The MSM was a-buzz with stories about how Trump said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden. Well, let’s go to the transcript:
Here’s the bottom line. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.
Do you see anything in there which says, “there was a terrorist attack in Sweden”? No, of course you don’t – because there is nothing in there which says, “there was a terrorist attack in Sweden”. This is what is meant by “fake news” – and why most non-Democrats these days hold the MSM in utter contempt. Trump doesn’t speak in rounded, Churchillian sentences – it’s not his style. He’s not an experienced orator. Some times when he speaks it will be quite choppy in delivery and some ideas will get mashed together. But to make up out of whole cloth something that wasn’t there is infuriating. But, that is what the MSM does.
Latest report on the cultural enrichment front.
In a different angle of the fake news front, some on the right are condemning Pope Francis for saying there are no Muslim terrorists. Once again, let’s look at the transcript:
The other is a reflection that I shared at our most recent World Meeting of Popular Movements, and I feel is important to say it again: no people is criminal and no religion is terrorist. Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist. No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.” There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia. By confronting terror with love, we work for peace.
This being in line with Sunday’s Bible reading:
Jesus said to his disciples:
“You have heard that it was said,
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.
When someone strikes you on your right cheek,
turn the other one as well.
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic,
hand over your cloak as well.
Should anyone press you into service for one mile,
go for two miles.
Give to the one who asks of you,
and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
“You have heard that it was said,
You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I say to you, love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your heavenly Father,
for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good,
and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have?
Do not the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brothers only,
what is unusual about that?
Do not the pagans do the same?
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
This is a difficult passage – very hard for us to even try to live up to. But it is the Pope’s job to try and get people to live up to it. Quite honestly, when you hear of a terrorist attack, right after you say a prayer for the victims you are supposed to say a prayer for the perpetrators, as well. No one ever said being Christian is easy. We really can’t confront the Muslim world with a unified voice and face of anger and hate – vigorously as we must battle those who are set on evil, yet we still have an obligation to reach out the hand of love and friendship to all, in the hope that even the worst will eventually grasp it.
On the other hand, this sort of thing is not at all helpful for anyone trying to bring a little love into the world. I view this sort of action as the result, however, of the West’s moral weakness. We’ve so degraded ourselves that we often can’t stand up for what is right.
Don Surber’s sequel to Trump the Press is out – Trump the Establishment. Pick up a copy, today.
And Don Surber notes that in the future, all movies will be made to please Chinese and Indian audiences. Just economics – 320 million Americans, 2.5 billion Chinese/Indians. Its all about the money.
So as I now sit and listen to the MSM whine, moan, and wail against the “attacks” by the President against their integrity and how “dangerous” that is against a free press, I am reminded of Sharyl Attkisson and James Rosen. Where was the press then? I am also reminded of Ben Rhodes when he condescendingly claimed that much of the press was young, ignorant, and overly slavish and wouldn’t even question the info he was giving them. I don’t remember the hearing any outrage. But yet here I am in the second hour of Morning Joe and this is ALL they are talking about. They are really really really offended,
Oh and just for the record. John McCain is a has been and a loser. No one cares about what he has to say anymore and he was elected again simply as a place holder. I did have to vote for him only because I would never vote for anyone in the current Democrat party, but I only voted for him to help advance Trump’s agenda. That’s it. So please Mr. McCain, please don’t think you have our full support and stop pandering to your colleagues in the deep state.
Well, John is getting up in years so why don’t Arizonans start looking for someone to run against him? Was his primary challenger last year a strong one, or just a token?
I really liked his primary challenger Kelly Ward, who is smart conservative and physician to boot but McCain went really negative on her with his big money and with his connections in the State, he is difficult to beat.
She apparently is planning on having a got at it, again, in 2018 – obviously, not against McCain.
Remember, the Left doesn’t wait till election time to start working on their candidates. If the AZ GOP is firmly in McCain’s camp you might be screwed, but if there are enough Republicans in the state to want him gone now is the time to start linking him with the Shadow Government and the Deep State.
