Big Business goes racial on immigration.

Big Business has gone racial with a recent article in the NY Times titled Paper on Immigrant I.Q. Dogs Critic of Overhaul. You may be wondering what an article in the NY Times has to do with Big Business so I’ll tell you. The NY Times isn’t owned, operated and staffed by “hicks” from flyover country but by people whose families have connections. Nearly all of them went to the same schools and attend the same country clubs and cocktail parties as elitists. So realize that when journalists at the NY Times take a position that it’s endorsed by elitists.  Those journalists know which side their bread is buttered on.

But let’s take a step back and look at what prompted Big Business to abandon their argument that immigrants “help the economy” in favor of the race card.

As I blogged last month, Dr Borjas, a labor economist from Harvard, released a report titled Immigration and the American Worker. His report showed no economic benefit to America from immigration. Rather, the economic growth resulting from immigration is consumed by the immigrants themselves.

Moreover, the increase in labor supply reduces wages. So immigration is basically a wealth transfer of $400 BILLION per year from employees to corporations. This isn’t just about illegals, either. This is about H1B visas. too. Unless you’re a CEO or a billionaire then part of that $400 Billion comes from your paycheck whether you realize it or not. That’s why Big Business has spent ~1.5 Trillion lobbying for immigration over the last 5 years.

More recently, a report from the Heritage Foundation titled The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer shows that amnesty will cost taxpayers $6.3 TRILLION in new entitlements and social programs. Now, bear in mind that the national debt is already over $16 Trillion and increasing by more than a Trillion per year. Amnesty will increase the national debt by more than a third. That, my friends, is the definition of unsustainable.

But the numbers finally caught up with the corporations. They’ve been outed and pwned. So they’ve abandoned rational arguments for smears. The only reason they want to make it racial is because they’ve lost the economic argument.

Don’t fall for it. Don’t let the corporations and their shills bait you into an argument over race. Stay on point and argue the economics. The economics is simple:

1) The impact of immigration on wages transfers $400 BILLION per year from employees to their employers.

2) Amnesty will cost taxpayers an additional $6.3 TRILLION in new spending on entitlements and social programs. 

There’s no benefit to America or Americans. The only ones benefiting are billionaires. They’re merely robbing Peter to pay Paul and sticking taxpayers with the tab. It’s just another Wall Street bailout only much, much worse. Because it transfers hundreds of billions from you to them every year, as well as costing trillions in new entitlements. And it will never end or be paid back. Ever.

Rumours of Limbaugh’s death are greatly exaggerated.

Leftists everywhere are doing the chicken dance at the prospect of finally getting rid of Limbaugh.

The kerfuffle erupted a couple of days ago after Lew Dickey, the CEO of Cumulus Media which distributes Limbaugh’s show blamed ad revenue losses on his referring to one Sandra Fluke as a “slut” for claiming that some of her college friends use so much birth control they can’t afford to pay for it themselves.

Leftists seized on the comment to announce a boycott and Limbaugh lost some sponsors. More recently, Lew Dickey has been blaming his company’s declining revenue on Limbaugh’s comment. Limbaugh responded by telling Dickey that if he didn’t stop scapegoating him for Cumulus Media’s revenue declines that he’d take his show to another distributor.

Let’s get it straight. Limbaugh doesn’t work for Dickey. Dickey’s company distributes his show.  And when you tell your distributor that if they don’t shut their hole you’ll go somewhere else that’s not weakness. That’s strength.

Limbaugh can back it up, too. And here’s why…

Cumulus isn’t losing money. But they are making less money than they were. Most media outlets are — especially those on the left. I’m sure the hit Limbaugh’s show took last year is responsible for a percentage of it. So Dickey’s claim has some truth. However, most of the revenue decline has nothing to do with Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s show is not costing them money. In fact, they’re making a lot more money with Limbaugh than they ever would without him.

Any leftists who think Rush is going anywhere are deluded. He has the biggest audience and brings in more advertising revenue than anyone else in radio. And this is after a year of so-called “boycotts”. The further we move from the event the less effective boycotts become. If it was going to work then it would have worked already.

In my opinion, Limbaugh is doing exactly what he wants. Not only is he putting Dickey in his place and using this as an opportunity to show the boycott failed, he’s also raising his profile among potential advertisers. Limbaugh’s threat wasn’t a swan song but a rooster crow.

Feminist Right Wing Sexual Blues

Meghan Lanker-Simons is a blogger for Soros’ Think Progress and a student at the University of Wyoming. She recently posed as a conservative man and wrote sexual threats against herself on Facebook. She also claimed to be a “rape survivor” which I consider suspect at this point.

Regardless, a bunch of radical feminists used the bogus Facebook comment as the basis for demanding what? You guessed it — social justice!

But let’s not let the insanity of the other radical feminists get overshadowed by the insanity of Lanker-Simons. (Don’t you just love it when womyn hyphenate?) Whether they knew the comment was bogus or not, they still demanded the university administration denounce “rape culture”. Not because of a rape but because of a comment that was allegedly made on a Facebook page that wasn’t even affiliated with the school !!!

Now, I have zero tolerance for any kind of sexual abuse whether it’s against women, children or men. And I’d like to see intelligent, substantive actions taken to reduce sexual abuse as much as possible. But I don’t see radical feminists working towards that goal.

