Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 21 February 2016

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 21 February 2016 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

February 21st, 2016

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump; Tad Devine, adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders; Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Trump; Sanders; Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio and John Kasich;Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Trump, Sanders, Rubio; Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz; Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Sharyl Attkisson's Full Measure A sobering investigation into the cost of medical services, where the difference can be THOUSANDS for the EXACT SAME PROCEDURE! How can they vary so widely, even within the same city?

[kabar]

I didn’t say “we” meaning only those alive, but the entire country. And yes, in that case, we are all RECENT descendants of immigrants, meaning in the past couple of hundred years. My first ancestor here, on my mother’s side, Roger Tyrell, arrived in Boston in 1631, he was an English immigrant. My last ancestor to arrive, my father’s mother, arrived in NYC in 1920 from Scotland.

The late, great Larry Auster wrote a piece, Are we a nation of immigrants? Although he wrote it in 2006 in response to the first Bush amnesty attempt (Hagel-Martinez that also passed the Senate), it still obtains. I have worked on this issue for nine years. The people who want to flood this country with immigrants use it all the time to justify even larger numbers. We have just had the two largest decades of immigration in US history. Within a decade, we will have the highest proportion of foreign born in our nation's history.

It used to be that only open-borders activists said it. Now the entire political leadership of the United States is saying it. President Bush is saying it. Sen. Specter is saying it. Even Sen. Bill "enforcement-only" Frist is saying it:

"We are a nation of immigrants built upon the rule of law."

Of course, that cute little addition about "rule of law" is nothing but boob bait for the Bubbas (a category of persons that, in the minds of our leaders, seems to constitute about three-quarters of the country); our leaders have as much intention to enforce the immigration laws as I have to fly to Mars next week. The part of the statement that counts is the business about "nation of immigrants." To see the entire political leadership of our country pronouncing in unison this slogan, all as a part of an effort to push through the most catastrophic open-borders scheme in our history, is an Orwellian experience. If we're a "nation of immigrants," how can we be a nation of Americans?

To say that America is a "nation of immigrants" is to imply that there has never been an actual American people apart from immigration. It is to put America out of existence as a historically existing nation that immigrants and their children joined by coming here, a country with its own right to exist and to determine its own sovereign destiny—a right that includes the right to permit immigration or not. No patriot, no decent person who loves this country, as distinct from loving some whacked-out, anti-national, leftist idea of this country, would call it a "nation of immigrants." Any elected official who utters the subversive canard that America is a "nation of immigrants" should, at the least, find his phone lines tied up with calls from irate constituents.

Of course, at first glance it seems indisputable that "we are a nation of immigrants," in the sense that all Americans, even including the American Indians, are either immigrants themselves or descendants of people who came here from other places. Given those facts, it would have been more accurate to say that we are "a nation of descendants of immigrants." But such a mundane assertion would fail to convey the thrilling idea conjured up by the phrase "nation of immigrants"—the idea that all of us, whether or not we are literally immigrants, are somehow "spiritually" immigrants, in the sense that the immigrant experience defines our character as Americans.

This friendly-sounding, inclusive sentiment—like so many others of its kind—turns out to be profoundly exclusive. For one thing, it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a "real" American. It also suggests that newly arrived immigrants are more American than people whose ancestors have been here for generations. The public television essayist Richard Rodriguez spelled out these assumptions back in the 1990s when he declared, in his enervated, ominous tone: "Those of us who live in this country are not the point of America. The newcomers are the point of America." Certainly the illegal-alien demonstrators in Los Angeles last week agreed with him; America, they kept telling us, belongs to them, not to us.

In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America "a nation of immigrants" is to suggest that America, prior to the late nineteenth century wave of European immigration, was not America. It is to imply that George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant (descended from the original colonists) were not "real" Americans, but that Richard Rodriguez (descended from 20th century immigrants) and the anti-American demonstrators last week in Los Angeles, are.

Apart from its politically correct function of diminishing the Anglo-Saxon Americans of the pre-Ellis Island period and their descendants, the "nation of immigrants" motto is meaningless in practical terms. Except for open-borders utopians (a group that has grown over the years until now it seems to constitute a majority of the Democratic Party), everyone knows that we must have some limits on immigration. The statement, "we are a nation of immigrants," gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? Willingness to work for a lower wage than Americans work for? The "nation of immigrants" slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.

To see the uselessness of the "nation of immigrants" formula as a source of political guidance, , imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. "Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!"

Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.

