Invertebrate WaPo DemFlack Slams Sen. Sessions

Nasty clown Dana Milbank is becoming a darling of the unwatched evening CNN-MSNBC cable/commentary leftism-made-funny dorks. This inevitably ensues when an MSM "reporter" trashes a common-sense inventory of the amnesty-lite travesty that the Senate is trying to sneak by the snoozing American public[with GOP enablers like Martinez, Hagel and GWB].

Steve Sailer blows the whistle on Mountebank Milbank in the link above, which makes personal slurs on Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama for supposed regionalisms disdained by the chattering-nitwittery crowd infesting the NorthEast Coast and Corridor, where all wisdom resides. Sailer gives Milbank [who probably enjoys it] a good spanking!

he said last week of those who opposed the 370 miles of fencing. "But good fences make good neighbors. Fences don't make bad neighbors."

The senator evidently hadn't consulted the residents of Korea, Berlin or the West Bank.

Killer line, Dana! Obviously, the residents of Korea or the West Bank would have lived in perfect harmony without those horrible fences keeping them separate. But why hold back, Dana? Point out that there was a fence around Auschwitz!

Touche, Bravo, and the androgynous Danas [Priest or Milbank] at WaPo do deserve serial pins in their numerous gaseous thought-balloons!

Sailer is now getting quoted often, and justifiably, by newbies on the MOR block like Kaus and Tierney, and dissed by cranks like that faux-economist Freakonomics author.

In a recent American Conservative article, Sailer pointed out the sort of inverse class-war being waged by the topmost percentile on Middle America:

A 2002 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that 60 percent of Americans consider the present level of entry to be a “critical threat to the vital interests of the United States,” compared with only 14 percent of prominent Americans. Immigration provides corporations with cheap workers, the upper middle class with off-the-books servants, Democratic political machines with votes, and ethnic activists with careers.

How do they keep winning? The articulate and affluent who profit from illegal immigration look down their noses at anyone who wants to reduce it. They don’t debate dissenters; they dismiss them. Their most effective ploy has been to insinuate that only shallow people think deeply about immigration. The more profound sort of intellect, the fashionable imply, displays an insouciant heedlessness about the long-term impact of immigration.

Yet the well-educated and well-to-do aren’t expected to subject their own children to the realities of living among the diverse. They search out homes removed by distance or doormen from concentrations of illegal aliens—although not so far that the immigrants can’t come and clean their houses tax-free. As our Ascendancy of the Sensitive sees it, that their views are utterly contradicted by how they order their daily lives is proof not of their hypocrisy but of how elevated their thinking is.

This doesn’t mean that the white elites view minorities as their equals. Far from it. Instead, they can’t conceive of them as competition. Nobody from Chiapas is going to take my job. Status competition in the upper reaches of American life still largely consists of whites trying to claw their way to the top over other whites, who, as an example, make up 99 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs.

Who read the Wall Street Journal as well as the New York Times!