Refugee Resettlement Watch

Don’t let them use the Lady Liberty b.s. anymore! Remove the poem!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on July 31, 2015

This is a portion of a comment we received yesterday to our post about the union leaders and other No Borders advocates planning to rally against a local St. Cloud, MN VFW post because the post had the temerity to allow some people to eat dinner there that the Leftists/Progressives didn’t approve of.  See that post because there is an update about the big pro-America barbecue planned for the VFW.

The commenter, Will Servant, apparently is ignorant of the history of the Statue of Liberty and how the Emma Lazarus poem got there in the first place.

I’m posting this so you will know how to answer when the No Borders agitators try to shut you up with this babble.  From Mr. Servant:

Time to get rid of the ” schmaltzy sonnet!” Let’s go on the offense for a change. Let’s find someone in Congress to introduce legislation to remove the ‘poem.’ After all, it is not historically accurate.  Getting the plaque removed to a museum, although symbolic, would do more to restore immigration sanity than just about anything else we could do!

Thanks Ann. You’ve given me enough half truths, innuendo, and opinion masquerading as truth, to last at least until Thanksgiving. I am saddened that there are people so dramatically opposed to what I consider to be righteous and Christian, the caring for the least of us. I am dismayed that there are those who think so incredibly different than I do that it is nearly impossible to even engage them in respectful dialogue. Here is a quote from the famous poem inscribed on a pedestal at the Statue of Liberty.

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Lady Liberty does not mention any exceptions. She does not say give me your preferred, only those I consider deserving. She does not say give me your huddled masses yearning to be free, as long as we don’t have to spend any money on them. She does not have an ethnic or religious litmus test to decide who gets the protection of our mighty nation, in their quest for a better life. Lady Liberty’s lamp lights the way to freedom for everybody. It cannot be extinguished for one and not the other.

Here then, for Mr. Servant’s edification, is the real history of the French gift to America—Lady Liberty—from none other than Roberto Suro, a professor at the Annenberg School of Journalism, founding director of the Pew Hispanic Center, and published in the Washington Post (that right wing rag!).

The article is entitled, ‘She Was Never About Those Huddled Masses.’

Professor Suro tells us in no uncertain terms that the Emma Lazarus poem has to go! The poem did not come with the statue!  It’s a myth! The message of Lady Liberty was never about immigration!  It is about the Declaration of Independence!

Roberto Suro:

Let’s get rid of The Poem.

I’m talking about “Give me your tired, your poor . . . ” — that poem, “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, which sometimes seems to define us as a nation even more than Lady Liberty herself.

Inscribed on a small brass plaque mounted inside the statue’s stone base, the poem is an appendix, added belatedly, and it can safely be removed, shrouded or at least marked with a big asterisk. We live in a different era of immigration, and the schmaltzy sonnet offers a dangerously distorted picture of the relationship between newcomers and their new land.

The most enduring meaning conveyed by Lady Liberty has nothing do with immigration, and I say let’s go back to that. The statue’s original name is “Liberty Enlightening the World,” and the tablet the lady holds in her left hand reads “July IV, MDCCLXXVI” to commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Lady Liberty celebrates U.S. political values as a force for the betterment of humanity, as well as the bond of friendship among freedom-loving nations. That’s a powerful and worthy message.

And the message would have been the same if the statue had ended up in Philadelphia or Cleveland — both were possibilities when New York was having trouble raising money for the pedestal in the late 1870s. Far from Ellis Island, no one would associate it with immigration. Too bad, because on this subject Lady Liberty misleads more than she illuminates, especially with Lazarus’s added spin.

Read it all here, it is very useful information for the next time some No Borders know-it-all agitator tries to guilt-trip you into thinking that Lady Liberty is frowning on you (calling you a racist!) for daring to question our immigration numbers that anyone in their right mind knows are completely unsustainable today.

11 Responses to “Don’t let them use the Lady Liberty b.s. anymore! Remove the poem!”

  1. Renee Tamm said

    China is a good example. They have attempted to control population by limiting family size. The earth will not survive if we multiply like rabbits and share workers rewards with those that don’t work or don’t respect human rights. I am not much of a religion freak, but some writings make the statement, “The Poor will always be with us” and I would add to that, we will always have aggression by others to take what they have not earned”. Unfortunately we were not really created equal. Either we worked hard or had parents or caregivers of some sort to help. There are those people that just love to kill and maim others. Either you get out of their way, kill them first, or go down with the ship.

