Monday, January 30, 2017

Do People Understand What Is Really Being Said in the Emma Lazarus Poem at the Base of the Statue of Liberty?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about Emma Lazarus' poem "The New Colossus" at the base of the Statue of Liberty and how it applies to the new immigration policy. 
And yet, reflects Chip Crain (writing from Tennessee), from what he has read and heard so far, it is hard to believe that
many people have read the entire poem or understand what was being said in it preferring to quote one part of one line "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" while conveniently ignoring the rest of the sentence "yearning to be free" or the rest of the poem itself.

The poem means the USA is willing to open their shores to people yearning for freedom not simply avoiding persecution, war or to attempt to bring about a political change via terrorism or any other means. This is saying we don't welcome people to establish colonies of their old world countries here on our shores. The entirety of the poem is a rejection of the ways of their former countries and a celebration of the new colossus that is the USA.

I'm not supporting Donald Trump's immigration restriction (which is country based not religion based but clearly established a priority of certain religions over others for admittance) but I do support limiting immigration to those 'yearning to be free' over those yearning just to get away. I am in favor of welcoming anyone who wants to exist in a country of freedom, where individual effort is rewarded and nothing is given or taken unfairly. A country that rewards individual effort and turns their shoulder to giving people something for nothing.

Likewise, I am against allowing those who want to change our country. I'm against those who are coming not with the intention of assimilating into a free society but rather to establish a society like they left. The poem doesn't protect those who are coming to our shores to recreate the life they left. In fact it says the opposite.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp. Cries she with silent lips."
In other words, stay at home those who wish to bring your old ways here. We aren't a society saying 'give us anyone.' We are opening our shores to those who want to live in a free society that is different from what you left.

Taking time to insure those coming want what we are offering and not simply running away from what they have and with no intention of participating or even changing what it means to be American is not un-American. On the contrary it is exactly the sentiment spoken of on the Statue of Liberty.

I don't know if Trump's ban will accomplish what he wants but it isn't un-American on face value in my humble opinion. It is humorous that the list of banned countries was started by Obama and no one complained about it then.

After Conservative Writer Dares Mention Un-PC Opinions on French TV, Diversity Does Not Last Long

The Observatoire des Journalistes et de l'Information Médiatique (OJIM) has taken up the case of the conservative writer thrown off for daring to hold politically incorrect opinions about Barack Obama and, worse, to mention them on live TV. Negative views of Donald Trump? Those one is free to express over the airwaves, indeed, 'tis almost a duty to do so…

Pour commenter le direct de l’investiture de Donald Trump, et par souci de pluralité, BFMTV avait invité sur son plateau une essayiste favorable au nouveau président américain. Le moins que l’on puisse dire est que la pluralité n’aura pas duré longtemps…

Car Évelyne Joslain, auteur de Trump : pour le meilleur et pour le pire (Presses de la Délivrance, 2016) et membre des Républicains, n’avait pas l’intention de se prêter au jeu de la pensée lisse et politiquement correcte.

Interrogée sur le président sortant, Barack Obama, elle a en effet déclaré : « Obama fait partie des gens qui détestent l’Amérique. Pendant 8 ans, il a servi son idéologie mais pas l’Amérique. » Aussitôt, les réactions outrées (ou gênées) ne se sont pas faites attendre sur le plateau. Bien peu de choses pour Mme Joslain qui poursuit : « Je remets en cause son patriotisme et aussi sa dévotion par rapport à l’église qu’il fréquentait. »

Invitée à en dire plus sur le sujet, celle-ci a estimé que Barack Obama était « plus musulman dans son cœur que chrétien ». Et de faire remarquer que beaucoup d’informations, comme les écrits d’Obama lorsqu’il était à l’université par exemple, sont littéralement « sous scellé ». « Tout ça, on n’a pas le droit de le savoir », dénonce-t-elle.

De quoi choquer les journalistes sur le plateau, et aussi quelques internautes et téléspectateurs, qui ont aussitôt saisi le CSA (24 signalements, assure-t-on). Suite à ces déclarations, Évelyne Joslain a tout bonnement été conduite hors plateau pour y être sermonnée par Hervé Béroud, directeur général de BFMTV, qui a qualité ses propos d’« inacceptables ».

Comme dit plus haut, la pluralité n’aura pas duré longtemps, et la chaîne d’information en continu va donc désormais pouvoir reprendre son lynchage habituel envers Donald Trump, contre lequel, en revanche, toutes les opinions négatives et tous les coups sont permis.

An American Leader Attempting to Make Medicine Cheaper and Embattle Multinationals? If It's a Not a Democrat, Then Coverage Must Be Unfavorable

Some of the most surreal attacks on conservatives are when the latter engage in policies and strive for goals that would be relentlessly praised were they pursued, and had they been passed, by a leftist.

What are a couple of things for which Barack Obama was most celebrated (not least abroad)? Wasn't it (allegedly) making health care affordable for everyone, while, in the process, (allegedly) taking on the rich 1%?

,Trump's Pressure on [Medicine] Prices Threatens Novo's Market of Billions, while one of the print version's inside headlines warns of "Tough Trump's Onslaught on the Pharmaceutical Industry."

Possibly you might expect this from a conservative publication, whose name translates as The Stock Market, The Stock Exchange, or, simply, The Exchange. But Børsen is no exception to the volleys fired against The Donald from all parts of the tiny kingdom's mainstream media.

What is called Donald Trump's own broadside led to a drop of 4.5%, later 5%, in Novo Nordisk's shares, followed by drops in those of competitors Genmab and Lundbeck.
So what have we here?

A U.S. president attempting to bring the prices of medicine down, in the process threatening the income of multinational companies (that awful Big Pharma, no less).

Coming from a Democrat, wouldn't this be celebrated, and that the world over—even in the (so-called) conservative publications of Scandinavian countries?

But 'tis a Republican, and only scare quotes are included in the reporting thereof, along with warlike battle expressions like Shock and Trump's Medicine Attack.

And so it is that: despite the fact that over the very next few days, the Ritzau Finans agency could report (in typical Paul Krugman fashion?) that The Shock of Trump's Medicine Attack Is Abating — after all, Novo has enjoyed a dream start in 2017 (not least because of "hijacking" 30% of the market insulin) — and; despite the fact that Børsen admits that shares around the globe have risen impressively due to the prospect of Donald Trump in the White House (almost 10%, with Dow Jones passing a historic milestone), investors ought to ask themselves how long it can last, all the while we have an editorial bellowing that Trump Must Be Crippled by All People Who Love Freedom.

Must be "crippled"?! Try that line of attack one against Obama or any democrat, and see how long you last…