Adios, America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 7 months ago to Books
Adios, America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole
Book Review, 9-8-15
Author, Ann Coulter ISBN 978-1-62157-267-1
Current Events, 278 pages, not including 90 additional pages of notes/citations
It would be very easy to dismiss this book as a simple screed from a xenophobic, nativist. That would be a mistake considering the massive amount of investigation and research Ms. Coulter has done. It was not easy to gather statistics and facts regarding the downside of unfettered immigration largely exacerbated by the runaway welfare state. Since the government has a vested interest in hiding the magnitude of the problem, the damage done to the political philosophy of the body politic, the theft of taxpayer money and abuse of property rights, they provide no comprehensive statistics or analysis. In order to gather facts so as to offer any valid analysis, records such as prison, court, international banking, census, etc. had to be gathered and collated.
The Democrats know that statistically 80% of immigrants (often bringing fragments of socialist ideologies from their nation of origin) will vote democratic. The wealthy elites want cheap domestic help and the Chamber of Commerce along with large corporations with powerful lobbyists wanting cheap labor influence Republican lawmakers. Buying votes and cronyism are powerful political motivators and reason to obfuscate.
Certainly it is in America’s interest to foster free travel and tourism, but is it in our interest to ignore the criminal, social, political and economic costs of mismanagement of our immigration process? An objective analysis must consider the impact on the culture, and the middle class and the poor who are disproportionally adversely affected.
I do not endorse every conclusion, or solution Ms. Coulter recommends; but one must ask, what is more politically plausible, tracking visa holders, controlling immigration at the borders, building a wall where prudent, using surveillance elsewhere and asserting sovereignty, or ending the welfare state magnet? Since so many citizens are on the dole and allowed to vote, the possibility of ending welfare seems less likely, though it is a better solution. I do recommend reading this book and considering the arguments and facts gathered so one might formulate an informed position since so many potential official sources of data are obviously, purposely withholding the full story. It is clear the politicos are not listening to the majority of Americans on this issue according to virtually every poll.
“A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.” “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
Respectfully,
O.A.
Book Review, 9-8-15
Author, Ann Coulter ISBN 978-1-62157-267-1
Current Events, 278 pages, not including 90 additional pages of notes/citations
It would be very easy to dismiss this book as a simple screed from a xenophobic, nativist. That would be a mistake considering the massive amount of investigation and research Ms. Coulter has done. It was not easy to gather statistics and facts regarding the downside of unfettered immigration largely exacerbated by the runaway welfare state. Since the government has a vested interest in hiding the magnitude of the problem, the damage done to the political philosophy of the body politic, the theft of taxpayer money and abuse of property rights, they provide no comprehensive statistics or analysis. In order to gather facts so as to offer any valid analysis, records such as prison, court, international banking, census, etc. had to be gathered and collated.
The Democrats know that statistically 80% of immigrants (often bringing fragments of socialist ideologies from their nation of origin) will vote democratic. The wealthy elites want cheap domestic help and the Chamber of Commerce along with large corporations with powerful lobbyists wanting cheap labor influence Republican lawmakers. Buying votes and cronyism are powerful political motivators and reason to obfuscate.
Certainly it is in America’s interest to foster free travel and tourism, but is it in our interest to ignore the criminal, social, political and economic costs of mismanagement of our immigration process? An objective analysis must consider the impact on the culture, and the middle class and the poor who are disproportionally adversely affected.
I do not endorse every conclusion, or solution Ms. Coulter recommends; but one must ask, what is more politically plausible, tracking visa holders, controlling immigration at the borders, building a wall where prudent, using surveillance elsewhere and asserting sovereignty, or ending the welfare state magnet? Since so many citizens are on the dole and allowed to vote, the possibility of ending welfare seems less likely, though it is a better solution. I do recommend reading this book and considering the arguments and facts gathered so one might formulate an informed position since so many potential official sources of data are obviously, purposely withholding the full story. It is clear the politicos are not listening to the majority of Americans on this issue according to virtually every poll.
“A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.” “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 103
Respectfully,
O.A.
People are not nations and crossing a border is not a breach of a nations sovereignty.
