Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the anti-slavery novel, UNCLE TOM’S CABIN…when she met President Lincoln at the White House, her son later reported that Lincoln said:"so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”
As this Blog is being written the Liberal cognoscente has grudgingly conceded that perhaps 40% of American citizenry is primed for Civil War.
As America totters on the brink of THE TROUBLES, LA VIOLENCIA, THE TERROR, all Americans should ask the question VITO CORLEONE did in THE GODFATHER, when he tried to make peace among the warring Mafia gangs, after blood had been spilt: "“How did it come to this?”
Liberals, between heady binges of triumphalism, have a ready answer; the rightwing nutjobs did not watch enough of MSNBC.
“The right has spent decades telling people not to believe anyone but them. And now half the country simply can't accept the reality that Trump lost. “The question of whether anyone can run a democracy under these conditions is really an open one,” says Chris Hayes.MSNBC.”
In the history of Mankind, in the history of History, every indigenous, every native born population has exercised its right to defend its land, culture, language, religion and laws from Migrants.We know from American History that if a great people feel threatened by endless waves of migrants, they will turn to religion(Ghost Dancing) and war; why do Liberals think that native born Americans, proven warriors, will react to mass migration any differently than the Comanche, Apache, Lakota, Shawnee, Cree, Seminole, Kiowa, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Modoc, and Nez Perce did?
One of the canons of American Liberalism is that all people are alike, but yet Liberals fail to see the Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in native born Americans.
No Liberal has ever called an Apache a racist for wanting to keep their land free from migrants; yet those same Liberals call American natives, racists for wanting to defend their land and water from migrants and illegal aliens.
So how did America get to this antebellum period? This Blogger posits this answer: a lady wrote a stylebook which will cause another great war.
In April, 2013, Kathleen Carroll, (pictured below) started the Second American Civil War when she eliminated the term illegal alien and illegal immigrant from the stylebook of the Associated Press.
How could a minor thing like a change in a stylebook begin the path to Civil War?
Because it was not a minor thing; it was a major thing. What Carroll did was Gestalt; it altered the zeitgeist. It signaled to the yahoos of America, the forlorn Nationalists, that the Global Elite was totally prepared, willing and able to transform traditional American society, values and standards to conform to the needs of illegal aliens, illegal immigrants and or migrants rather than force the illegals to conform to American laws and mores.
Nationalists will not go to Civil War, or Terror, over Medicare for All, or fracking, or climate change; they will go to violence over the subversion of their social contract with each other by Globalists. We know from History, any and all indigenous peoples, will go to war or terror, or civil strife, and religion, if they feel dispossessed. Ms. Carroll’s changing of the nomenclature was a signal to Americans that the dispossession was in full swing.
““Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the thinking behind the decision:
“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term「illegal immigrant」or the use of「illegal」to describe a person….”
Why did we make the change?
“The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as「undocumented,」despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise.A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)
Those discussions continued even after AP affirmed 「illegal immigrant」as the best use, for two reasons.
A number of people felt that「illegal immigrant」was the best choice at the time. They also believed the always-evolving English language might soon yield a different choice and we should stay in the conversation.
…..Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere.
The updated entry is being added immediately to the AP Stylebook Online and Manual de Estilo Online de la AP, the new Spanish-language Stylebook. It also will appear in the new print edition and Stylebook Mobile, coming out later in the spring……
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented…..AP April 2, 2013.”
April 2, 2013— -- The Associated Press, the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term "illegal immigrant."
"The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term 'illegal immigrant' or the use of 'illegal' to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that 'illegal' should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally," Carroll wrote.
The company's decision comes after years of controversy over the term. Fusion, the ABC-Univision joint venture, does not use "illegal immigrant" because we believe it dehumanizes those it describes and we find it to be linguistically inaccurate.
We wrote last year about how most of America's top college newspapers and major TV networks, including ABC, NBC and CNN, have vowed to stop using the term. Nearly half of Latino voters polled last year in a Fox News Latino survey said that they find the term "illegal immigrant" offensive. A coalition of linguists also came together last year to pressure media companies to drop "illegal immigrant," calling it "neither neutral nor accurate." And some critics of the term, like journalist Maria Hinojosa, argue that those newsrooms that have continued to classify people as "illegal" lack diversity.
Last fall, the AP said they would restrict the usage of "illegal immigrant" to certain circumstances due to the complexity of the immigration experience. Paul Colford, the director of media relations for the AP, addressed the issue in an email, saying that "ongoing, lively, internal conversation" about "illegal immigrant" continued after that announcement.
AP Stylebook editors sat down with a number of groups who were concerned about their entry on the the term in recent years and "sought the views of a cross section of AP staffers" on the issue, according to Colford.
