Supplemental: Rachel and Chris edit Candidate Bush!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2015

The statements we liberals can’t hear:
Your Daily Howler just keeps banging out those results!

Last night, the PBS NewsHour skipped the pork chops and served a bit of chopped beef. We refer to its middling discussion of “birthright citizenship,” termination of which is one part of Candidate Trump’s immigration plan.

In our view, the discussion wasn’t entirely great. We were somewhat puzzled by this Q-and-A:
IFILL (8/20/15): Professor Sherry, is this a uniquely American idea, that if you’re born here, you’re a citizen here?

SHERRY: It’s almost uniquely American. The only other developed country that has birthright citizenship is Canada.

There are a number of South American countries that have it as well. It’s—but no place in Western Europe, no place in Asia, not Australia. A number of European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, had birthright citizenship, and they repealed it. I don’t believe it was constitutional in those cases. But they repealed birthright citizenship over the last 20 or 30 years.
It’s almost uniquely American (presumably meaning ours)? That may be true among “developed countries.” But according to the world’s leading authority, unconditional birthright citizenship is the norm all through the Americas.

[Note: We’ve corrected two errors in the PBS transcript. Sherry’s statement now makes basic sense.]

We also note that Ifill didn’t ask why a bunch of developed nations have been “repealing birthright citizenship over the last 20 or 30 years.” Perhaps the answer would have been upsetting to PBS viewers!

Because of its constitutional grounding, there seems to be little chance that birthright citizenship will be repealed in the U.S. Needless to say, Ifill spent some time teaching us viewers which words and phrases we mustn’t use in discussing this general topic. She discussed the term “anchor babies” and even took a swipe at “self-deportation.”

In such ways, Candidate Trump keeps gaining votes! Let’s note several points:

Late in her segment, Ifill discussed the alleged problem with birthright citizenship. She spoke with USA Today’s Steve Gomez, who described several different types of situation:
IFILL: And on this idea of anchor babies, is it—is there any evidence to support the notion that this is a widespread idea that women come here to have babies and gain citizenship for them? Is there any number—are there any numbers to back that up?

GOMEZ: I mean, it’s always hard to quantify intentions. But, yes, I can tell you, just in the reporting that I and some of my colleagues have done over the years on this issue, that there is absolutely an industry of people who come here or send people to this country for the purpose of giving birth.

In China, for example, travel agencies advertise that you can come over here.
They teach you and coach you on how to speak to the customs and border agent as you’re coming in so that you can get in, have your baby, get the citizenship and head on back.

And unquestionably, there are some undocumented immigrants from Central and South America who have done the same thing when they cross over. But in terms of the numbers, the last time I saw anybody even try to take a look at that was the Pew Research Center a few years ago. And they found that well over 90 percent of the people who gave—of the undocumented immigrants who gave birth in the United States had arrived in the United States at least two years prior.

So in other words, they had come here and they were not pregnant while they were doing so.
Depending on your point of view, Gomez may have described a problem.

In our view, upper-income “birth tourism” is an obvious abuse of a system which was designed for other reasons. In our view, the situation is different in the case of lower-income people who come to this country to work, especially since their presence here has been encouraged by ruling elites for decades.

That said, sensible people will react to this situation in different ways. Here are some basic numbers from a Pew report:
PASSEL AND TAYLOR (8/11/10): An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

Unauthorized immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country.
Those aren’t the so-called “anchor babies” about whom Ifill inquired. But large numbers are recorded there. Those numbers don’t seem like a problem to us, but sensible people could differ.

Can sensible liberals tolerate such reactions? As our news orgs become more propagandistic, we liberals are increasingly being trained to offer tribal reactions. With that in mind, we were struck by how much of this week’s discussion concerned the correct language to use when discussing this general topic.

Aside from the actual facts of the case, is “anchor babies” an offensive term? In some settings, it may be hard to avoid. Last night, Ifill used the term in the question above, even after she had been told that it can be seen as a slur! On MSNBC, Candidate Bush was getting slimed, rather dishonestly, for having done something similar.

Below, you see an earlier Q-and-A from the NewsHour. Note: In the course of asking her question, we’d have to say that Ifill basically misstated Bush’s position:
IFILL: Alan, we know, of course, that not all of the Republican candidates are in favor of revoking birthright citizenship. In fact, we heard Jeb Bush today talk about it and say he didn’t necessarily think it was a great idea.