Have you read the book? It is true that she addresses the issue from a political perspective, but the "underlying issues" are largely a product of the politics. The welfare state (a prime example of a product of our politics) has grown and exacerbated the problem of assimilation while changing the very nature of our body politic.
I agree that simply crossing a border is not a breach of a nation's sovereignty. If that was all that was occurring... no problem. Many are not just crossing, they are taking advantage and committing outrages against the citizens. Unfortunately the numbers, the character of many(political nature, criminal nature of some and moocher mentality), are costing this nation it's very nature and laying massive costs on the taxpayers.Though it is not an official, organized, armed attack on our sovereignty, the numbers and affect are equivalent to an invasion. That is for all intents and purposes a breach of national sovereignty.The criminals unchecked at the border that enter and commit atrocities are violating citizens personal sovereignty. A nation is only a group of individuals, many of which in this case are having their sovereignty violated. The trespasses, littering/property damage, criminal activity and violence that diminish property value and threaten the security and lives of private property owners along the border, constitute violations of property rights. The diminution of property values in neighborhoods nationwide overrun with detrimental ideologies and poor immigrants on the dole relocated there by our government constitute a financial loss; Money (taxes) and equity are property and this amounts to another violation of property rights. Yes, the primary underlying impetus of the problem is the welfare state. Now, how do we realistically stop it? I am profoundly committed to objectivist principles, but they are obviously not the law of the land. If they were there would be no trespass... no sense among the citizens of abuse... of being made patsies and slaves in support of those demanding we live to support them, all or in part. "I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt We are being forced to live for others.
You relocated for good reasons as you observed the general direction... the political direction this nation has taken. It has not gotten better. The nation is politically following the philosophy of those that inhabit it. This political philosophy is therefore malleable by the vestiges of philosophy that those that immigrate bring with them and the elitists that wish to benefit from those foreign political Marxist leaning philosophies. These influences are from within and without. At what point is the confluence too much?
You are a brilliant analyst and a strict observer of objectivist doctrine. If you have already, or do read this book I would appreciate your appraisal of this work and your specific refutations. I have some of my own doubts, but I can't deny the numbers, effects, or facts regarding our present handling of this matter, or what they portend.
With great respect, I look forward to your consideration and thoughts.
O.A.
She advocates a wall, a temporary moratorium and to actually enforce existing laws along with several other measures. I do not think I would attack this problem from the same angle. As you have advocated, a greater emphasis must be placed on the welfare magnet. It is quite imprudent to offer benefits and enticements to those that do not immigrate lawfully. We must address the root of the problem, but is that politically possible in a timely fashion?
Can the nation stand a regular flow and influx of new immigrants in numbers that make sense and of a character that wishes to be self sufficient and a benefit to society? Yes. In fact we need people to maintain our population. Can a nation already in the throws of financial insolvency afford more criminals to incarcerate, more welfare recipients, depressed wages and fewer opportunities for existing citizens to enter the job market? Not so much. There must be a reasonable way to protect the interests of the citizen's.
One thing Ms. Coulter has done is to quantify all of the incidental costs that the government does not want us to know of so they can perpetuate the myth that the new immigrants are a financial net positive to us. It is also a myth that Americans won't do the jobs they do. According to the statistics provided in Mark Levin's recent book (which I recently reviewed), over 60% of those employed in jobs characterized in this way are actually held by Americans born here.
In the present political climate welfare elimination seems less probable, but the bleeding must be staunched. What do you propose? Is it politically plausible?
I have great respect for your opinion. I have quit reading books that are not interested in fundamental solutions. Coulter may provide all sorts of interesting insights into the costs of immigration, but her fundamental basis is not capitalism and freedom, but a religious theocracy. As a result, I do not believe it would be worth my time reading the book.
If we run away from our principles every time it is politically expedient we will have not have a leg to stand on when we argue principles with the other side. This sort of compromising is how we slowly let tyranny in. For instance, our concern about terrorism and pushing politically expedient solutions has created the TSA, the NSA, search and frisk, the 100 mile zone where the constitution does not apply.