Unfortunately, it looks like a David v Goliath thing for AZ Republicans.
McCain will be 86 when his current term ends. I can’t imagine he will run again, but someone in Arizona should be grooming a solid Conservative to take his place.
“They are really really really offended..”
Of course they are. When Leftists are not being “really really offended” they are being “really really outraged”.
The image of the Leftist press clutching its pearls in horror at having a mirror held up to it is pretty entertaining.
Too bad we don’t have anyone or anything on our side to illustrate that. I would love to have a conservative or even simply unbiased form of the old SNL, to show a Scarborough and a Matthews literally clutching at pearls and nearly swooning at being so offended, fanning themselves violently with lace fans and scented hankies while minions rush to them with smelling salts.
I had never heard of Michael Novak until I read what amounts to a eulogy for him at Heritage. I was intrigued by the following quote, from his 1982 book “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism”, so much so that I plan to buy the book if I can find it.
[A]n economy without beauty, love, human rights, respect for one another, civic friendship, and strong families (the tutors of moral habits) is not likely to be loved, to be worthy of human persons, or to survive very long. Those who focus almost exclusively on markets or even enterprise do not wholly capture the American system as it has functioned ever since the beginning. …
Economic opportunity in our nation relies fundamentally on cultural conditions that foster personal creativity, responsibility, freedom, the love for community through association and mutual cooperation, the aim of bettering the condition of every person on Earth, the cultivation of the rule of law, respect for the natural rights of others, the preference of persuasion by reason rather than by coercion, a powerful sense of the sinful drag on human souls and the need for checks against it.
In this article there is a link to another, which contains the following:
Michael’s journey from progressive socialist to leading conservative intellectual can be told by many, but never more clearly than he does himself: “slowly I taught myself out of left-wing positions … ” he says in his 1989 essay “Errand into the Wilderness”, wherein he tells us both how he made the journey from an uncritical man of the left, to an advocate of democratic capitalism.
I think both Rusty and I can relate to the statement ”…: “slowly I taught myself out of left-wing positions … ”
I never heard of him either, but he certainly seems to have had a solid grasp of how things should be in a successful democratic society.
If the foundational writings and dogma of any religion instruct its followers to kill those who do not belong to that religion, the statement that “…no religion is terrorist..” is simply wrong.
I’m sure the Pope is a very nice man, but we Catholics need to remember a couple of things. One is that his authority and infallibility extend only as far as teachings of the catechism of the Church, and not into outside areas of politics or international relations. Once outside the boundaries of core Catholic dogma, he is merely offering his personal opinion, and as such it carries no more weight than that of any other celebrity who merely has a wider audience for his opining.
The other is that his core identity was formed in South America, where the very CONCEPT of capitalism is very different than it is in the United States, and this taints his opinions on nearly everything outside the narrow confines of his authority.
The Pope goes on to say There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions… but he conveniently omits the obvious—-that a fundamentalist Christian is not instructed to kill all non-Christians by the foundational dogma of Christianity, nor do Orthodox or fundamental Jews have to kill all non-Jews to comply with their religious teachings. Only one major reilgion demands of its “fundamentalists” that they follow the letter of the law according to that religion, which is to destroy all who do not share that religion, and strive to dominate the world.
I am getting very tired of the Pope lecturing us on things that are not part of his area of authority.
We really can’t confront the Muslim world with a unified voice and face of anger and hate – vigorously as we must battle those who are set on evil, yet we still have an obligation to reach out the hand of love and friendship to all, in the hope that even the worst will eventually grasp it.
To which I have to reply, bullshit.
When a rattlesnake strikes at me, my only obligation is to first avoid being bitten and then to do what I can to protect others from the snake. Neither of these has anything to do with “anger” much less “hate” and I am sick of having those words applied to what is really just a simple conclusion that these threats must be stopped.
I am amazed that anyone could advocate “reach(ing) out the hand of love and friendship” to the guy wearing the suicide vest, or his masters sitting at home training others to follow in his footsteps. Prey animals do not “reach out the hand of love and friendship” to predators, and human beings who try this with Islamic killers quickly become prey.