But he also used that term “anchor babies.” Tell me about the political genesis of that term and why it seems to stir up such dust.

GOMEZ: I mean, it’s perceived as such a slur to a lot undocumented immigrants, a lot of Hispanics, a lot of immigrants generally who are at least within that first or second wave of immigration.

This goes back for quite some time. I remember Steve King from Iowa, one of the biggest immigration hard-liners we have seen in a long time, and, much like Trump, a bit bombastic in the way he approaches things, using that term quite a bit just a few years ago. And that is when it kind of gained steam, as best as I can remember.

And so it really sort of kind of speaks to this idea. They had Jeb Bush talking about needing to improve the tone with the Hispanic community in this country, calling on his other Republican candidates to improve the tone, yet he would not back away from using the term “anchor babies.”

And it’s—I think it’s also important to understand that, while Bush was saying that he didn’t believe that we need to change birthright citizenship, he wants to enforce it to try to prevent pregnant parents, pregnant mothers from coming into the country specifically for the purpose of giving birth.

Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, has also endorsed that approach. So even though everybody is not on board with birthright citizenship, we’re seeing a lot of folks who are trying to get at it in different ways.
There’s a lot of strangeness in both parts of that Q-and-A, strangeness which reflects our growing tribalization.

Did Candidate Bush fail to “back away from using the term ‘anchor babies?’” So did Broadcaster Ifill! Even after this Q-and-A, she went on to use the term in a later question, the question we’ve posted above.

Meanwhile, we liberals were propagandized hard by Maddow and Hayes last night. They complained about Bush’s use of the “deeply offensive” term, but kept us from learning his stance on the issue—full birthright citizenship all the way.

Rachel and Chris disappeared that part of Bush’s taped remarks, much as Jaime Fuller had disappeared Candidate Clinton’s avowal of innocence in the email matter. When Lawrence played the tape at 10, he left Bush’s statement in.

(Bush: “You want to get to the policy for a second? I think that people born in this country ought to be American citizens. OK, now we got that over with.” Lawrence left those statements in when he played the tape of Bush’s remarks. Maddow and Hayes edited those statements out. Increasingly, we’re being propagandized in such ways.)

In our view, Maddow has become especially heinous. But our culture is crawling with horrid corporate “journalists” of various tribal stripes.

We expect to discuss this growing breakdown next week. But in our view, Maddow now seems to have been almost wholly destroyed by all the wealth and fame.

Increasingly, we liberal viewers now serve as her toys. But as you know, wealth and fame can be extremely destructive.

69 comments:

  1. No doubt Google will reclassify the term "private server" as a pejorative as it became offensive when the mention of it it rankled HRC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Predictably ignorant troll is ignorant and predictable.

      Delete
    2. There is already a song all about you cicero.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RlNeq9UN3A

      Delete
  2. "In such ways, Candidate Trump keeps gaining votes!" says long time political expert Bob Somerby, who just last month was warning the wrong phrases were helping President Walker.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For obvious reasons, nobody really knows how many illegal immigrants currently reside in the US. Passel and Taylor say slightly more than 4%, which would be 13 million. Many conservative and border watchdog groups have long contended that the actual number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is closer to 30 million while the U.S. government contends the number is closer to 11 million.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For obvious reasons nobody knows how many legal citizens we have either.

      Many conservative watchdog groups have also long contended:

      Obama Was Born in Kenya.
      Truman Lost China.
      The Civil War Was Not Fought Over Slavery.
      Eisenhower was a Communist Agent
      Santa Claus is White*
      Jade Helm Was a Plan To Impose Martial Law

      * OK, we know the Santa stuff was just a claim of Megyn "Bloody" Kelly looking our for the interests of non-anchor babies who may have been watching...besides she's a lightweight.

      Delete
    2. Please don't call Megyn Kelly "bloody". It isn't funny. No matter how much you dislike her, the term offends all women because it implies there is something wrong with her because she is female. Whatever is wrong with her has nothing to do with gender.

      Delete
    3. Many liberal conspiracy groups have long contended

      9/11 was a Bush/Media/Israel plot
      JFK was assassinated by Mafia/CIA/Castro
      Iraq War purpose was to gain oil contracts for Halliburton
      Bush stole 2000 election
      Bush 43 blew up the New Orleans levees

      As far as slavery being the reason Lincoln declared war on the South, here is his August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley.

