Posted on 09/26/2007 7:46:13 AM PDT by DCPatriot
On the endless go-rounds about illegal immigration I wrote a while back:
What if it’s all an illusion, just like the Cinco de Mayo “nationwide protests” by Hispanics was an ‘06 (election year) illusion that had nothing behind it in ‘07 (no elections). What if everyone is being played a little bit, here, being prompted to emotional reactionaryism as a means of reaching into and infecting those Americans of good-will who until the “flashpoint” and the sudden hue-and-cry couldn’t be moved to hate? Moved to grousing, yes, but never before moved to real, unadulterated hate?
Illusionists are clever sorts - they are specialists at making us look at one thing, and convincing us that we know what we are seeing, while they are actually doing something else, entirely. It’s called “misdirection.”
What if the illegal immigration flashpoint was never about immigration at all, but about getting people stirred to “hate.” Who would do that, you ask? Think about it. Who and what does hate serve? What happens to the soul of a nation, when “hate” is the overpowering force driving a majority of people - it doesn’t matter which “side.”
It did not escape my notice that the “spontaneous” demonstrations by Mexican-flag-waving, sign carrying La Raza groupies who were all over the streets in May of 2006 were curiously absent in May of 2007. Back when the conservatives were freaking out by the images of discontented Latinos demanding “the return” of their country, etc, all that radical claptrap, I recall a few blogs remarking on the astonishing number of Mexican flags (scroll down) and who had underwritten them.
Some on the blogs were saying, “this is not real, it’s illusion, it is political theater…pay no attention and go look for the man behind the curtains - THAT is the reality.” I’d assumed that A.N.S.W.E.R was the underwriter of those demonstrations and parades. Turns out it was, according to this article, George Soros.
Didn’t the mainstream media report that 2006’s vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?
Turns out that wasn’t what happened, either. Soros’ OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.
So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI’s glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI’s 2006 annual report.
I also wrote, here:
And by the way, the press has noticed what sets you off, and they’ve been playing to your heat, and you’ve been responding to their bell-ringing like Pavlovian dogs, too.
It can’t feel good to realize you have been played by George Soros and pals, and while you were being played, you weakened your president, lost a good deal of power in Congress (not that your party was using it, but still…) and drew inflexible battle lines flanked by impossible demands and pipe dreams, while - in the end - nothing actually changed. Played by a master, your party became divided, some of you literally became one-issue haters of everything and everyone who did not join in your daily chant; “illegal is illegal.” And in being played, you’ve managed to make a fast-growing segment of the voting populace suspicious of conservatives on the eve of an election wherein literally every vote and every voter is going to count. And where fraud may well be rampant.
I have been loath to write about the ‘08 election because the campaigns began too soon. But it is not too early to say that I cannot recall a more urgent or important election in my lifetime. The ‘08 election is going to be the one that determines whether the America you love will be recognizable in twenty years. I know I’m not alone in thinking so.
Once upon a time you could say, “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes,” with a wry smirk and appreciate the irony. It’s not so ironic, anymore. Now we are in the third act of Hamlet, the King - his conscience pricked - is crying out and the castle is in uproar and Hamlet declares, “believe none of this,” which is good advice. Maybe all of history has been a staged production, but I don’t believe that. Sadly in American politics, circa 2007, very little is real, very few are motivated by selfless love of country, and illusionists are everywhere.
Whoever can manipulate the images, whoever can best misdirect your attention, whoever can mesmerize you with their illusions…that is who will win this election, because too many of us buy into everything we see and hear. Unless we stop falling for it all - for the large-scale productions and the small sound bites. How do we do that? I can only hazard a guess, myself:
Remember that half of what you see is an illusion and the rest of what you see is a passing fashion, and you’ll fret a good deal less, no matter what the issue.
Perhaps the other half of that good advice is to watch less news and television, read fewer papers, spend less time on political forums feeding your rage and paranoia and spend some time - every single day - being quiet and contemplative. I think that’s the only way to counter all of this frenetic noise that leaves you neither time nor room to think and which completely cuts you off from your guts and your instincts. Your guts are there for a reason. Don’t stop using them.