All this sounds lovely in the warm after-Mass glow of “..wouldn’t it be wonderful if….” and in the abstract it is a nice philosophy. In the real, non-abstract world, we need to be clear-eyed and clear-headed. Trying to portray defensive acts as mere “anger” and “hatred” trivialize them and taint them with malignant motivation, and that is simply unfair as well as profoundly wrong. Claiming that opposition to Islamic efforts to kill all “infidels” is actually …confront(ing) the Muslim world with a unified voice and face of anger and hate.. is echoing the bleats of the Left and totally misrepresenting the response to Muslim efforts to destroy our people, our nation and our way of life. Which includes, lest you forget, destroying the very religion you are trying so hard to practice, and all who follow it.
Maybe you should do some research into the original wording of the Bible, to see what was meant by the word “enemy”. As one who has not only translated between Spanish and English but who reads the Spanish words on the page next to the English version during Mass, I can tell you right now that some words do not translate accurately, and sometimes the word chosen in translation is so dependent on context it can easily be misunderstood. I will bet you that while Jesus taught that we should not hate people who don’t agree with us and even act against our best interests, He never taught that we should enter into a suicide pact with true enemies who are trying to kill us. In a book which has been translated from what I assume was Aramic into whatever lineage of languages—-Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and back and forth— I seriously doubt that the word “enemy” always meant any degree of any opponent and any degree of his actions against you, up to and including efforts to kill you, and your family, and everyone you know.
Glad we can always rely on a vigorous response from Amazona!
I don’t think there’s a way to mistranslate “love your enemies”. I think we’re rather bound to do that.
But I do see, from time to time, some people on the right who, in rhetoric at least, appear to desire some sort of war to the death between Islam and the West. I don’t think that is the best course of action – and I do think it important to call out such rhetoric. In the end, I’m more likely to find a friend among vigorous Muslims than I am among the decayed Progressives of the West who don’t even believe there is such a thing as truth. Obviously, I dispute Muslims on many matters – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc – but they do believe there is transcendent truth which can be learned. Additionally, there is a poison in the body of Islam which needs to be excised – what percentage of Muslims subscribes to it is undetermined – at times, it seems quite high, at other times, not so high. But with 1.5 billion Muslims, even if it’s only a couple percent, that is quite a large number of people who are a grave threat to everyone: and if its in the ten or twenty (or higher) percent range, then so much larger is our problem. We do have to have a war – there seems, at least to me, no other way to resolve this. Just as while most Germans weren’t Nazis, the only way to excise the Nazis was to defeat the Germans. But as we battle, we must always keep in mind that these are human beings…and we are required to be as merciful as we possibly can.
I am with Amazona on this one but I should first say that I am the last one anyone should go to for Biblical interpretations. I do believe however that we will be judged not only by how we treated others less fortunate, but also by how we confronted evil. I don’t think we will be judged too kindly if we look the other way and do nothing when Coptic Christians are being drowned in cages or even when young girls are being snatched off the streets and sold into sex slavery. Evil exists everywhere in many forms and I believe it is the role of the Faithful to identify it, confront it, and kill it, just as it is the role of the Faithful to lend a lifting hand to those in need. I would never turn the other cheek to what I perceive to be evil and am prepared to be judged by that.
If you are looking at Islam through the lens of religion, then trying to find common ground is reasonable. If you come at it from that perspective, and factor in all the nice Muslims you know, of course you are going to yearn for a way for us to all live together in peace and harmony. And if you choose to see opposition to those who want to do us harm as mere hate and anger, of course you find that offensive. But that is like saying police only arrest those they hate, or enforce the law out of anger. Arbitrarily inserting negative emotion into the equation automatically makes it repellent, but that’s a cheap tactic used to demean the motives of others.