      "The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

      I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln."

      Delete
    4. @4:19

      The only thing wrong with M.K. is she has better features than Melania Trump.

      Delete
    5. Your Lincoln quote speaks to Lincoln's objectives in the war, but what were the objectives of the South in leaving the union? If they pulled out to preserve slavery the war was as much about slavery as if Lincoln's goal had been to free the slaves. Do you have any quotes of Jefferson Davis saying his goal was not to preserve slavery and that if he could achieve his goals (whatever they were) without preserving slavery, he would do it.

      Delete
    6. Cicero, remember that the Confederacy started the war by seceding. They weren't kicked out. That makes it their war, not Lincoln's.

      Delete
    7. @ 4:30 & 4:29

      3:51 claimed "The Civil War Was Not Fought Over Slavery" is a conservative conspiracy. His claim was not about Davis' objectives or that it was the Confederates who fired on Ft. Sumter that began the war. The fact remains Lincoln's goal was to restore national authority and save the Union, not put an end to slavery in the South.

      Delete
    8. So, you don't know why the South seceded. It is certainly relevant to a dispute about whether the civil war was fought over slavery. You cannot focus only on the motives of one side and not the other in a war -- which involves two parties. South Carolina seceded before Ft. Sumter was fired upon. If Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union, what was the south trying to preserve by seceding? Not the union. Could it be...slavery? If so, the idea that the war was not fought over slavery does sound pretty revisionist. You need to look into this -- do some actual research. Glib quotes from Lincoln don't settle the question.

      Delete
    9. The needless back-and-forth on this issue always reminds me of the Simpsons episode wherein Apu drastically over-prepares for his citizenship exam. Then, in response to the examiner's question "what caused the civil war?", he thoughtfully replies "actually there were many causes ... " and recites a litany of economic, social, and political factors. Then the examiner cuts him off and says "look, just say, 'slavery'!"

      Delete
    10. @maj

      That would be the cartoon answer libs can easily digest.

      Delete
    11. As if you know any of the other causes.

      Delete
    12. cicero denies the Civil War was fought over slavery. Why should that be a surprise? cicero is our own little conservative watchdog with a tiny little brain.

      Delete
    13. Let's note several points @ 4:19. I called the Fox personality Megyn "Bloody" Kelly because in such ways The Donald keeps getting votes. And yes. if she has faults they are not because of gender. But I wouldn't know she has any faults. Bob Somerby has only mentioned her three times. All three were either positive or in her defense. Because the real problem is Rachel Maddow making you liberals serve as her toys.

      Delete
    14. March 4, 1865 [LINK]

      Fellow-Countrymen:

      ...On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation.

      Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

      One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.

      To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

      Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding....

      The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."

      If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?...

      [I]if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

      Delete
    15. Cicero,

      Thanks for posting the body of that often cited Lincoln letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New-York Daily Tribune. By August 22, 1862, the date of that letter, the emancipation issue had a momentum of its own which Lincoln failed to mention and, with hindsight, one wonders exactly to whom was Lincoln speaking directly to in taking that particular position.

      Backing up remember [LINK]

      [QUOTE] "I hope to have God on my side," Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said early in the war, "but I must have Kentucky." Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln hesitated to invoke divine sanction of human causes, but his wry comment unerringly acknowledged the critical importance of the border states to the Union cause. Following the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops in April 1861, public opinion in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri was sharply divided and these states' ultimate allegiance uncertain....

      Together Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri had a white population of almost 2,600,000, nearly half that of the population of the eleven states of the Confederacy.... [END QUOTE]

      (I'll add that before West Virginia broke away from the Commonwealth of Virginia, control of Maryland had been essential to maintaining Washington, D.C. as the nation's capital.)

      But as to how fast things began to move on the emancipation front by late Spring 1862 with and without Lincoln, if I've cued it up right, here are six minutes of a lecture that provides some useful information on that score. [LINK]

      If I botched the video link, It's the closing three paragraphs in "Chapter 5" of the transcript for David Blight's Lecture 15 here [LINK].

      Delete
    16. "The Civil War Was Not Fought Over Slavery" is NOT a conservative conspiracy.
      It's just another typical conservative white-washing, a rewrite of history to confuse the rubes, if you will.
      Here's another (of many): You can't blame conservatives for the $2 trillion Iraq War disaster, because conservatives are for small government and against government waste.

