Following up on readers` reports yesterday
that Glenn Beck
is wobbling on amnesty, one of our tougher readers heroically listened to Rush Limbaugh
and had better news:
Limbaugh spent at least the first hour of his show talking tough on immigration. He denounced Republicans who want to cooperate with the Democrats on amnesty, specifically David Brooks and Lindsay "Gramnesty", and took some equally tough calls from his audience. He didn`t mention Beck, but I`ll bet that the switchboard was flooded with people who were outraged by Beck`s waffling in the immediately preceding time slot.
My view is that, as we have seen with Lou Dobbs and Bill O`Reilly
, no Main Stream Media figure can be regarded as a reliable supporter of patriotic immigration reform because of very explict pressure (I mean memos
) from management and advertisers. But this is a definite improvement.
Our reader went on:
However, Limbaugh, like Beck, said that nobody opposes all immigration. That seems to be a standard talk show host line, probably written and circulated by the Neos. Well I oppose all immigration. We could let in some white Protestants IF we kicked out the Third Worlders first. But I doubt that white Protestants are what the Neos have in mind when they call for expanding legal immigration.
It`s interesting—after three decades in the MSM, my instant reflex is to cut our reader`s last paragraph. And his proposed policy is certainly much more selective than anything we`ve proposed at VDARE.COM, although we agree on the need for a moratorium
But then I got to thinking: why not? Why can`t this reader advocate letting in more of his ethnic group (who did after all found America
)? Isn`t that exactly what Raul Grijalva