I’m going to pull from another article from the New York Times to show the latest propagandist language from illegal immigration activists. This one’s called Across the U.S., Growing Rallies for Immigration by Robert D. McFadden.
Check out this backward language: “The crowds at many of the protests also cheered speakers who denounced a system that has driven more than 11 million illegal immigrants into shadowy lives of subterfuge”
Wait, so these people come into the country illegally, and they’re saying the system forced them underground? It’s not the system that’s forcing them into such a life; they’re the ones that came in illegally. It’s like somebody who robs a store. If you live your life on the lamb, it’s not the system that’s forcing you to live a life of subterfuge.
See, they think they have a right to an American citizenship: “Demonstrators flying banners of immigration reform marched in cities across the nation yesterday to demand citizenship and a share of the American dream for millions of illegal immigrants who have run a gantlet of closed borders, broken families, snake-eyed smugglers and economic exploitation.” They think they have a right to live here, but they don’t. They don’t have that right anymore than I have a “right” to live in Mexico. They’re demanding citizenship, but they have no right to that citizenship, especially if they came in here illegally. No one is forcing them to live in the shadows. They have the wrong idea. You can’t demand citizenship from any nation you want and then say you’re forced to live in the shadows if you don’t get it. If a kid demands candy from his parents, does that mean he has a right to that candy? Does he then say that his parents oppress and starve him if they don’t give him that candy? Of course, to make this analogy truly proper: This kid is demanding candy from somebody else’s parents!
It’s not the system that’s wrong, unless you’re against the idea of a nation-state. Then, of course, you must ask yourself, “Who the hell is going to protect my rights if there’s no nation-state?”
“…new scientific discoveries which help refute the claims of Intelligent Design.”
I wanted to comment on this, but it’s pretty far down on the blog so I’ll make it here. First of all, it doesn’t refute anything. Discovering a new species is a far cry from discovering a missing link. It’s like this: Suppose that until now nobody knew a salamander existed. Then, suddenly, we discover a salamander. Evolutionists would go crazy, thinking they’ve found some missing link that “proves” evolution, when really all they did was discover a species that had never been discovered before. It’s the same thing as Tiktaalik.
“Next, a discovery about hormones and receptors further discredits the idea of “irreducible complexity.”
This is another flawed argument. Imagine this: I can say “hormones and receptors are an example of irreducible complexity” and then you will say, “but we’ve discovered that it is actually not an example of irreducible complexity, and therefore irreducible complexity is wrong.” What’s wrong with this argument? I don’t think I need to spell it out.
It would be great if it was that simple to refute Intelligent Design, but it isn’t that simple.
And by the way, Science is working because of this competition of ideas between evolution and ID, not because of Evolutionary Dogma. If everyone believed evolution was true, nobody would even care about these discoveries.