This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Friday, February 11, 2011

Pitts’ “nonsense” in a pit all its own

Where do you even begin?  It is wrong from start to finish.  Leonard Pitts’ latest diatribe, “Illegal immigration debate has become nonsense” (Feb 11) is a pail of offal: mendacity, after insult, after invention, after slur, after deception.  To quote the Pulitzer Laureate, "nonsense".

First, Pitts pretends to want (a)tougher border security in order to gain (b)open borders and (c)universal amnesty. That’s pretty easy.  Next is the Leftist’s friend, an all-or-nothing statement; because Americans are obviously not able to operate in between, make decisions, walk and chew gum, etc.  “OR [emphasis mine] pass a bill to protect us from anchor babies.”  He owns up to the first plan, though he ignores the fact that it was a Progressive Democrat controlled Senate that defeated it, due to the “flawed” (a) part.  Then he throws a night-soil bucket full of ‘evidence’ at us to ridicule the second.

Pitts then pretends that the Fourteenth Amendment is not what was written.  Research it yourself (71% have, about Arizona’s fair and mild laws).  You will learn that the 14th was adopted, (between the 13th and 15th, each establishing rights for freed slaves) to reverse the Dred-Scott decision that blacks COULD NOT be citizens.  It does not say that “all comers are citizens”.  It states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”, plus more protections. The emphasized part does not mean just that ‘our laws apply to you’.  That would be ridiculous. 

Of course, our laws have always applied to everyone within our jurisdiction, and the Constitution does not waste words.  If it needed to describe color, it would not say “green; and blue plus yellow; sort of a seafoam”.  The 14th  was crafted for the slaves, who did not choose their presence here (southern Democrat slave traders did that).  Records of the time prove that it means ‘with loyalty and obedience only to the U.S., (not some foreign national)’.  As a correct 1884 SCotUS decision stated, “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” 

Later decisions by courts (packed by Progressive Socialist Roosevelt) ignored the factual meaning for a simplistic one.  This creates more welfare for Big-Government to hand out, more big programs to tax for, more people beholden to them and more potential voters. Sound familiar?  Pitts tries to evade reality with, “…even if immigrant women were coming here to give birth…”, though 8% of all births, 340,000 annually, are to illegal alien parents (ABC/Pew Research).  And of course, the Leftists’ DREAM act would officially grant citizenship to these families (though burdening the "children" up to 35 years old with accepting free education).  Those entering legally have always encouraged to apply for citizenship.

The next nightsoil that Pitts throws at us is to mis-invoke Reagan (someone he completely disagrees with and could never comprehend), like Obama does.  The tough, conservative Republican did endorse a strictly controlled guest worker program, but never open borders or general, uncontrolled amnesty.  He also did not have persistent unemployment over 9% and another 9% that the government no longer even counts.

I will invoke great grandfather Edgar and granduncle George.  Pitts wants you to believe that “draconian” immigration laws are new, unfair and based in racism.  Edgar was a master cabinet maker in England.  In 1907, his skill were in demand, he had his tools and money for passage and his first year of expenses.  Even so, he had to obtain a citizen sponsor and wait seven years to get a visa.  In his 1948 letter, George was still being delayed in Canada, because he did not “have enough money”, even if he sold his insurance policies.  He guessed that there were “too many Canadians trying to go to the U.S.” 

The fact is, over five billion people would love to live here.  We simply cannot allow everyone in without destroying our lifestyle and environment.  Even half a billion would make America look like that hillside ghetto in “the Hulk”, from sea to overfished sea.  The millions that sneak across the border (uneducated, unskilled and destitute; many diseased, criminal or terrorist-linked) cannot just get “dibbies” because they are within walking distance.  We accept 75,000 refugees, grant permanent visas to 1.1 million immigrants and allow a whopping 182 million temporary visas every year (D.H.S. figures).

The last of Pitts' garbage is calling these facts “a temper tantrum, the incoherent bawling of those who see fundamental demographic change and… scream in the face of an oncoming wave.”  Here’s one he gets right: “But the wave comes just the same.”


  1. Even the original author of the fourteenth, when challenged on this very issue, stated that this law would "not apply to... foreigners."
    Furthermore, that "ghetto" is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It really exists. It really looks like that (it burns down occasionally, killing hundreds, and is rebuilt exactly the same). The only difference is that if you were to wander down around the streets, and weren't killed, you'd still be walking in ankle deep human feces and assorted detritus. It got to be that way because Brazil only has a few central locations where there is consistent (factory) work. Farm work depends on whether they are letting you cut down forests to farm that year, so people flock to the cities to live.
    People relocate from their native areas to cluster around available work.
    Sao Paulo isn't even the worst, it's just the most dramatic looking cause it oozes all over that hill.

  2. Thanks for the added info. I saw the Sao Paulo caption in the movie (though I am notquite as familiar with the valley floor. I wanted to get that visual without naming SP or the hillside S of Tijuana; the "racist" cat calls would soon follow.


Please be reasonably polite, but especially be as accurate as you can. Provide sources if you have them. We might as well learn something. [Wikipedia and blogs are usually 'pointers', not authoritative sources; they indicate data that might be confirmed elsewhere (that's how I use them here)].