……For many, the news will surely come as a huge victory. Charlie Garcia, an opinion columnist for Fox News, CNN and The Huffington Post who has spoken out against the term, said last year that getting the AP to drop the term was the "big fish" in the journalistic debate, because it is the most widely used styleguide in the U.S.
"The AP is the main problem on this issue, because everybody uses them as an excuse," Garcia said.
The "greater majority" of the 1,400 U.S. newspapers that make up the Associated Press Cooperative likely follow AP style, Colford wrote. Now that the AP has finally come around, making a decision that will affect the word choice of hundreds of outlets across the country, we're still waiting on one major U.S. company to drop the term.
New York Times, it's your move….
UPDATED 4:30 PM EST -- On Tuesday afternoon, The New York Times said that they are also currently considering revisions to their guidelines for using the term "illegal immigrant."
"Coincidentally, we had been expecting to send a memo to the staff soon, possibly this week," Phil Corbett, the Associate Managing Editor for Standards wrote in an email.
Public editor Margaret Sullivan noted in a blog post that their changes "will probably be more incremental" than the AP announcement but aim to "provide more nuance and options." She also noted that while she once came down on the side of "illegal immigrant" her stance has since shifted.
"My position on this has changed over the past several months. So many people find it offensive to refer to a person with an adjective like 'illegal' that I now favor the use of 'undocumented' or 'unauthorized' as alternatives," she wrote.
Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and immigration reform activist who led the charge against the term within the last year, says he hopes other news agencies that haven't dropped the term, like the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Reuters, will now follow the AP's example…..ABC NEWS.”
ABC NEWS failed to note that Jose Antonio Vargas is an illegal alien. Please tell Chris Hayes and MSNBC, it is omissions like that which force American citizens not to trust the Globalist Media.
On a related note, President Obama has a new book out, lamenting that American troglodytes would not allow him to reconcile the nation.
By historical irony, between 2011 through 2015, President Obama presided over the 150th Anniversary of the American Civil War (1861-1865), from the first shot fired at Fort Sumter, to Lee’s surrender at Appomattox.
This was the time to reconcile with conservative white males, by attending some of the commemorations, to show that he understood the Jungian Blood Memory significance of the Civil War through his white American mother.
Instead the President made a Jungian mistake; he SNUBBED all the events, thereby symbolically informing conservative white males he was indeed a foreigner, if not legally then in spirit.
He even snubbed the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, the greatest clash of arms on American soil, to go to Africa, his father's home continent. That is total Jungian symbolism.
On July 1, 2013, this Blogger published: President Obama Goes To Africa Snubs the 150th Anniversary of The Battle of Gettysburg (July 1-
The following is excerpted from that Blog:
"This is the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, the greatest, most Homeric, most important, bloodiest battle ever fought on American soil…..It is a seminal event in American history. …..
……The United States, in 2013, is a nation divided by class, Globalization, Women’s Aspirations, Abortion, Gay Rights, Voting Rights, Immigration; the sacred and hallowed ground of Gettysburg, on this 150th Anniversary, would be the perfect, nay pluperfect, place to begin a national reconciliation by noting the common bondage of blood sacrifice we have as Americans. Nothing current and nothing going forward can be worse than what the men of both sides endured on the Battlefield of Gettysburg.
This is the time, the 150th Anniversary, and the Gettysburg Battlefield is the hallowed place for our American President to say that, as Americans, we must never hold enmity in our hearts for other Americans, and never contemplate another Civil War.
Alas, our President is not here in the United States taking advantage of this natural period of reconciliation. …...He is in Africa, in this time frame, because he has nothing to give to American reconciliation. He is a petty triumphalist, who has deserted his nation when it needs a commemorative reconciliation…..THE MAXEY CHRONICLES.”
President Obama, after being begged, also rejected attending the 150th Anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the greatest speech in American History.
President Obama is a smart man; alas, his growing up in Indonesia, stripped him of American Blood memory. He did not understand how important the Civil War was to American natives( he even missed the commemoration remembering the Fort Pillow Massacre of Black Union troops by Nathan Bedford Forrest.).
In a better world, without Liberal Malfeasance in Governance, President Obama would have gone to Gettysburg; walked the memory of Pickett’s Charge and said:”I am against what the Confederacy fought for, but I am here to admire their American Courage.”
The Republic is here, at this time and at this place ,antebellum America, because of Liberal malfeasance in governing the multicultural society they created.
Finally, this Blogger would ask of all Liberals; if you were living 150 years ago, and Cheyenne Dog Soldiers rose against invading illegal aliens, who desired to change everything, including your nomenclature, would not you support the Dog Soldiers?
Of course you would....now look harder at Trumpians, and you will see they are 21st Century Dog Soldiers, defending what was handed down by the ancient ones.
President Obama with disgraced South African President Jacob Zuma...Obama should have been at Gettysburg
Kathleen Carroll. the little lady who started a great civil war
Comments
Post a Comment