Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

View Detail

Liberalism Kills

Liberalism Kills

Rather than talk about last night (though you’re free to discuss that in the comments), let’s talk about another real life example of the dangers of liberalism. Liberalism kills because it eliminates personal responsibility. This was highlighted with tragic results in Britain last March when Mr. Simon Burgess, 41, experienced a seizure while feeding the ducks at a “model boat pond” at Walpole Park in Gosport, Hampshire. Mr. Burgess fell face first into the pond. Then this happened. . .

A 53 year old woman saw Burgess have the seizure and fall into the water. She called the emergency response people and the police arrived within two minutes. But as one officer began removing his shoes to wade into the pond, he was ordered to wait for “trained” specialists. This had been declared a water rescue and the police are not equipped for that.

Then a paramedic arrived. He was told he could not enter the water because he lacked the right “protective” clothing. If he tried to enter the water, he would violate workplace regulations and presumably could lose his job.

Then the fire department arrived, but they lacked the “proper training” for a water rescue. Specifically, they cited a regulation which prevents them from wading into water that is more than ankle-deep without special training. Thus, they called for additional specialists. They also decided that Burgess had to be dead as he had been in the water for 10 minutes, even though people who have been submerged up to 60 minutes have been saved.

At that point, a police officer decided to go into the water. But he was told he would be criminally prosecuted if he proceeded. He was told that the fire department was on scene and engaged in a “body retrieval situation” and that he was not to interfere. The fire department also refused to loan him a lifejacket.

Thirty minutes later, the specialists arrive. By this point, twenty-five rescue personnel were on scene. They finally retrieved the body forty minutes after Burgess first fell into the pond. Mr. Burgess was dead.

Here’s a critical fact: the pond is only 2-3 feet deep. Indeed, the image above shows a Daily Mail reporter who has waded out into the pond.

Think about this entire shameful event and ask yourself where things went wrong? The answer is: generations of liberalism.

Liberalism formalizes human relationships by law and regulation. This is the very nature of liberalism, that the government will protect you from all dangers by establishing rules and regulations which tell everyone precisely how they should act. In so doing, it absolves people of their sense of personal responsibility by replacing the duties we all owe each other as human beings with specific regulations which dictate acceptable and unacceptable. That was what was on display in Gosport.

● The 53 year old woman did exactly what liberals tell you to do when faced with criminals, bullies or emergencies: call the authorities and make no attempt to solve the problem yourself. She made no attempt to pull this man from the water or turn him over even though she saw him pass out and knew the water was shallow.

● The first police officer decided specialists were needed to wade out 25 feet in knee-deep water because that is what he was told.

● The paramedic chose his job over saving a man’s life and he hid behind the excuse that he lacked the protective clothing needed to wade into a pond.

● The fire department was worse. They let a bogus regulation stop them from saving a man in an obviously harmless situation. Then they declared him dead even though others have been saved who were submerged for up to six times longer and even though they didn’t really know if he had been face down for ten minutes. They did this because it soothed their consciences for choosing to follow the regulations rather than their moral obligations as human beings. Interestingly, they have been criticized because it turns out the regulation only applies to floods. But that misses the point of what went wrong here. The problem wasn’t that the regulation was wrong, the problem was the reliance on regulations over human judgement in the first place.

● Finally, consider the officer who wanted to save the man when he saw the shameful conduct of the others but stopped when he was threatened with criminal prosecution. Would that have stopped you?

Twenty-five trained “rescue personnel” stood around threatening each other with regulations and criminal prosecution while they let a man die because they were unwilling to wade out into a knee-deep pond. That’s shameful.

It’s also the same behavior you see when a DMV clerk won’t correct a typo, when an IRS agent won’t admit a mistake, when social workers won’t save an abused child because they don’t have all the right forms filled out, etc. This is the result of liberalism: bureaucratic form over human substance.

Now compare this with Ben Patrick, a former tight end for the Arizona Cardinals. He was driving along in Arizona when he came upon a van that had flipped onto its side. The van apparently was leaking gasoline. Yet, a GROUP of people, including Patrick, stopped and helped pull people out of the van even though it could have exploded. Said Patrick:

“My first thought was just to help the people on the inside.”

