« Beldar responds to Captain Ed on EDMD | Main | Obama: L'État c'est Moi! And my job is to tell you, my subjects, what your values should be »
Friday, August 13, 2010
The text of Beldar's email today to Michael Gerson
You wrote, "No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal."
But no child born anywhere in the world has any better or worse basis to be "judged unworthy," either. Shall we just have done with it, then, and extend American citizenship to everyone born anywhere? Because that is where your logic inescapably runs.
A child didn't choose, or deserve, or not deserve, his parents either. His or her "inherent value" doesn't count for the selection of parents, either, but parents generally end up having an even bigger effect on us all than our citizenship. Sometimes life is unfair.
(Slightly edited for clarity.) If Mr. Gerson responds via email, then I'll bestir myself again to post about it.
Posted by Beldar at 10:37 PM in Current Affairs, Law (2010), Mainstream Media | Permalink
TrackBacks
Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515edc69e20133f30ea1eb970b
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to The text of Beldar's email today to Michael Gerson and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Aug 14, 2010 11:34:09 PM | Permalink
Dear Mr. Dyer: Glad to see you as always. I have sorely missed what you have to say on all the acts in the circus that this nation is being.
As for Gerson, if he responds, which I doubt, he will quote back Holmes, "The life of the law has not been logic, but experience." It doesn't mean much in his column's context, but it's all any hick who doesn't live on the coasts, doesn't have a Washington POST column, and isn't a member of the nation's elites, deserves.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
(2) nk made the following comment | Aug 16, 2010 6:22:56 PM | Permalink
Well, there is that pesky clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.
BTW, I always thought that Indians needing to be naturalized (until 1925) was disgusting.
And it is nice to see you back, Beldar.
(3) Gary Reed made the following comment | Aug 17, 2010 8:42:41 PM | Permalink
A pox on the muslim/islamist idea of it being a legitimate religion of peace. Four points to consider. 1)It advocates the
killing of the infidel(non-believer)2)It advocates lying if it
benefits their "religion" even in front of the U.S. Congress 3)It
advocates implimenting Sharia law which allows the stoning to death, whipping,cutting hands off for stealing, & other forms of
mutilation.4)It is a PEACEFUL religion only after ALL OTHER RELIGIONS INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY HAVE BEEN CONQUERED.
Item 1 is self explanatory. Item 2 One should read about when &
under what conditions the muslim/islamist is ENCOURAGED to lie.
Item 3 Very simple--just read & digest the explanation of Sharia
law & what it would mean for your daughters,sons,& wives AND YOU!
Item 4 Again, self explanatory.
Side point. The good and the bad muslim/islamist look the same.
The militant and the civilian are dressed the same. If you would be sittig with a number of them, you WOULD NOT KNOW if the one
next to you had you in his sights as a non-believer to be KILLED.
Followers have elevated muhammid to the level of God which is so
out of place as to be comical. M. married a rich business woman.
What followed was war on various groups of people,killing,maiming,
pillaging,raping,conquering entire groups & forcing them into
their "religion". It is not a legitimate religion--it is a sect
bent on power and control. It is political! I DO NOT TRUST ANY
OF THEM BECAUSE I CAN'T TELL A GOOD ONE FROM A BAD ONE. I FURTHER
DON'T TRUST ANY OF THEIR FRIENDS. I CAN'T KNOW WHEN EITHER ONE IS
LYING.
(4) Buzz made the following comment | Aug 23, 2010 10:11:37 AM | Permalink
Oh, dear, Mike Gerson is at it again. (I somehow missed that column, too, so thanks for the reminder.) He really is so full of his own moral certainty that he just can't see where his idiocy leads.
(5) Jeff made the following comment | Aug 27, 2010 9:57:43 AM | Permalink
the issue of anchor babies can be easily eliminated by cutting off the chain back to the family. The child get his/her citizenship, the family can't use that to stay in America illegally. The problem with anchor babies is NOT the baby and its citizenship, its the family using that as a crowbar to get to stay in the country and bring their extended family with them.
The comments to this entry are closed.