Yes I do think it is politically feasible to suggest the end of welfare and the end of the drug war. From a practical point of view you start with getting rid of corporate welfare including farm subsidies. You couple this with pro-growth policies and you show that welfare is a failure. The point is not to win elections, the point is to win on pro-freedom policies
Thank you for your stalwart dedication to principle. It is encouraging. I only wish more people stood firm as you do. If I was a true believer I would say from your lips to God's ear. :) I often find myself torn between principle and self preservation... self interest in a practical way and despondent about the prospects of implementing fundamental solutions in a world that seems to have gone mad and rejected common sense, "pro-freedom policies." I fight as best as I know how to advocate for the solutions and approach you suggest starting with. I fear that there are too many without principles fighting against the few with. If history is a good teacher, unless we are able to avoid what other republics have done, we are lost and part of me refuses to accept the probability that it will have to completely collapse before we can start anew. This is the lesson of history I must reconcile myself to, or fight against. I am not a fatalist, but I do have difficulty maintaining optimism in an increasingly oppressive environment.
By the way, you might be surprised and it is a fast read. In this book I found no hint of religious theocracy... only an analysis of the detrimental aspects economically and culturally as well as a chapter with an appalling plethora/compilation of the violent crimes perpetrated against American citizens at the hands of illegal aliens (many repeat offenders and previously deported) thanks to the failure of our government to enforce the laws they wrote, while impeding our right to arm and defend ourselves.
Best regards,
O.A.
I to hope that we will not have to go through a collapse, however if we do go through a collapse it will be the prominent intellectual ideas of the time that will determine how we respond to that collapse.
Socialism had only minor success in the US until the great depression. If the prevailing intellectual climate had been natural rights and capitalism then we would have headed that way, but it was not.
Unfortunately, right now the prevailing non-socialist intellectual movement is Austrian Economics/ Christian Theocracy (The two actually go hand in hand). The anarcho side is an absolute disaster that would likely lead to a dictator, while the more mainstream would end up destroying the economy in other ways, such as eliminating fractional reserve banks, and eliminating patents. Then capitalism will be seen as a failure.
I would bet on an 80% chance that the economic collapse of the US, or China, or the EU would spread fast enough and far enough to tank pretty much all the developed world.
And that would be ugly indeed.
Thank you for the exchange. I found it most stimulating and refreshing. I am surprised K didn't join in to give me a good thrashing! :) Sometimes it is difficult to maintain commitment to principle when fighting others that seem to be winning without principle. One thing that we should recognize and learn from is the tactics they use so we may better defend against them. It is wise to know your enemy and how they operate. "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories." Sun Tzu
Regards,
O.A.
That said my post on the Regulatory Bill of Rights does try to steal some of their techniques, such as providing direct financial support to private organizations that reform the regulatory system. A private attorney general provision, and the ability of individual citizens to sue regulatory agencies directly. (Rather than the useless notice and comment procedure laid out in the Administrative Procedure Act).
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I did not mean to imply that we should adopt their techniques... only to study them so we might develop better approaches to combat them.
And if the others without principle seem to be winning, is it them winning or is it us giving up our principles that makes it look like they're winning?
Sometimes pragmatism and frustration give me pause. I so tire of fighting the principled fight to see further losses to the unprincipled. That said; one must be able, win or lose to hold one's head up at the end of the day. It helps immensely to find others that encourage one to stay the course.
Thank's
O.A.
I shall forthwith purchase this, and will let you know my thoughts when I have finished reading. Thank you, OA.
Kind regards,
NMA
Yes, please do let me know your thoughts. The compilation of violence, fraud and theft perpetrated by repeat offenders (many previously deported) is of a magnitude that should give any citizen pause.
Regards,
O.A.
The phrase being "Demographics is Destiny"
That phrase could become truth, but in order to do so it would require that we allow it to become truth.
Allowing that to happen would be on the people as much as the government.
Prior to the immigration act of 1964, it was a far more controlled process. One of the main differences being that assimilation was encouraged strongly. Now the opposite is true. Balkanization is the encouraged result now.
Hear, hear. We are in for a bumpy ride as we feel the impact of that 1964 act.
Thank's for the kind words,
O.A.
+1s for the both of you