It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that "we are all descended from immigrants" our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian (and mainly Protestant Christian), in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we’re all "descended from immigrants?" But immigrant advocates are incapable of debating such questions, because there is no rational benefit for America that they seek through open immigration. Their aim is not to strengthen and preserve America; their aim is to demonstrate themselves to be good, non-racist people—by surrendering America to the immigrant invasion.

[MNJohnnie]

no you did not.
If you listen to the whole exchange, rather then the corrupt edit put out by the ‘Conservative”
Jouolisters you know what he was actually talking abut.

[MNJohnnie]

That the ticket scream hysteric childish insults at people and then expect them to support your candidate.

Too many on Team Cruz are inept obnoxious political imbeciles. Worst set of incompetence in a set of Campaign activists I have see in 40 years of politics

[MNJohnnie]

Hannity has been very fair to Trump. Last night Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard repreated the “Trump is for Obamacare” lie and then argued with Hannity when he corrected him.

Seems the “conservative” media at Red State, NR, Weekly Standard, Town Hall etc has formed their own Jour-0-list team to coordinate a smear effort against Trump. As Trumps Friday tweets indicate his Rapid Repose Team is better at getting the truth out quickly then they are at lying.

[MNJohnnie]

Basically this race is looking to shake out like this.

Kasich/Bush people go to “that nice boy” Rubio giving him about 40%

Carson people will go to Trump as the other non-politican in the race giving him about 40%

That leaves the Cruz people as the kingmakers. Which way they go decides who wins.

If I could talk to Donald Trump for 5 minutes, my advice to him would be to talk up how the logical choice to Scalia’s SC Seat is Ted Cruz.

Easy sell for the next President.

Just remind the Senate that the Cruz is from Texas in a safe seat. They can kick him over to the Court or they can spend the next 40-50 years with him in the Senate. They will vote to confirm him.

To the American people you point out hat the court has tilted left and it only makes sense that the next Justice be a solid reliable Conservative like Cruz to keep the SC Court from swinging out of balance.

[Alas Babylon!]

I am no open border advocate.

I am an anthropologist and historian.

And I described it accurately.

That others use the term to advocate a political position such as open borders is not what I’m describing. That others don’t like it because of certain advocates is crazy, and frankly hair-splitting.

We ARE a new country. You were in the State department, and I was career military. We’ve both been to other places in the world and seen the great age and antiquity of diverse places.

So, yes, what I said is true. This land of ours filled up only in the last 300 years. HOWEVER... That was then, this is now. It’s full. We don’t need more.

However, the truth is all of us here now have a recent ancestry to somewhere else. It seems silly to squirm around about the truth.

[Alas Babylon!]

I really don’t think that the few Bush or Kasich people—who are going to vote—make up than more then 10 percent, and that’s being generous.

As Trump continues to dominate, it gets harder and harder to get ardent supporters to the polls. And that’s what JEB found out yesterday. It starts to become a colossal waste of time and money.

The next 10 days will tell the story. Ten days from now will be the day after Super Tuesday. I expect to see Trump win almost all of those states.

So while Rubio could get all 10 percent going to him, it’s not going to be enough, and Trump’s wins will further dishearten the anti-Trump candidates supporters. In fact, many will switch over to Trump, because everyone wants to bet on the fast horse.

[rodguy911]

Absolutely correct MNJ. I'm truly shocked at Hayes. I used to really like the guy but his partisanship along with others who deal in Trumphate is really sad to see.

As you say however there is always a few who carry the flag of fair and balanced like Sean has. He will be right up there with rush when this is over and we may be looking at limbaughs replacement down the road who knows.

[guitarist]

Well, 52%’ish of the public has been voting every four years for the one they want, which is their right, but I don’t think you like the results much better than I do. We are on this site to try to work out better ways to succeed...

[guitarist]

Because Trump has shown himself to be more arrogant, less empathetic, more thin skinned, more inconsistent, etc., than any other candidate in decades—you can list Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan, John Kerry, Alan Keyes, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, etc., anyone you don’t like—Trump won’t be able to get the votes of millions of people who aren’t at all libs like Hillary. They are conservative and/or non-political, but they see him acting astonishingly childish, and they will be completely out of reach.

I will hold my nose and vote for him over Hillary/Bernie if that is what the choice is in Nov. But I hope it doesn’t come to that.

[hoosiermama]

Had an interesting conversation with person at church about the closet summit.
CRUZ wanted Dr B to do something
The doctor said NO

Should have taken five minutes. But Cruz would not take no for an answer.
Or DR Ben would not cave

Ine left we will know after March 1

Dropping out? Not likely
Some imply it had something to do with IOWA. Did Cruz get wind that Carson was going to file for damages?