I don’t think there’s a way to mistranslate “love your enemies”. I definitely do. As I said, when moving from one language to another, some words simply do not have a direct translation, so the word “opponent”, for example, could be translated as “enemy”. In English, there are many words that, according to a thesaurus, can be used in place of the word “enemy”. They include opponent, rival, assailant, villain, adversary, antagonist, attacker, competitor, detractor, foe, prosecutor, persecutor, rebel, betrayer, defamer, inquisitor, slanderer, vilifier and traitor.
As for words that can translate into “love” they include affection, sympathy, acceptance, tolerance, fellow-feeling; tenderness; benevolence, attachment. yearning, passion, devotion, fervor, enthusiasm, rapture, enchantment, infatuation, adoration and idolatry.
Ours is a language rich with nuance, because it is an amalgam of so many other languages. So “feel benevolence toward those who vilify you” or “have sympathy for those who persecute you” could be translated into “love your enemies”. Clearly the direction of the translation is going to be affected by the personality and inclinations of the translator.
I take the phrase “love your enemies” not to mean “welcome with open arms and heart all who strive to do you harm” but instead to mean “deal with those who strive to do you harm but don’t do so out of hatred or anger”.
I also think that as Christians we are supposed to seek that spark of God in each of us and love that, but that does not mean it is not hidden inside a body and mind and heart filled with hatred and malice and evil intent. I think it foolish to ignore the hate and malice and evil intent, or to try to “love” it, when it is the part of that person that has rejected that spark of God in favor of evil.
You say “..there is a poison in the body of Islam which needs to be excised…” yet it lies at the very core of Islam, and at this time is not only the core but is intertwined inextricably among all the teachings. That is not to say it can never be excised, but this will require dedication and determination within Islam to get it accomplished. You say “….what percentage of Muslims subscribes to it is undetermined…” yet it appears that while most Muslims don’t want to go next door and cut off the heads of their Christian neighbors, or strap suicide vests on their children before they go to school, when push comes to shove and they are asked, for example, what they think about Israel and its right to exist that core shows through. When asked how they feel about suicide bombings, most approve.
I think the best way to put it is that to love is to desire the good of the beloved…which, at times, can be quite difficult. As any parent can tell – or anyone who has had to call someone on the carpet when they’ve gone off the rails. Love isn’t a mushy feeling, it is a definite action. Love has to be willed. I will to love my enemies – or, at least, I try to. It is quite difficult, at times.
But I still say that, in the end, I’m more likely to get along with Muslims than I am with Progressives. You and I both know that there won’t be peace between Islam and the West until Islam changes – out of the morass of socialist-nationalism of the early 20th century developing into the Islamist totalitarianism today, Islam has to find that spirit of Saladin…who could quite fight vigorously against us, but who could also call Richard the Lionheart his friend (somehow, it is no surprise that Saladin was a Kurd – by far the most reasonable grouping of Muslims out there).
Speaking of the Kurds, US policy should be to create a Kurdish State – which would require secession of parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. We should also seek to return to Armenia the lands where Armenians were exterminated by the Turks in 1915 (take modern Armenia and extend it’s borders westward to about Lake Van…also, probably should slice up a bit of eastern Turkey for Georgia…maybe all the way to Trebizond). This would, of course, make us a firm ally of a Muslim nation – and we should welcome such a thing. A Kurdish State is likely to be (a) reasonable and, as they would be surrounded by enemies (b) a nation which would have to be rather tight with us (probably with Israel, as well). We should be cutting our ties with Turkey and rebuilding them vigorously with Egypt (the Muslim brotherhood is strong there – but the balance of forces in Egypt appears to want nothing to do with a Muslim brotherhood government). But we can’t become allied with Kurdistan (or re-allied with Egypt) if we’re at war with all of Islam – nor can we help bring to life any element of Islam which is willing to make peace with the West.
And, so, I just won’t go to war with Islam – nor even speak rhetoric which would make it appear that I consider Islam, as such, to be an enemy.