    Like

  2. Thanks for straightening out all of that for me. I am edified. Art has a way of saying what cannot be easily said. What does my ignorance of the alleged meaning of a piece of art have to do with the fact that an anti immigration agitator came here from outside our community to incite “concerned citizens” to “do something about it”? I’m as much of a conspiracy theorist as any of us and to me those words are code for vigilantism. For as much as many would try to make this into something it’s not what this is about is the first amendment right of citizens to gather and speak freely. I don’t know of anyone breaking any laws here from any viewpoint. So it seems to me that the rest of it is just a bunch of self serving agenda justification and pontificating drivel. All of this going back and forth is just distraction from the fact that someone intended to come into my community and agitate and inflame people to possibly break the law. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Now, understand that I raise my hand as the first to accept my my role as pontificator and driveler. I am just a hack trying to irritate people whose minds i know I can’t change. It’s it a shame that’s all we can do to each other without getting thrown in jail.

    There has been plenty of misinformation pushed forward here as fact, from all sides of the fence. And I think that unfortunately we have passed the point where the truth can really make a difference. But I am compelled to continue speaking out. I just don’t like to see my friends misrepresented, as I’m sure you don’t like seeing your friends misrepresented. I’ll just move along now and enjoy my fifteen minutes of infamy. Here’s a parting shot.

    You folks will all believe what you will believe. I will believe what I will believe. Time will reveal what is true and what is false. God will emerge victorious regardless of which of us wins. And really, do you really think winning is the ultimate goal. Or is making the world a better place a better goal. Tell me how you will make the world a better place. That is what I want to hear from you. I expect to be reviled for my demonic ways. But I also expect those who revile me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are worthy. Prove to me that your plan to save America exceeds mine. Prove to me that you are better than just a word spinner. You are great at twisting the meaning of what a rank amateur weakling like me might say. But what about when you have to face up to the reality that, having clawed your way to the top of the mountain, you suddenly realize that everyone below you on the mountain is now looking to you to make it all right. Do you have a plan to make the world right? Not just like how you want it but how it is best. Are you prepared to be wrong about a few things? Or will you be so stubborn that you lose the support of the people when your plan goes south. And it will. Because your plan is limited, just as your vision and imagination are limited. Do you know how I know these things. Because it takes one to know one. My plan to save humanity from itself is limited and doomed to fail. Show me how yours is any better, how it can’t fail because you are so much smarter than I am. So I ask again. Do you have a plan or are you content to just lash out at nobodies like me? I’m listening.

    Like

    • Ann Corcoran said

      This sounds a little threatening from someone just wanting to make the world a better place! I have no such wish to do anything to you, not even change your mind.

      “I am just a hack trying to irritate people whose minds i know I can’t change. It’s it a shame that’s all we can do to each other without getting thrown in jail.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • 7delta said

      Time will reveal what is true and what is false. God will emerge victorious regardless of which of us wins. And really, do you really think winning is the ultimate goal.

      Will, since I am a person of faith, I have no doubt that, in the end, God wins, so why is winning the ultimate goal? It’s not a contest in the traditional sporting sense, but a war between good and evil to save real people from the ruination of souls lovingly crafted by their Creator with the free will to come to Him…or not. Because of my beliefs, I do not believe we are doomed to failure. Neither do I see victory as having more points on the scoreboard. We may appear to lose battles, but we win the war. Our job is stay the course, fight for good and to remember that all things work toward God’s victory.

      In the case of immigration, the issue is man’s motivations. Just as in all things, good and evil can occupy the same issue or object. Motivation often defines which plot of ground good and evil occupy. Outcome determines whether good intentions are enough.

      Perhaps then the question should not be about winning, but about our own motivations. “It sounded like a good idea at the time” has caused a lot of grief for people who meant well or saw no harm or barriers precluding the exercise of their free will, but the consequences of their actions revealed the flaw in their rationale.

      I can’t decide for you how you evaluate your beliefs, nor should I, but I can say I believe decisions should be based in tried and true principles and Natural Law. Often, we know those things instinctively and other times, information is skewed to appeal to emotions or to circumvent the natural processes we generally use to make decisions. We have to decide what is real and what is not for ourselves.

      For me, I try to get my information from the horse’s mouth, original documents, speeches, etc. where people are speaking or writing freely. Usually, when information is written for public consumption, it’s somewhat “sanitized” and laden with lofty, but vague phases that allows the reader to project their own meaning onto the words. When I read these writings, I try to read it literally and critically. Do the words match up with known and visible actions?

      Or is making the world a better place a better goal. Tell me how you will make the world a better place.

      I’m all for the world being a better place, but you and I may not define “a better place” quite the same. What, in your opinion, would make the world a better place? Elimination of poverty? Peace? I certainly wouldn’t disagree with you, but those terms also need to be broken down into what that means, what it would look like and how it’s achieved? How and why would your plan work? How does it affect other people? World views differ widely and what you may see as peace, another would not. It’s difficult to see another’s world view when you haven’t been born into that culture, so how would your plan reconcile differences that are wholly incompatible and alignment not freely chosen? Who would be required to change or surrender their strongly held beliefs? For instance, does “peace” or the “elimination of poverty” take precedent over free will or personal happiness? What would that look like in practice? Should people be required to adopt “sameness” over individuality and individual liberty to choose for themselves what they believe? Will there be a space for people to disagree and go their separate ways or should incompatible beliefs be forced to be next door neighbors? How will the inevitable tension and conflict be resolved so that everyone is happy and the world is a better place? Can peace, elimination of poverty, equality, etc. be socially engineered or must it come about another way?