      Delete
    17. @3:02

      The Republican Lincoln didn't own slaves. Jefferson Davis and his Democratic Party brethren owned slaves. The fact that the South wished to continue to retain their slaves to pick the cotton to sell to the North may have been their raison d'être but fighting to end slavery was certainly not Lincoln's clarion call to rally his troops to engage their relatives living in a different geographic area.

      Delete
    18. Cicero, and after the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 50's and 60's all the racist democrat pols switched to the GOP, and the south has gone red state. There is no resemblance between the secessionist Civil War pols and the present Democratic party, or for that matter between Lincoln's Republican party and the present GOP.

      Delete
    19. Trump isn't even a conservative. But he's a racist. and that is "good enough" for GOP voters.

      Delete
    20. @AC/MA

      "All the racist democrat pols switched to GOP" AC/MA

      Your recollection of history is indeed revisionist if not totally erroneous. This old liberal canard was debunked 50 years ago. Where have you been?

      Didn’t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic party — including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.

      Significant percentages of white southerners voted for Ike even though the Democratic party remained firmly segregationist and even though Eisenhower backed two civil-rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. They also began to send GOP representatives to the House.

      If the new southern Republican voters were white racists, one would have expected Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to be the first to turn but it actually began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida.

      Delete
    21. @ 1:58

      Trump and his "racist" views must be good enough for WIllie and HRC as well. She attended his wedding and Willie consulted with Trump before he announced his candidacy.

      Delete
    22. Cicero says:

      If the new southern Republican voters were white racists, one would have expected Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to be the first to turn but it actually began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida.

      I'll bite:

      The Civil Rights Act was signed into law on July 2, 1964. Here are the county by county results in the two presidential contests before and the two presidential contests after that legislation passed.

      1956

      1960

      1964

      1968

      Delete
    23. Cicero, after the Civil Rights Acts were passed, the southern states, previously always democratic, went for Goldwater and Wallace. A large number of previously democratic southern politicians, not just Thurmond, switched to the GOP. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights statutes. The impeach Earl Warren John Bircher crowd are the progenitors of the modern Tea Party. Look at you, you can't even admit that the Southern states that seceded, precipatating the Civil War, did so over slavery. The segregationist dixiecrats have nothing to do with the current Democratic party. You are a pure sophist.

      Delete
    24. AC/MA

      Now you admit your nonsensical "All the racist democrat pols switched to GOP" after Civil Rights laws were passed was total bullocks. Why didn't your favorite liberal Democrat Bob Byrd switch? He didn't want to spend the money to change the monogram party affiliation on his KKK outfit.

      But now you have initiated another lie by mischaracterizing what I said about the Civil War. Where did I ever say the South didn't secede over slavery? What does that have to do with POTUS Lincoln's stated reasons for taking military action against the South?

      My 4:33 post:

      The fact that the South wished to continue to retain their slaves to pick the cotton to sell to the North may have been their raison d'être but fighting to end slavery was certainly not Lincoln's clarion call to rally his troops to engage their relatives living in a different geographic area.

      Delete
    25. As to the Republican Party's raison d'être and the reason why the Deep South would not tolerate Lincoln's election here is where things stood in the soon to be president's mind as of June 16, 1858 [LINK]

      [QUOTE] ...We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

      Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

      In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

      "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

      I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

      I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

      It will become all one thing or all the other.

      Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

      Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

      Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.... [END QUOTE]

      Delete
  4. Does the attack on the term “anchor babies” help conservative Republicans? I can't speak for others, but I find the attack offensive. I would be less inclined to vote for a candidate who submits to this sort of PC attack on Freedom of Speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see, David. Freedom of speech works only one way, right?

      Trump can call them "Anchor babies." His freedom of speech.

      But I can't call him a insensitive dumbass for using a term that is deliberately offensive term. That wouldn't be my "freedom of speech." That would be a "PC attack."

      Delete
    2. Decrying the term as "offensive" misses the point. It refers to an act that should rightly offend a reasonable citizen of this nation. Its designed to offend, and it should offend those responsible.

      Delete
    3. But why apply the term to the baby, who surely has done nothing wrong?

      Delete
    4. irishguy -- feel free to call me an insensitive dumbass. I never said you couldn't. Be my guest.

      Delete
    5. Oh, but you most certainly did. You already called it "a PC attack on freedom of speech."