Cluster, I am not talking about Biblical translations, per se, but about the problems inherent in going from one language to another. When my old company did some business in South America I became moderately competent in basic Spanish, and early on I had a lot of trouble with literal translations of documents because the literal translations simply did not work. From simple mistakes such as the translation of “dear” as in “Dear Sir” giving us the word “querido” ( the form of “dear” closest to “darling”) vs “estimado” (closest to “estimated” in this case meaning “respected”) we finally had to hire a native speaker to translate, and even then ran into mistakes in context or understanding.
I saw a game one time where you would take a simple statement, a paragraph or two, and run it through an online translator program, then translate it back into English. The results were pretty funny, except they also illustrated the problems in trying to capture the true essence of what is being said. If you have ever watched a show in English with Spanish subtitles you have seen how the words have been changed or shifted in an effort to capture the actual meaning of the script instead of always just doing a literal word-for-word translation.
My church has Masses in Spanish as well as English, so the books we use during Mass have English on one page and Spanish on the facing page. I enjoy going back and forth to see how some phrases, especially the more archaic phrasing in the readings from Scripture, translate. As one simple example, God translates to Senor or El Senor.
So I have no trouble at all imagining an original instruction to “forgive those who wrong you” to “love your enemies”. Maybe not in one big jump, but like in the old game of Telephone, every translation gets a new set of words, and by the time you get to the fourth or fifth you aren’t always tracking with the original. So “forgive those who wrong you” can be, if there are no literal translations for those words, “be kind to those who wish you ill” and after a couple more linguistic filters “those who wrong you” has become “those who wish you ill” which has become “foes” which morphs into “enemies”, and “forgive” might go to “kindness” which could go to “caring” which could end up as “love”.
I think the best way to put it is that to love is to desire the good of the beloved
And I completely agree—-as long as we are using the contemporary Western iteration of the word “love”. But my point is that the word “love” as it appears in scripture is not necessarily that iteration, as it may very well have (and in my own opinion probably) come about as a many-steps-away-from-the-original wording.
I was badly wronged by someone who abused a position of trust. I drove all the way to Salt Lake City to meet with him and tell him I forgave him. But no, I did not cherish him. I did not LOVE him. I offered him my forgiveness, but he was not and never will be “beloved” to me. And he was not my enemy, in that he did not strive to destroy me. He acted unethically, in a business transaction where he took advantage of my late husband’s trust in him, and it cost me immeasurably when this came out after my husband’s death, but he was never my enemy. I believe that understanding and accepting his moral weakness, refusing to harbor hatred or anger toward him, and forgiving him for that weakness, qualify as “loving my enemy” even though the meanings of those words in our time, in our language, in our context, are not the same as forgiving, accepting, and not wishing harm to someone, or that being wronged does not make someone my enemy.
If a man points a gun at me because he is a Muslim and I am not, I would happily shoot him first. I would not smile and reach out to him and think of him as my “beloved”. He would be my enemy, in the true sense of the word. Later, I would grieve for the spark of divinity he rejected and excised from his life, but not for him as a person.
If you believe in free will, if you believe in evil, if you believe in Satan, then you can’t take the position that you must love evil, love Satan and all who act in his behalf. I doubt that you would open your arms to Satan and say “I cherish you, my beloved, and desire only what is best for you”.
Your snapshot of your world is based on three things, as far as I can tell from your writings. One is your unquestioning faith in the Catholic Church and a literal understanding of its dogma, one is that you know and like some Muslims, and one is that you have a strong (and to me wholly understandable and shared) contempt for the hard Left. In that particular, small-town-in-a-small-state world, your view makes complete sense. In that world, “love” means to consider someone as “beloved”, Muslims are wonderful people and your only difference with them is theological, and Progressives are worse.
However, you are ignoring many things to persist with that worldview. One is my point about the evolution of language as words pass among many languages and undergo understandable and necessary adaptations to each language they pass through. One is that your Muslim friends are probably not being completely candid with you, as you are all protecting that emotional investment in each other, but if pressed they would probably respond as other Muslims do and admit to the belief that suicide bombers are justified in taking the lives of innocents and Israel (and by extension Jews) have no right to exist. And one is that on one level, at least, there really isn’t much difference between Islam and Progressivism, in that both despise what is represented by our way of life, both want to destroy it, and both are driven by ideological zeal that lets them believe any means will justify their intended ends. Both are focused on domination of others and imposing their will on them.