Remember, even the internet - particularly the political forums - contribute to the illusions: [My Bold]
While the internet has a capability of enlarging, the truth is most people surfing the blogs and sites find the ones they like and linger there, in the echo chambers of a few favorite spots, and thus they shrink their worlds. They begin to believe the illusion that because 80 or 800 or 8,000 people frequent the same site and jaw the same sentiments, that there are a whole lot more people agreeing than disagreeing with them. That, in fact, a breathtaking number of people - MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, even - believe what they believe.
In fact, the forums are a little like the Mirror of Erised in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. That mirror shows the viewer what he or she most wants to see - it shows one’s deepest heart’s desire - but recall Professor Dumbledore’s warning: “this mirror gives us neither knowledge or truth“. He warns that men have gone mad before it, mad in their obsessive fascination with the seductive illusion that “the perfect” (which can never be) is somehow attainable.
What I notice happening on both sides of the political spectrum is that left and right are falling into their mirrors and allowing themselves to be seduced by these absolutist dreams - a world where no principals are ever compromised and everything goes along just as each side thinks it should all go along. That’s not reality.
Here is one reality: a president everyone hates goes to the candidates who feed that hate and who hope to succeed him, and he helps them to not hang themselves or the nation upon the noose of excessive expectations, doled out at whim. He does this not for their good, or for his, but for the good of the nation country that rejects him, and the sake of the world.
Another reality: If you don’t vote in the next election because the candidates aren’t perfect enough for you - they don’t live in that Mirror of Erised where you can gaze on your happy, perfect dreams - then you will get the government you deserve.
And the last reality: You won’t like it.
If, as you suggest, she's in her '40's or '50's, then, sadly, she'll never grow up.
ping
That was a good post. The only thing I have a problem with is that before illegal immigration was made into an issue by Soros, it was made into an issue by the Minutemen and MANY Americans began to understand the politicians of this country, be it the President, Congress, Governors, Mayors, etc, were not doing enough to make immigration a controllable process. In fact, not only were they not doing enough, they spoke out against the Minutemen. The President should have seized the opportunity to control the immigration process with both hands. He should have praised the Minutemen for bravely documenting a weak spot of this country.
Yes, that was a very, very good article. There are a number of good and important concepts that she describes well.
In this article, she doesn’t say anything, she just goes off on a tear based on two paragraphs from an editorial.
Let me suggest being a bit better than that:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007087.html
If anyone has a list with the names of actual groups that Soros has funded and which played a part in the marches, please post it. Otherwise, things like this only obscure who was actually involved in organizing many of the marches. See that link, or see this:
http://wiki.lonewacko.com/wiki/Immigration-march-organizers-have-foreign-links
Can you list some of those sites here??? I wouldnt even know where to begin to look
http://americanfuture.net/?p=2579
I did a search using “evil soros thailand destroy america”
and presto! Thousands of articles containing a nugget here or there. I chose this one because part of the 60 Minutes interview is in there. I’m sure you could find the video of the entire thing, and it will scare the hell out of you.
Soros is the Devil.
You are absolutely right: EVIL.
He couldn't praise the Minutemen.
Praising the Minutemen would ensure that 'Ramos and Campeon' would be repeated multiple times. They were sent to jail to set an example of what happens to rogue cops.
As The Anchoress points out, it's HATE that was stoked. You can't have The Minutemen...as noble as their cause...dehumanize a person because that's when people get shot.
Otherwise, I think you're right on.
And I don't think it's too late for him to create a cabinet post Secretary of Immigration. He could get miles out of it. And so could the GOP, don't you agree?
“But the Canal Zone was US Territory.”
Stop and take a deep breath; and listen to what I have to say.
Yes, the Canal Zone was U.S. territory, but the Panamanians considered it THEIR territory. Therefore, citizenship laws apply to anyone born in the ex Canal Zone even when it was U.S. territory. This was one way Panama, like a child, was trying to stick it to the U.S. Only a child can understand such “reasoning.”