Patrick did what, in my experience, most Americans would do. He saw people in an emergency situation and he went to help. He did this at great personal risk as the van could have exploded or caught fire. He didn’t wait for the trained professionals or worry about protective clothing or consulting regulations. He did what humans are meant to do.

The comparison here is truly apt. When people live in a nanny (i.e. liberal/socialist) state, they lose their sense of right and wrong and their sense of personal responsibility. It happens in small and large ways. And in Gosport you see it writ large. These people let this man die because none of them felt it was their obligation to save him. They felt their obligations were to the system and the rules it put into place. Patrick, on the other hand, showed what happens when people are accountable to themselves and cannot hide behind the excuse, “I was just following orders.”

This is not hyperbole: America is the greatest nation on Earth precisely because its people are free to make their own choices and bear the economic, reputational, and moral consequences of their own actions.

Kudos to Mr. Patrick, you are an honorable and decent human being. Shame on Gosport. And shame on anyone who wants to make America more like Gosport.

Rather than talk about last night (though you’re free to discuss that in the comments), let’s talk about another real life example of the dangers of liberalism. Liberalism kills because it eliminates personal responsibility. This was highlighted with tragic results in Britain last March when Mr. Simon Burgess, 41, experienced a seizure while feeding the ducks at a “model boat pond” at Walpole Park in Gosport, Hampshire. Mr. Burgess fell face first into the pond. Then this happened. . .

A 53 year old woman saw Burgess have the seizure and fall into the water. She called the emergency response people and the police arrived within two minutes. But as one officer began removing his shoes to wade into the pond, he was ordered to wait for “trained” specialists. This had been declared a water rescue and the police are not equipped for that.

Then a paramedic arrived. He was told he could not enter the water because he lacked the right “protective” clothing. If he tried to enter the water, he would violate workplace regulations and presumably could lose his job.

Then the fire department arrived, but they lacked the “proper training” for a water rescue. Specifically, they cited a regulation which prevents them from wading into water that is more than ankle-deep without special training. Thus, they called for additional specialists. They also decided that Burgess had to be dead as he had been in the water for 10 minutes, even though people who have been submerged up to 60 minutes have been saved.

At that point, a police officer decided to go into the water. But he was told he would be criminally prosecuted if he proceeded. He was told that the fire department was on scene and engaged in a “body retrieval situation” and that he was not to interfere. The fire department also refused to loan him a lifejacket.

Thirty minutes later, the specialists arrive. By this point, twenty-five rescue personnel were on scene. They finally retrieved the body forty minutes after Burgess first fell into the pond. Mr. Burgess was dead.

Here’s a critical fact: the pond is only 2-3 feet deep. Indeed, the image above shows a Daily Mail reporter who has waded out into the pond.

Think about this entire shameful event and ask yourself where things went wrong? The answer is: generations of liberalism.

Liberalism formalizes human relationships by law and regulation. This is the very nature of liberalism, that the government will protect you from all dangers by establishing rules and regulations which tell everyone precisely how they should act. In so doing, it absolves people of their sense of personal responsibility by replacing the duties we all owe each other as human beings with specific regulations which dictate acceptable and unacceptable. That was what was on display in Gosport.

● The 53 year old woman did exactly what liberals tell you to do when faced with criminals, bullies or emergencies: call the authorities and make no attempt to solve the problem yourself. She made no attempt to pull this man from the water or turn him over even though she saw him pass out and knew the water was shallow.

● The first police officer decided specialists were needed to wade out 25 feet in knee-deep water because that is what he was told.

● The paramedic chose his job over saving a man’s life and he hid behind the excuse that he lacked the protective clothing needed to wade into a pond.

● The fire department was worse. They let a bogus regulation stop them from saving a man in an obviously harmless situation. Then they declared him dead even though others have been saved who were submerged for up to six times longer and even though they didn’t really know if he had been face down for ten minutes. They did this because it soothed their consciences for choosing to follow the regulations rather than their moral obligations as human beings. Interestingly, they have been criticized because it turns out the regulation only applies to floods. But that misses the point of what went wrong here. The problem wasn’t that the regulation was wrong, the problem was the reliance on regulations over human judgement in the first place.

