newsweek as Evan Thomas and company spin a heartwarming tale of love and laughter inside the White House. Who knew that immigrants can be perfectly nice, hardworking people? Erase those borders pronto!

[Betty Jane]

One is what he writes about Mike Vanderboegh inciting people to throw bricks throught the windows of pro illegal congressmen. Mike Vanderboegh wrote an essay called "The window War" In that the main character comes home after a town hall meeting concerning gun controll. He throws a brick with a message on it to obey the constitution. This action spreads. It is aimed at gun control, nothing to do with illegals. In fact it was written in the late 1990's.

So, this time writer is fall of it.

[Wonder Warthog]

They're [Time] a large manufacturer of kitty litter-box liner and birdcage liner."

No self-respecting "Viking kitty" would step into a litter box with TIME as the liner---it would stink too badly.

[Little Ray]

I'd rather be a "Nazi" that a commie pinko accessory to the greatest mass murders in history.
Which describe the Times, purrrrfectly.

[Charles Martel]

Another attempt to equate the Minutemen with the "white power" types.

Not surprising. Goebbels said that "If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed." This is just the media following his advice.

But WE'RE the Nazis. Riiiight.

Time editoral staff, discussing the above-referenced article. (With apologies to Messrs Howard, Fine & Howard - but I'll bet they'd agree that these presstitutes deserve to be mocked)

[MissAmericanPie]

When I studied every line of the FTAA treaty I was not satisfied with just that, I wanted to read the mindset, of those putting it together, those supporting it at these meetings, as they discussed how to implement it.

One woman said, "We must give Judges the power to hand down harsher sentences for those "xenophobes" who hold onto old fashioned ideals of nationhood.

In other words people in each nation who may object to being melted into one entity on any level should be labeled xenophobe and face a harsh prison sentence.

So the press is just running ahead of their masters barking out the coming doctrine. One must be a xenophobe if one cherishes his nationhood.

This should trouble all of us with an idea above a cat. These treaties over ride our Constitution, so if arrested don't count on the writ of habeas corpus saving you. A person can be held in prison for years before a charge is even filed against him, and if he wins his case he can be arrested before he leaves the court room and put back in prison.

You may think this is tin foil hat stuff, but I say look no further than Guantanamo Cuba. What is happening to the deserving guilty, can also happen to the innocent victim when the full impact of these treaties and agreements get rolling in full force.

You heard the same thing I did, I'm sure when the illegals were demonstrating in the street. To a man they said the USofA should have no borders.

You have to ask yourself, even if citizens of the USofA are smart enough to make globalist a dirty word and a political career killer, will it make a difference? We have already seen this issue cross party lines, the democrat base is as upset about it as the conservative base, yet both are getting the middle finger from their representatives.

Our representatives have all but said that given the will of the majority of the Western Hemisphere, their majority voice should not be over ridden by the desire of a few million U.S. citizens to hold onto their sovereignty and nationhood. That's undemocratic to ignore the will of the majority, even though they are outside our borders and not citizens of this "area".

I don't read tea leaves, but I suspect the Democrats that are pushing globalism are also going to get a backlash at the polls from their base. The issue is so danged important on such an instinctual gut level, that it's going to be interesting.

The upcoming November elections may turn out to be the most interesting over throw on so many levels, both Republican and Democrat.

[Jameison]

"IMO Bush should halt all immigration and all citizenship, and call for a nation wide vote. "

Sounds like a good idea to me.
A national referendum on immigration.

[Enterprise]

That is my understand also. So, I'll expand the question a bit. If almost all nations have border security and if most of the people in other nations oppose illegal immigration, will Time refer to these people as Nazis also, and if not, why does Time insist upon reserving that term for the people of a nation which militarily fought the Nazis and whose citizens still overwhelmingly consider Nazism anathema? Of course I can make a small case for Time. Things like racial quotas, race based hiring and promotion policies, and race based University admissions programs sound a bit Naziesque don't they?

[little jeremiah]

Thanks, Grampa Dave! It is uncanny how the same ***holes are behind all the same junk.