      You already labeled me a PC opponent of free speech because I exercised my free speech rights to call you (and Donald Trump) an insensitive dumbass.

      Delete
  5. "Many conservative and border watchdog groups"

    What a tool!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Depending on your point of view, Gomez may have described a problem.

    In our view, upper-income “birth tourism” is an obvious abuse of a system which was designed for other reasons."

    And the term "birth tourism" used by Bob Somerby and described by him as an "obvious abuse" is featured in Bob's favorite publication, "Rolling Stone."

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/welcome-to-maternity-hotel-california-20150819

    Unfortunately the Republican candidates are not discussing "birth tourists" who gain entry legally for the purpose of giving birth to children who will have dual citizenship rights.

    They are aiming at the people from our neighboring nation who are going to pay for the wall we need to build. And the term they are using is not "birth tourist." It is "anchor baby."

    The term "anchor baby" is clearly derogatory and is aimed
    at painting a false picture both of the babies and the undocumented immigrants who parent them.

    Might I suggest a little further reading:

    "Debunking the4 Myth of the Anchor Baby"

    http://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=rwu_LR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't Rolling Stone have a credibility problem?

      Delete
    2. Hi, my name's Humble Ed. If I sound like a simpleton, it's because I am!

      I like the world to be neatly divided into those I can trust and those I can't. I like to pretend that when something gets criticized, it means the critic buys into my simple view also. Everything from that source is now suspect!

      If I sound like a simpleton, it's because you really understand me!

      Delete
    3. 10:41 obviously thinks Rolling Stone is credible.

      Delete
  7. Blogger Bags UnitedAugust 21, 2015 at 4:02 PM

    Yes. Mexicans are rapists. Anchor babies mooch among us. The 14th Amendment Should Be Repealed.

    But the real problem is liberal viewers who serve as Maddow toys.

    We need to deport them. Cause we can't count on them to deport themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A baby has no choice about where it is born, or to whom. What it does after birth is on him (or her). Putting a negative label on someone because of an act that they had no control over is pretty unfair. If we were talking about anchor parents, I wouldn't have the same objection. If you think this is funny, maybe you should experience the brunt of a stigma you did nothing to earn. If I call you a bastard, maybe you'll get a sense of what it feels like and why we no longer label kids with their parents sins.

      Delete
    2. @4:16

      How about anchor fetus? That would at least appeal to Planned Parenthood.

      Delete
    3. 4:16 you are unable to detect satire aimed at a regular commenter, Douchebag Troll.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anyone have a clue why Somerby thinks the reason some countries have repealed birthright citizenship would have been upsetting to PBS viewers? I am not sure why he would think that since he didn't state the reason they repealed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PBS wasn't afraid their audience would find the reason upsetting -- they were afraid their audience might NOT find the reason upsetting.

      Delete
  10. "In our view, Maddow has become especially heinous. But our culture is.....

    But in our view, Maddow now seems to have been almost wholly.... destroyed by all the wealth and fame.

    Increasingly, we liberal viewers now serve as her toys. But as you know, wealth and fame can be extremely destructive."


    In our view, Bob has become heinously repetitive, But, but, but as you know, lack of wealth or fame increasingly seem to produce bad writing.
    We expect to view this breakdown again and again in weeks ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sick a*% burn!!!! Well played my man. Well played!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. In your view. But there are others of us who regard this heinous infestation to almost wholly destroy discussion.

      Delete
    3. Bob is just angry and resentful that she has a TV show and he doesn't.

      Delete
    4. Bob is angry because she is a more successful comedian.

      Delete
    5. Where on her resume does it say she is a comedian? If I were a journalist and someone called me a comedian, I wouldn't consider it a compliment.

      She is much too narcissistic to do standup, like Somerby does. She would have to handle hecklers. She doesn't seem to have a thick enough skin -- much too defensive.

      Delete
    6. Bob is angry because she is a more successful comedian.

      That doesn't mean she views herself as such. It means Bob recognizes she is funnier than he ever was. She is also better educated, more successful in her chosen line of work, and in my opinion a lot smarter and less deceptive than Somerby.

      Plus she seems to enjoy herself and others more. That mat be because she shares her life with a loving partner.

      But my guess is that it is that he recognizes she makes people laugh more than he ever could. That causes the anger.