You get to make the personal decision to pay attention only to the spiritual aspect of Islam, and you get to make your own decisions based on your personal relationships with some Muslims. You are an honest person, and I think you would agree that your worldview might be a little different if you were to live in a suburb in New Jersey, for example, where the Muslim at the next desk openly discusses his hatred of all infidels and desire to kill all Jews and your Muslim neighbor beats his wife and then kills his daughter for listening to Western music.
No one objects to the spiritual aspect of Islam. But until Muslims take it upon themselves to openly reject the other side of Islam, and establish a Reformed Islam that is solely spiritual in nature, and until Muslims stop posturing as “moderate” while still believing Jews should die and honor killings are OK and bombing of innocents is OK, etc., Islam is tainted and calls down upon itself the reaction that it is our enemy. Not “our” enemy in the sense of the United States, or Christians, but of civilization. It is Islam that destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha, it is Islam that seeks to destroy first Christianity and then all that has been created in the name of Christianity.
Do you believe for one moment that if Islam were to take over all of Europe, to the extent of running the governments, the art and history would remain? The very aspects of our history and culture, from Beethoven to Michaelangelo, are anathema to fundamental Islam.
It is reported this morning that 74 migrant bodies have washed up on the shore of Libya to which the usual hand wringing and misguided compassion was bleated from the panel on Morning Joe. Let’s not forget that the Libyan tragedy is directly the fault of Hillary Clinton and her desire to have a foreign policy success story to run on as POTUS as suggested by her confidant Syd Blumenthal. It also needs to be noted that this is also directly due to Obama’s lead from behind strategy. In fact both the Libyan and Syrian refugee crisis are a direct result of the Obama administrations incompetence and weakness. The lefts playbook is to create crisis than morally scorn others for not supporting the lefts prescriptions to resolve the issue, so keep that in mind as you are labeled an Islamophobic for supporting travel restrictions and more strict vetting.
I just can’t find the words to convey my disgust for this recent NYT article:
The Democratic National Committee will choose its next leader on Saturday, and when it does it should choose a leader who will resist the pressure to pursue the wrong white people.
You will not find one mention of any substantive policy in this article that Democrats should campaign on to reconnect with the electorate. Sadly, the analysis is solely focused on the racial make up of the voters and what percentages of each group the Dems will need to recapture to reclaim power and that seems to be the intellectual extent of much of our current media and this obsession with race and hate will destroy this country, if it hasn’t already.
Still, it does show their thinking – they are convinced that they can continue to write off the white, working class voters who abandoned them and come up with 270 EV’s in 2020. I don’t quite see how…in fact, I see them losing all of ME, NH, MN and NV in 2020 in addition to what they lost in 2016…but, that’s just me.
Go for it, Dems!
Here is a brief example of the intellectual might found on MSNBC:
SCARBOROUGH: “Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, ‘Yeah you guys are going crazy. He’s doing — what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'”
BRZEZINSKI: “Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”
SCARBOROUGH: “It’s the — it’s the ground noise that he is throwing out there also, whether he is questioning, Mark, the legitimacy of federal judges to do what they have done since Marbury v. Madison. It’s when he says the media is the, quote –”
SCARBOROUGH: “– ‘enemy of the people’, where he sounds like Mussolini or Lenin which obviously causes concern that phrase right there makes him sound more like a dictator in training, when he sends Stephen Miller out and says, basically the president has absolute power, he shall not be questioned. We have an economy, let’s face it, we have an economy that is built on illegal immigration, we have an economy that is built on that. That is why I say why don’t you just legalize it?”
Just to summarize, Mika thinks that it is the medias job to “control exactly what people think”, and Scarborough believes this country was “built on illegal immigration”. Any questions?