      You said you are standing for freedom of speech. I also agree with that. If you evaluate the whole picture of massive immigration, open borders and the RRP, research and look at both sides as objectively as possible, then project outcome for all people involved, do you find the issue to still be about freedom of speech (literally) or is there something deeper and larger at the core of the debate that may enhance that fundamental right or something that’s at odds with it? For what do you speak? Does it matter or is it merely an exercise of free speech?

      As a final thought on freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly, whether Voltaire actually said it or not, I do subscribe to the sentiment: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it.” I will curb none of your rights, but I reserve my right to speak out in opposition to what you say. And, I’ll be armed with documentation from the horse’s mouth and hoof. You have the same opportunity to persuade me as I do you. I firmly believe in rational discourse and being open to new ideas. I will not, however, be silenced or moved by contrived “phobias” or name calling. I just don’t care. Make a rational case and I’ll listen with an open mind. After reading your posts, I suspect you can do that to explain why you have chosen to use your right to speak freely in support of that particular cause. I’m interested.

      I wish you peace, Will.

      Like

      • Finally someone with grace and respect. I’m very interested in your documentation. It’s so difficult to trust any source these days. I don’t deal much in facts. Facts are easy to manipulate and even easier to hide behind. And I have even less regard for statistics. I have a very simple statement about statistics that I believe illuminates my point. A football running back averages 4 yards per carry. A football team needs to gain ten yards in 3 try to keep the ball. They can even have a fourth try if they want to take the risk. If real life followed average they would have the running back carry the ball on every play. He would make 4 yards every carry for a total of twelve yards in three downs. Since they only need to gain ten yards it becomes clear that if the game followed averages that the team would never be stopped. We all know this is not the case in real games. But I digress.

        My opinions are just that, opinions. I have never claimed that what I say is factual. But I do say it’s true because it’s true to me and therefore is a relative truth. It can however be opposed by another relative truth. When two opposing truths are juxtaposed against each other, if there is a desire to reconcile those truths, the parties come together to try to find an absolute truth about the issue. This unfortunately is rarely possible but a third relative truth based in compromise is possible. What I see happening so often these days is people confusing their relative truths with absolute truths. Absolute truths can’y be compromised or opposed. Thus we have stalemates. The best arguments I have heard against Refugee resettlement are economic but when I ask for the facts I am told you can’t find them. I am simply told everybody knows they are taking all our 1. Federal taxes 2. Social Security 3. State taxes 4. County taxes 5. City taxes 6. Property taxes and giving it to undeserving refugees. Here I am only positing that they are considered undeserving because otherwise what reason would there be for not giving them the resources they need to assimilate, if that indeed is the goal. It is also being nod nod wink wink given surreptitiously to religious social service organizations to line their pockets with gold at the expense. once again, of the taxpayer.

        But I don’t know this so obviously everybody Doesn’T know this. In an endeavor to learn why everybody should rightfully know this, by asking for facts and statistics I am given vague numbers such as a figure of 113 million dollars income on Lutheran Social Services of St. Cloud’s Form 990. This is a lot of money. But there are things my tax dollars are spent on that cost just as much or more. Things I don’t approve of which For example, we have the F22 Raptor fighter plane. This weapons system has cost 77.4 Billion dollars to produce 187 aircraft and several billions more for continued improvements, upgrades, and design flaw corrections. The F22 has never seen combat. It has been eclipsed in the US arsenal by the F35 fighter and likely will never be used, as the enemy which it was designed to defeat barely exists and is rarely deployed. So forgive me if 113 million, although a great deal of money, doesn’t impress my all that much. I won’t even go into the cost of the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers, which come in at a little over 3 Billion apiece and are said to have major structural design flaws. Frankly this is a much more disturbing waste of tax dollars.

        Perhaps I am paranoid but the because of the vehement insistence that the main complaint about Refugee Resettlement is about money, with no acceptable proof (at least I haven’t seen any yet) I can only read between the lines and guess that the real issue here is a belief that Muslims are out to take over the world, much less our nation. I won’t say this belief is unfounded, paranoid, or a conspiracy theory. But I do feel there are elements of all of those things in much of the literature I have read on the issue. I want to learn more about that but people are very defensive when they have the slightest inkling they possibly are or may be called racist, that it is difficult to have productive dialogue on that subject.