● Finally, consider the officer who wanted to save the man when he saw the shameful conduct of the others but stopped when he was threatened with criminal prosecution. Would that have stopped you?

Twenty-five trained “rescue personnel” stood around threatening each other with regulations and criminal prosecution while they let a man die because they were unwilling to wade out into a knee-deep pond. That’s shameful.

It’s also the same behavior you see when a DMV clerk won’t correct a typo, when an IRS agent won’t admit a mistake, when social workers won’t save an abused child because they don’t have all the right forms filled out, etc. This is the result of liberalism: bureaucratic form over human substance.

Now compare this with Ben Patrick, a former tight end for the Arizona Cardinals. He was driving along in Arizona when he came upon a van that had flipped onto its side. The van apparently was leaking gasoline. Yet, a GROUP of people, including Patrick, stopped and helped pull people out of the van even though it could have exploded. Said Patrick:

“My first thought was just to help the people on the inside.”

Patrick did what, in my experience, most Americans would do. He saw people in an emergency situation and he went to help. He did this at great personal risk as the van could have exploded or caught fire. He didn’t wait for the trained professionals or worry about protective clothing or consulting regulations. He did what humans are meant to do.

The comparison here is truly apt. When people live in a nanny (i.e. liberal/socialist) state, they lose their sense of right and wrong and their sense of personal responsibility. It happens in small and large ways. And in Gosport you see it writ large. These people let this man die because none of them felt it was their obligation to save him. They felt their obligations were to the system and the rules it put into place. Patrick, on the other hand, showed what happens when people are accountable to themselves and cannot hide behind the excuse, “I was just following orders.”

This is not hyperbole: America is the greatest nation on Earth precisely because its people are free to make their own choices and bear the economic, reputational, and moral consequences of their own actions.

Kudos to Mr. Patrick, you are an honorable and decent human being. Shame on Gosport. And shame on anyone who wants to make America more like Gosport.

Liberalism Kills

View Detail

Why The Nanny State Destroys All It Touches

Why The Nanny State Destroys All It Touches

Britain has just provided us with a fascinating example of why conservatism works and liberalism fails in the real world, and we should be paying attention. What they’re doing is removing street signs and other devices meant to keep people safe on the roads. Why they’re doing it, is because these signs were having the opposite effect. Get this!

Our story comes to us from the DailyMail Online (LINK), perhaps the greatest source of actual information left on the planet. This particular story deals with changes that have been made to Exhibition Road in the heart of London’s museum quarter.

For years now, liberal safety advocates have been installing ever more safety measures to protect drivers and pedestrians. This has ranged from restrictive rules for drivers to signs warning drivers about dangers to curbs meant to separate the road from the sidewalk to railings meant to pen in pedestrians to designated crosswalks, etc. The idea was that the government would find all the potential dangers and then warn drivers and pedestrians about them or they would find ways to eliminate those dangers.

Of course, that’s not how it worked out. Why? Because once the government took over warning people about what to watch for, they stopped taking precautions themselves and they relied on the government’s warnings. So now the conservative government is yanking these things out again and lo and behold, it’s actually getting safer. Here’s a picture of the road today with all the gates and curbs and signs removed:

Why is it getting safer? Because people are paying more attention. Said Sir Jeremy Dixon, the lead architect on the new project:

“When the rules by which traffic normally operates are removed - signs, barriers and curb markings - drivers become more observant. They make more eye-contact with pedestrians which produces greater watchfulness. They use the road more like pedestrians. They take more responsibility for their actions. [S]tudies have shown that when traffic lights are removed from crossings, traffic flows more freely and efficiently because drivers take more care.”

Imagine that. When the government takes responsibility for something, people take less personal responsibility for their own actions. When the government stops playing nanny, people take more responsibility for their actions. Who could have guessed?

And there’s more. Daniel Moylan, the Deputy Chairman of Transport for London said this:

“The psychology of this scheme is fascinating. Experience seems to show that when you dedicate space to traffic and control it with signs and green traffic lights, motorists develop a claim on it. It becomes ‘my space.’ Drivers become annoyed if people move into it.”