So what is their freaking problem? Rape??? I don’t think so. I honestly don’t think it has anything to do with rape. I think it’s just plain bigotry and discrimination. I don’t know whether they’re angry because they’re lesbians. Or because they can’t get the guys they want. Or because they get used and dumped. Or because no one even wants to use them in the first place. But, for whatever reason, they hate men.

So what did local feminists do when Lanker-Simons was charged? Did they apologize? Nope. They started a Facebook page called Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent where they claim, “Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified and deserves not to be held accountable for her accusations we stand behind you sister.”

So they believe that making false allegations in order to promote a bigoted agenda against men is justified eh? Welcome to the crazy world of the radical left.

Here’s what she looks like.

Here’s another hanging out with none other than Bill Ayres. I wonder if Ayres is friends with Soros, too?

I can’t believe we’re still dealing with this in 1987!

DailyKenn has written a post titled Top four liberal clichés. His top liberal cliche’ was announcing the year. I’d noticed that myself and had previously developed a similar term for it. Announcing the year is actually an informal logical fallacy known as chronological snobbery. The first time I heard someone announce the year as ‘evidence’ was 1987. As in, “I can’t believe we’re still dealing with this in 1987!”

Chronological snobbery is used almost exclusively by liberals. This is because liberals and conservatives differ psychologically. Liberals rate high on openness to change and new experiences. That’s why you see leftists labeling themselves “progressives” and using slogans like “Forward!”

Liberals assume everyone shares that bias. But, for conservatives, it’s a major turn off. Instead, conservatives rate much higher on history, tradition and the familiar. Concepts to which many liberals are very hostile.

Society requires both change and tradition. It requires change to adapt to new circumstances and discoveries. But not all change is good. And when change occurs too quickly it’s destabilizing. So society also requires tradition to keep change in check and promote stability. Change is what allows society to adapt and grow. Whereas tradition is the glue that holds society together.

On why radicals sympathize with terrorists.

Mike wrote an excellent post titled Lefties Get It Wrong Again in which he compares the left’s reaction to the Boston bombings to others’ reactions. Whereas most people thought it was Islamist terrorism, the left was hoping it was a white guy. Well, it was a couple of white guys but not the kind they were hoping for.

Whereas leftists were hoping for the bombers to be white they absolutely did not want them to be muslims. Notice how leftists dropped the “hope it’s a white guy” angle when the bombers turned out to be white muslims. Now why was that?

Not to put words in Mike’s mouth — these are my observations — but, in the leftist mind, American means white, middle class, Christian conservative. To leftists, it is these Americans who are the problem and not Islamist terrorists. To put it bluntly, even leftists who oppose terrorism sympathize with Islamist terrorists because they both oppose America.

Now, this is somewhat of a paradox because leftists are themselves Americans. So do leftists oppose themselves? No. The contradiction resolves when you realize that radicalism is psychological not rational. Radical psychology is opposed to the authority and loyalty on which society depends. Seriously. This is backed up by studies on populations all over the world.

Everywhere, radicals oppose the existing social order. It doesn’t matter whether the society is just or unjust, rich or poor, communist or capitalist — radicals will oppose it. They’re attracted to social, economic and political divisions that are at odds with mainstream society. Radicals oppose society not because there is anything wrong with society itself but because their psychology is anathema to the values of authority and loyalty on which society is based.

There is no society that radicals would not oppose.

Both ways in Boston.

• Russia repeatedly warned the US of the extremist connections of the brothers who bombed the Boston marathon.
• Journalists condemn identifying the bombers as muslims even though the surviving bomber claims that as the motive.
• The executive branch refuses to call it terrorism charging them as common criminals instead of enemy combatants.
• The justice department undermines federal investigators by mirandizing the bomber after only 16 hours instead of the 48 allowed under national security.

And yet…

• Massachusetts declares martial law.
• Tactical units roll through the streets in armored personnel carriers.
• Searching house to house without warrants.
• Ordering people out of their homes at gunpoint and
• Pointing guns at anyone who even looks out the window.

It was either a serious act of terrorism that required martial law. Or the government overreacted and threw the fourth amendment under the bus. So which is it?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t object to either one. I don’t object to declaring martial law and suspending the fourth amendment. What I object to is having it both ways.

If the government can declare martial law and suspend the fourth amendment while saying it was merely a criminal act by a couple of crazy kids then they can declare martial law and suspend the fourth amendment any time they like.

Having it both ways undermines the fourth amendment.

Thoughts on Johnny Taliban.

Toiletnation recently wrote a post comparing Katherine Russell, the wife of the eldest Boston bomber, to John Walker Lindh, the American captured several years ago fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. As the article points out, both come from extremely liberal, upper middle class families.

So what went wrong?

There’s an old joke — a Democrat is a Republican who hasn’t been mugged yet. But its not just a joke. Psychological studies show that fear, danger, adversity, etc really do push one towards the right. That’s why people tend to be liberal when things are easy but become conservative during or after an extended period of turmoil. A lot of people are so sheltered they never get enough turmoil to become conservative. It’s not a rational choice. It’s psychological. That’s why you can’t reason with most people about socio-politics.

If Johnny Taliban and Katie Russell had faced more hardship growing up they probably wouldn’t have gotten mixed up with that crap. People evolved in tough environments with hardship. And people still need some hardship to develop psychologically. But a lot of middle &  upper middle class kids are living lives so sheltered they’re not getting it.