        I, for one, don’t believe these people are so much racists as they are simply wrong. That is something I would love to discuss in a cogent way but i have run into very few people willing to be cogent about the issue. I’m not sure why that is but I have my theories. One theory is that they are nearly paralyzed by fear. We all have our fears. My fear is that what I see to be rampant anti Islam sentiments are being stirred up all over the USA.Religion has caused more wars over the modern era than anything else and without some sort of reconciliation, accord or simple agreement to disagree I am quite sure there will be an upcoming religious war between Christian nations and Muslim nations that will dwarf any other previous conflict. Ok, there’s my paranoid delusion. Or is it so paranoid? I’m not sure.

        In any case I am more inclined to work toward finding common ground between the world’s two largest religions so that we can somehow find a way to live together, perhaps not in peace, but without armed conflict. And frankly, what I am hearing up above the normal range of audible sound here is a call to vigilanteism, which would be a mistake of the highest order. I pray that does not come about.

        Thank you 7delta

        Like

        • 7delta said

          Will, I’ve written five replies to you that have disappeared in a blink when my browser suddenly closes. My computer updated last night to Windows 10 and apparently, Houston, there is a problem. I wanted you to know, I’m not ignoring you. I’ll try again later, after I have time to look around at settings and…whatever…to see if I can figure out what the problem is.

          I’ll be back.

          Like

        • 7delta said

          Will, I’m still having problems with my computer. Just got kicked off again as I tried to respond to your post. Maybe somebody is trying to tell me something and I’m just too ornery to listen. Let’s try again.

          I understand your desire to reconcile Western beliefs and Christianity with Islam. I am far from an expert on Islam, but I believe the best way to understand it is to let them tell us who they are and what they believe.

          With that in mind, if you have not already done so, let me suggest reading the Koran, the Hadith (a body of legal rulings) and the Sunna. All three work together. All three are considered holy and not open to reinterpretation or reform. The Koran is considered the word of allah. The hadith or Islamic Law (Shariah) explains the phrases in the Koran, according to scholarly consensus. An Islamic scholar is not an academic scholar, as we in the West view the term, but more like a jurist. When consensus is reach, and it has been over the centuries, that is the law and actions and circumstances must be interpreted within that consensus. It’s the story of the Islamic legal system.

          The Sunna is the life of Mohammed, the practices of the prophet. Since he was considered the “perfect” man, his life should be the model for all Muslims. So, the Sunna is the rule of law deduced from the practices of the prophet.

          I don’t think it’s necessary to read every single word of all three works. It’s not light reading. You just need a basic understanding about the system works, then the works can be used as references to determine Islamic Law specific to circumstances or actions.

          A few things to remember as you read: Islam believes in abrogation. If two verses conflict, abide by newest or latter one. The warm fuzzy ones about getting along with the people of the Book (Christians and Jews) are the oldest verses. They have been abrogated.

          Al-Taqiyya is based on Koran 3:28 and 16:106, as well as hadith. It permits and encourages lying to the infidel to advance Islam or to hide the true faith during times of persecution or for deception to penetrate the enemy’s camp. Listen to what the imams and mullahs say when they are talking to their own, what they write or have written over the centuries for the consumption of the “faithful”, not what they tell the outside world.

          Additional important sources are Reliance of the Traveller, a from-the-horse’s-mouth Islamic work and for a good explanation of Islam contained in one place, Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin, a former Army intelligence officer whose work was eventually ignored by the Bush Administration as it shifted from its initial threat assessment after 9-11 to their stance that Islam is a religion of peace, then banned by the current administration in favor of political correctness. I’ve found his book aligns with other original sources I’ve read independently.

          This is where I’d start with references and documentation. Understand Islam from Islam’s point of view. IMO, it’s important for people to delve into Islam themselves. If we’re merely told what Islam is, not only do the stories conflict, it doesn’t allow people to decide for themselves. Context matters and world views must be examined from the sources that are the basis of a belief system. It takes a little time, but it helps clear up the confusion.

          Like

  3. I agree, get rid of the poem. I always thought
    it did not belong. It is almost like inviting
    the invasions we have today.

    Like

  4. Composed by Emma Lazarus, considered an early Zionist, tacked on by an outside group and later approved by congress. Really hard to see how people like “Mr. Servant” could be for real. If there truly were “no exceptions,” how many Americans would be here by the end of 2015 alone–a billion?

    Like

    • Ann Corcoran said

      I once saw Bill O’Reilly ask an open borders activist if there is a number that is too many, or whether the activist would just open the borders wide with no restrictions. The activist was so flummoxed. She had no answer because clearly even she knew there had to be a limit but was unwilling to say what it should be. So, whenever confronted by someone of their ilk, simply ask what they think the outcome would be if there were no borders and all could come in at will. If they still say, open the borders wide, ask how many they will welcome to share their home or apartment because that is what it would come to (or the home or apartment would be outright taken from them by force).

      Like

  5. Brittius said

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: