May 14, 2013

Rubio: America becoming Third Worldish

From The Hill:
Rubio: Recent controversies 'things you typically see in the third world' 
By Justin Sink - 05/14/13 05:48 PM ET
 
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Tuesday blasted controversies over the Obama Administration's handling of the terror attack in Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservative groups, and subpoena of reporter phone records as "embarrassing to the country." 
"These are things you typically see in the Third World from unestablished republics and other places," Rubio told Fox News in an interview set to air on the "O'Reilly Factor." "You don't see that here."

But, don't worry, Senator Rubio has a plan to fix that!

20 comments:

Orthodox said...

That's not a softball, that's a teeball. Too bad O'Reilly isn't going to ask the follow up, "Do you think that's an effect from all the Third World immigration?"

Dave Pinsen said...

Off the charts cognitive dissonance there. Have you heard the FWD.us ads on talk radio featuring Sen. Rubio yet? Any chance FWD.us is having a similar effect on Rubio's popularity as it is on Zuck's?

Somewhat related, in a Seeking Alpha article on Japan, the first commenter suggests Japan is in trouble because it has eschewed immigration. Not sure if he will appreciate my response.

Anonymous said...

Senator, you can't have a third world nation without the third worlders. So keep 'em coming.

Orthodox said...

I just realized that America's leadership is combining the policies of the Qing Dynasty and Chariman Mao: massively increase your population by inviting in foreigners. OK, the Qing weren't exactly welcoming at first, but they got over it!

Anonymous said...

The left's infatuation with 3rd world immigration is really a form of cargo cult thinking. They think that there is something magical about our infrastructure and laws such that all you need to do is transplant people from anywhere in the world and it will all magically just work out.

Whiskey said...

Its the Tito Strategy. BTW, the former Chair of the NAACP says the Tea Party deserved it because ... wait for it ... wait for it ... "they're RACIST!"

It is all about speaking power to truth.

Anonymous said...

Richwine's REAL crime was the mention of Jewish IQ.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VgMz3Jvzwzo

Hail said...

Parts of the USA are already 'Third-World', of course.

Sometimes it's worth trying to imagine a retrospective on this era, written x years from now. Say 400 years from now. Current affairs USA may be waved away with a small paragraph like this: "A major power once existed on the North American continent, often called 'the USA'. After rising to major-power status by the early 1900s, it began to decline in the later 1900s, and the decline accelerated in the early 2000s, when presidents were elected from non-traditionally-American ethnic stocks. Further decline had turned it into a backwater by the later 2000s, when fragmentation began. By 2100 several national-revival efforts had been launched and failed. The former land area of the USA now consists of twenty-seven state entities and nine colonial-holdings, the largest of which is China's."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:Richwine's REAL crime was the mention of Jewish IQ.

I rarely respond to the retard antisemites, who are a distinct breed from the smart, well read guys who merely treat us like a group with identifiable failings.

YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE GUYS. YOU ARE A MORON.

His crime was lending his considerable quant skills to a study that pissed off a bunch of billionaires and their loyal, eager catemites. He was destroyed to taint the study, and by implication, opposition to amnesty.

-The Judean People's Front

Matthew said...

"I rarely respond to the retard antisemites, who are a distinct breed from the smart, well read guys who merely treat us like a group with identifiable failings."

Speaking as one who counts myself in the latter category, thank you for recognizing the difference.

Globalism isn't possible without first convincing Westerners they have no justifiable reason to keep people out who are different, by embracing the benefits of "diversity" when that serves the cause, and by enforcing the belief in equality when that does. That is: we need immigrants because they are different and bring new ideas to our society, BUT immigrants aren't too different and won't do anything to result in society being different than what the current population wants, BUT they are different and the Republican Party needs to abandon the desires of its white supporters to embrace what the "growing Hispanic vote" wants, and what they want isn't handouts (but the GOP better not vote against handouts, 'cause that'll turn off the Hispanic voters who don't want handouts); what they want is education, despite all appearances to the contrary, because if they get themselves an edumacation they won't have to do those horrible, awful jobs we brought them here to do, jobs which are both disappearing thanks to technology yet which are multiplying and thus necessitate tens of millions of more immigrants.

The mind reels at the bullshit web of lies the open borders enthusiasts spin in order to justify their cheap labor bullshit. I ever again get one spouting such nonsense to my face and I'll be going jail for assault and (hopefully) battery.

Anonymous said...

You see, we can have it WITHOUT amnesty, third world vibe, that is.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 11:14 PM said: The left's infatuation with 3rd world immigration is really a form of cargo cult thinking.

Hunsdon said: Exactly. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Latin American history knows that following independence from Spain, most of the constitutions adopted were heavily, heavily influenced by the US Constitution. The tricky part was adopting that whole "peaceful transition of power between competing groups" thing.

Harry Baldwin said...

In those Zuckerberg-financed ads, When Rubio is doing his Clint Eastwood impression, he says, "What we have today is de facto amnesty," which is true because the federal government chooses not to enforce the law.

But I don't get why changing "de facto amnesty" to "in facto amnesty" is somethings Americans should want.

Cail Corishev said...

It looks to me like Richwine was simply a target of convenience. With all the conservatives -- even real ones -- who have worked for the Heritage Foundation over the years, they could have picked from many people who have said non-PC things about race and/or IQ. His writings may have been especially useful in this situation, but the point wasn't to destroy him. The point, aside from bashing opponents of mass immigration in general, was to punish Heritage for straying off the Conservative Inc. plantation where immigration is concerned and to make them grovel.

Anonymous said...

"Richwine's REAL crime was the mention of Jewish IQ."

I rarely respond to the retard antisemites, who are a distinct breed from the smart, well read guys who merely treat us like a group with identifiable failings.


Now comes the gatekeeper. I feel like I've seen movie before. Gradually win our trust, take on a larger share in the leadership of the prevailing discourse, start censoring and establishing boundaries for the goyim.

In an environment where the goyim can hardly utter the word "jew" without raising eyebrows, it is hardly crazy to speculate that associating jewishmness with genetics could provoke suspicions and hostility toward the speaker among jews. Who was that guy who got in big trouble a few years ago for talking about a "jewish gene"? Was that Thilo Serrazin?

Mr. Anon said...

"Orthodox said...

That's not a softball, that's a teeball. Too bad O'Reilly isn't going to ask the follow up, "Do you think that's an effect from all the Third World immigration?""

American journalists don't ask follow-up questions. And that braying horse's ass O-Reilly certainly wouldn't ask anything that upset the FOX/Republican propaganda-line.

pat said...

Orthodox wrote that the Qing Dynasty invited in foreigners. To which I can only say - huh?

First of all the Qing were themselves foreigners. They were Jurchen not Han. They made the natives adopt their odd haircut and other non-Chinese practices. They were a small military elite who ruled a huge native population. They were in a sense like the British Raj.

They strongly opposed the presence of foreigners - for example the British. Lord McCartney's expedition in the late eighteenth century was an attempt to "open up" China. That led to two Opium Wars, the Boxer rebellion and the Taiping Revolt. The Qing were replaced by others who also resisted foreigners - in this case the Japanese.

I don't see any parallels in East Asia with our current suicidal immigration policies, rather the exact opposite.

The Chinese are currently invading Africa. Zheng He went there around 1429. Now they have gone back. Europeans in the fifteenth century planted their elite colonists on foreign shores and the colonists in turn imported field workers from Africa or they interbred with the natives.

The Chinese in Africa seem to be avoiding using Africans. They import their own people from China. Maybe their colonization policies will yield different results than the European ones.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: Now comes the gatekeeper. I feel like I've seen movie before. Gradually win our trust, take on a larger share in the leadership of the prevailing discourse, start censoring and establishing boundaries for the goyim.

Have you even read my commentary here? If I were interested in policing the discourse I would jump on the non-retard "antisemites", who actually have the brains and competence to realistically further their goals. Have I ever written a single disparaging post about intellectually serious, honest criticism of the Jewish people?

As an mere blog commenter, I hardly see how I stand accused of angling for intellectual leadership of the contrarian right. No one is trying to coopt the enormous cultural power of your little one man think tank, anonymous.

Wouldn't my cultural marxist machinations be a tad more effective if I pretended not to be a Jew? It's not like it would be difficult not to use the JPF handle.

Anyhow, I share your wish that clear headed men like Serrazin and Richwine were writing policy rather than defending themselves against spurious accusations. See what I just did? You goyim fall for it every time. Infants...

-The Judean People's Front

Matthew said...

"Now comes the gatekeeper. I feel like I've seen movie before. Gradually win our trust, take on a larger share in the leadership of the prevailing discourse..."

Oh spare us. There are plenty of legit criticisms of Jews, as with any other group, but sometimes the Jew bashing around here does get a bit too thick. No intent to "police the boundaries" of discourse. I just ignore it, as I think do most commenters.


Orthodox said...

Albertosaurus,

It was a joke. Chinese people criticize the Qing Dynasty for not keeping out foreigners, they criticize Mao for overpopulation among his many sins. U.S. leaders are implementing a doubly unpopular policy.