Carsons lawyer indicated that if had been there the doctor would have been prepared. Legal Issue??

[Cboldt]

If it was a request from Cruz, I would think it was strictly political - asking for Carson to support Cruz, after/whenever Carson suspends. There is too tenuous a connection between Cruz's Iowa conduct and damages, to justify a suit. There are issues of causal linkage, and quantifying the damages. And even then, all Cason gets is a delegate, which is literally useless.

It's like suing over a paper cut.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Trunp: 'Expedite' Legal Immigration Process for 'Good' Illegals"

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/27/trump-id-expedite-legal-immigration-process-for-good-illegals-after-getting-them-out/

You tell me the difference between Rubio's expedited process, and Trump's expedited process.

BTW,I certainly know what the 'Gang of Eight Bill' is. I'm sure glad that Cruz helped kill it.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Trump could easily purchase them [the media] outright"

CBS, alone, has a market cap of $21 billion, more double Trump's claimed worth. Trump would have to commit four or five more bankruptcies before could stiff enough creditors to claim that much. At that, he could only fire CBS.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Trump can handle the DBM like no one else. And he will!"

I think the media has only been toying with Trump in order to get viewers. When it comes time to take him out, they will.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Now just who are those droolers?"

There certainly are principled voters who see, and accept Trump's inconsistencies, and plan to vote for him anyway. The droolers are the ones who deny the inconsistencies. You can go through this thread, and count them yourself.

[kabar]

And I described it accurately.

We are not a nation of immigrants. This country was founded by British subjects who were colonialists and settlers. They were not immigrants. They formed a nation with a unique national identity almost 240 years ago. Immigrants came to a place with a formed national identity. We are Americans. 85% of us were born here. Many are descendants of immigrants, but we have a distinct national identity, not as a collection of immigrants who must rely on their ancestors for who we are.

We ARE a new country. You were in the State department, and I was career military. We’ve both been to other places in the world and seen the great age and antiquity of diverse places.

Yes, I have lived in Italy and Greece, the birthplaces of Western Civilization. I been to Egypt, Jerusalem, China, Japan, and India, which have ancient cultures. I have been to Ile de Goree in Senegal where slaves were shipped from to our shores.

But we are not a new country compared to most of the nations on earth. You are an historian who should be aware of the many countries that emerged from the post colonial period, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. And even countries like Italy are newer than the US. List of sovereign states by date of formation

So, yes, what I said is true. This land of ours filled up only in the last 300 years. HOWEVER... That was then, this is now. It’s full. We don’t need more.

I am not advocating ending all immigration. Immigration to America is a privilege, not a right. And our immigration policies should further our national interests. They don't now. We are being colonized by the Third World. Phyllis Schlafly wrote a study several years ago, How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party There are consequences to our immigration policies that will destroy our national identity and the values and vision of our Founders. Demography is destiny.

Multiculturalism and diversity are called strengths. As an historian and world traveler, you (and I) know that is not true. They will weaken and destroy the country. We are being Balkanized along cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and racial lines. By 2043 non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population, down from 89% in 1970 and 63% now. We are witnessing one of the greatest peaceful migrations in the history of man. As an historian, has there ever been a civilization in the history of man, where the majority racial/ethnic group embraced policies that willingly made itself a minority?

However, the truth is all of us here now have a recent ancestry to somewhere else. It seems silly to squirm around about the truth.

No one is squirming about the truth. We are talking about a national identity that is derived from our founding. We are Americans who live in one of the oldest nations on earth. Our Founders were Englishmen who looked to Locke, the Magna Carta, the rule of law, etc. I have in front of me, Samuel Huntington's book, Who are We? He says:

America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture, including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigration that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently, however, national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and 'denationalization' of American elites."

Calling us a nation of immigrants is a political statement as Auster illustrates. It is meaningless and inaccurate. We are Americans and our national identity and culture is not derived from being immigrants.

[kabar]

You tell me the difference between Rubio's expedited process, and Trump's expedited process.

Rubio's process was written as a bill that passed the Senate 68-32 with 14 Reps including Rubio voting for it. Trump is a private citizen who made an off the cuff remark that is not contained in his immigration position paper. Can you provide me with the details of Trump's "expedited process" beyond they must come back in legally? I'll save you the time, there is no such process.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Can you provide me with the details of Trump's "expedited process" beyond they must come back in legally? I'll save you the time, there is no such process. "

You've nailed it. There's a whole lot of Trump's bluster that is just sweeping generalizations. People then read into it what they want. It sort of reminds me of how Obama won.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Well obviously he’d have to negotiate them down.