But it worked out just find. Since those of us who are still here, we can vote; and vote we do for those who appear to be pro-U.S.
“As for me I was born in third world crap hole in South America.”
And? You can still run for president.
“As for me, both my mother and father were born in the US however, I was not and am thus a naturalized citizen.”
Take that stupid piece of paper saying you are a “naturalized citizen” and tear it up and burn it. It has no value today. I know all about that “naturalized citizen” piece of paper crap.
“The Panamanians, if they wish could grant automatic citizenship to those born in Mongolia.”
Since they are not born in Panamanian territory, their citizenship can be taken away.
How do you expect me to vote for you for president if you can’t allow yourself to understand this very simple stuff?
So there. :)
As for the naturalized citizen B.S., there is debate of whether a person born the US parents is actually a "Natural Born" citizen. And thus far USSC has never defined exactly what makes a natural born citizen.
I love you, trumandogz; but if you were my brother or sister, I would give you a good whack on the side of the head.
Read this:
Doesn’t the US Constitution forbid dual citizenship?
No.
The Supreme Court in its 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, used an argument derived from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to affirm a right to dual citizenship.
If I am a dual US citizen, can I lose my US citizenship?
No.
U.S. law forbids the government from taking your citizenship from you against your will, but it does permit you to give it up voluntarily. This is a formal written procedure on your part through a U.S. Embassy.
It is now assume that a U.S. citizen intends to retain (not give up) his/her U.S. citizenship if he/she:
1. Is naturalized in a foreign country.
2. Takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign country.
Is it against the law to have more than one passport?
No.
There is nothing in U.S. law forbidding a US citizen to possess both a U.S. passport and a foreign passport provided the person really is a citizen of both countries.
Is a child born outside the US to American parents eligible to become President?
yes.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
The term “natural born citizen” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling.
At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside any U.S. state.
o Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate, was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 (Arizona did not become the 48th state until 1912). Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson.
o George Romney, a 1968 Republican hopeful, was born in Mexico in 1907 to American parents who had moved there to escape anti-Mormon persecution in the US. (Contrary to a widely held popular misconception, by the way, Romney’s parents were settlers in Mexico, not missionaries.) Romney’s campaign fizzled following a gaffe about his having been “brainwashed” regarding US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.
o John McCain, an early Republican hopeful in the current (2000) campaign, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents. McCain dropped out of the campaign in favor of the Republicans’ eventual nominee, George W. Bush.
I am a dual US/Panamanian citizen by birth. Can I vote in both countries without losing my citizenships?
Yes.
Neither U.S. nor Panamanian citizenship law says anything about losing citizenship as a result of voting in an election in another country.
I never did say that dual citizenship was illegal. Instead, the question is what exactly is a natural born citizen?
I have two passports and well, but don’t tell any one here, I don’t want anyone to accuse me of being a traitor.
However, from what I have read in Wiki:
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of “natural born citizen,” there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Gads, I hope I didn’t drive you off by threatening to give you a good whack up the side of your head.
Please speak.
In the meantime I had to attend to a telephone call so I am late answering. In the middle of the call, I sent you that last post without looking for your reply.
“I never did say that dual citizenship was illegal.”
I know. That just came with the package of information.
“…Instead, the question is what exactly is a natural born citizen?…”
Who knows? It was something invented for folks like you and me and a zillion other Americans born outside of the U.S. of A to give us a hard time. The constitution does not address that issue; and since some of our congresscrookperverts and other crookedpoliticianperverts were also born outside of the United States, it’s a dead issue. Don’t worry about it.
Just a last comment from me.
I would never whack my brother or sister up the side of the head…ever...or anybody else. I am under a tad 5’3”, my brother is 6’, and my sister is 5’9”.
I confess to biting/chewing on a robber several times who tried to assault me...I won.
Further, we all get along extremely well of which most families would be jealous.
If truth cannot be so bold; what hope is there, for it?
ahhh. . .that was suppposed to read:
'. . .truth in political ads. . .and genuine discourse. . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.