In other words, they develop a sense of entitlement.

Folks, this is exactly what conservatives warn about with government. When the government gives something to people, they develop feelings of entitlement and they become belligerent to anyone who violates “their rights.” What’s more, they stop taking personal responsibility for their own actions in those areas, i.e. they become dependent on the government.

This issue right here is the human condition in a nutshell and proves the conservative belief that the nanny state is destructive, not constructive. It destroys those it seeks to help. This is exactly why generations of government welfare have destroyed the families who accepted the government’s intervention in their lives. This is why big businesses who have come to rely on the government need bailouts to keep them afloat. This is why we are facing a crushing amount of regulation today, because once the government begins taking care of you, it keeps moving into more and more aspects of your life as you become increasingly helpless. These are not coincidences.

This is why government stinks on a human level and it applies to everything the government touches. There is an incredible lesson here, will anybody learn it? Seeing as how Los Angeles just banned footballs and frisbies from being thrown on the beach. . . I’m thinking the answer is no.

Britain has just provided us with a fascinating example of why conservatism works and liberalism fails in the real world, and we should be paying attention. What they’re doing is removing street signs and other devices meant to keep people safe on the roads. Why they’re doing it, is because these signs were having the opposite effect. Get this!

Our story comes to us from the DailyMail Online (LINK), perhaps the greatest source of actual information left on the planet. This particular story deals with changes that have been made to Exhibition Road in the heart of London’s museum quarter.

For years now, liberal safety advocates have been installing ever more safety measures to protect drivers and pedestrians. This has ranged from restrictive rules for drivers to signs warning drivers about dangers to curbs meant to separate the road from the sidewalk to railings meant to pen in pedestrians to designated crosswalks, etc. The idea was that the government would find all the potential dangers and then warn drivers and pedestrians about them or they would find ways to eliminate those dangers.

Of course, that’s not how it worked out. Why? Because once the government took over warning people about what to watch for, they stopped taking precautions themselves and they relied on the government’s warnings. So now the conservative government is yanking these things out again and lo and behold, it’s actually getting safer. Here’s a picture of the road today with all the gates and curbs and signs removed:

Why is it getting safer? Because people are paying more attention. Said Sir Jeremy Dixon, the lead architect on the new project:

“When the rules by which traffic normally operates are removed - signs, barriers and curb markings - drivers become more observant. They make more eye-contact with pedestrians which produces greater watchfulness. They use the road more like pedestrians. They take more responsibility for their actions. [S]tudies have shown that when traffic lights are removed from crossings, traffic flows more freely and efficiently because drivers take more care.”

Imagine that. When the government takes responsibility for something, people take less personal responsibility for their own actions. When the government stops playing nanny, people take more responsibility for their actions. Who could have guessed?

And there’s more. Daniel Moylan, the Deputy Chairman of Transport for London said this:

“The psychology of this scheme is fascinating. Experience seems to show that when you dedicate space to traffic and control it with signs and green traffic lights, motorists develop a claim on it. It becomes ‘my space.’ Drivers become annoyed if people move into it.”

In other words, they develop a sense of entitlement.

Folks, this is exactly what conservatives warn about with government. When the government gives something to people, they develop feelings of entitlement and they become belligerent to anyone who violates “their rights.” What’s more, they stop taking personal responsibility for their own actions in those areas, i.e. they become dependent on the government.

This issue right here is the human condition in a nutshell and proves the conservative belief that the nanny state is destructive, not constructive. It destroys those it seeks to help. This is exactly why generations of government welfare have destroyed the families who accepted the government’s intervention in their lives. This is why big businesses who have come to rely on the government need bailouts to keep them afloat. This is why we are facing a crushing amount of regulation today, because once the government begins taking care of you, it keeps moving into more and more aspects of your life as you become increasingly helpless. These are not coincidences.

This is why government stinks on a human level and it applies to everything the government touches. There is an incredible lesson here, will anybody learn it? Seeing as how Los Angeles just banned footballs and frisbies from being thrown on the beach. . . I’m thinking the answer is no.

Why The Nanny State Destroys All It Touches

View Detail

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

View Detail