      Delete
  11. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A feistier, combative Jeb Bush said Thursday that he doesn't believe the term "anchor babies" is offensive and blamed Democrats for perpetuating the idea that it's a loaded term.

    In one of his most aggressive exchanges with reporters to date, Bush dismissed suggestions that the two-word term deemed offensive by many Hispanics and denounced by Democrats is improper.

    "Do you have a better term? You give me a better term and I'll use it," he snapped at a reporter who asked him.

    The former Florida governor first used the words Wednesday in a radio interview as he responded to questions about Donald Trump's use of the term....

    Here's the rest of Jebs! Quote.

    Just trying to paint a full picture of Bush.

    S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The better term is "citizen."

      Delete
    2. @8:32

      What's the better term for fetus?

      Delete
    3. Trump just keeps getting results!

      Delete
    4. Cicero, I get your point. If a foetus, or as you prefer, a baby, is conceived in the US to non-citizen parents, but is born in another country, such as Mexico or Honduras, he or she under our constitution must be deemed a US citizen.

      Delete
  14. "Unauthorized immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country.

    Those aren’t the so-called “anchor babies” about whom Ifill inquired. But large numbers are recorded there. Those numbers don’t seem like a problem to us, but sensible people could differ." BS Post

    Sensible people know that those are the so-called "anchor babies" to whom Trump, Bush and others refer. Stupid people make statements like Somerby's,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've misread Somerby here.

      According to Somerby, Ifill was talking about "anchor babies" as being those born to a mother who came to the United States for the purpose of having a child in the United States. Somerby recognizes that other people are also talking about "lower- income people" who come into the United States illegally for the purpose of earning money but, while trying to do so, give birth to a child on American soil.

      That's why Somerby said:

      In our view, upper-income “birth tourism” is an obvious abuse of a system which was designed for other reasons. In our view, the situation is different in the case of lower-income people who come to this country to work, especially since their presence here has been encouraged by ruling elites for decades.

      That said, sensible people will react to this situation in different ways.


      My question to you 9:29 AM is why is this issue about citizenship of so little importance to you that you have to try to turn everyone's attention to how obnoxious and grandiose you are instead of trying to say something that might be useful to the rest of us?

      How come in comment after comment, you represent liberalism as a belief system inspired by some personality disorder you share with others who, together with you, never seem to think any political issue, including the slant the media is giving to a given topic, is ever important enough to discuss without your taking the time to announce how contemptuous you are towards your intellectual and moral inferiors or, as you would characterize them, the vast majority of Americans?

      Delete

  15. “Happiness, Love is the key to LIFE”.

    Greeting be unto Dr. Ukaka the great man and ever, my name is Silvia Quelal from California. since 6 months I have witness what is called heart broken. my boyfriend that promised me marriage failed me and impregnate me and leave,he dump me,he stop calling" he stop picking my calls,and he no longer respond to me. I have be looking for solution,I fall into the hands of fake spell caster,they rough me off and took my money without help.I have cried,I have weep"and tears runs out of eyes. The silentness in my heart brought me to the deepest path of failure that I lost my job. Crying all day,because of my life was lonely. So thanks to Ukaka that came into my life and brought me the greatest joy that was lost. I saw his mail while browsing and I contact and tell him what I am passing through with no doubt because what saw about him,was enough to believe. And I was given words of solution on what to do. I can't really help thinking about it I have tried to see what I can do, I manage to provide him some materials and he help me with the rest,after casting the spell, 12hrs later he came with rose on his hand and I was even about going out,i saw him in front of my door when he sees me he knee and said he is dying I should forgive him and accept him back he was crying,I can't wait to let him finish I quickly crab him and kiss him, just then" he said he is restless without me, just as the prophet has said he will be. He brought out a ring and put it on my hand. Our wedding day was scheduled,1week after we got married. today makes it 2weeks and we are living happily I don't know how to praise him enough, he has done me a thing I can never forget. And I can't really share to myself alone, I want y'all to help me praise him because if it is wasn't for him I already plan of committing suicide. But right now I am now so happy more than I was before. And you out there crying for help you've already got one,Ukaka is the man that you need in all rampart. contact his address if you need his service, freedomlovespell@hotmail.com also contact him on his web site: freedomlovespelltemple.yolasite.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My Husband divorce me for no reason for 9 months and i tried all I could to have him back because I really love him so much but all my effort did not work out,My name is Becky Miller, I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete