ChicagoOpinion.com

Liberal Dementia

Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:34:18 -0600

Neil Steinberg is pathetically liberal as well as pathetically stupid. But I repeat myself. His recent Opening Shot rant blames conservatives (what else is new?) for the questionable ailment of “Extreme Clinton Hatred” along with the newer “Obamaphobia.”

Not a word from Neil about the mass infection of the entire liberal herd with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Originally coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer as – “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.” Symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome include:
 1. Believing that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina. 2. Believing that Bush was behind 9-11. 3. Calling Bush stupid despite the fact that he has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is infinitely more caustic than Extreme Clinton Hatred (ECH). To those liberals infected with BDS, President Bush is viewed as a functionally retarded spawn of Satan. While conservatives simply wanted Clinton removed from office, liberals want Bush impeached, removed from office, boiled in hot oil and thrown in jail, preferably at Guantanamo Bay. Also, closely related, is Karl Rove Syndrome (KRS). Many times these two diseases are found together in the same liberal host.

Steinberg is stuck trying to defend against charges that Obama is recreating the Clinton Administration against the undeniable fact that Obama is indeed recreating the Clinton Administration. According to Neil, “Now that Hillary Clinton is being nominated as Barack Obama's secretary of state, we can expect the cry that our next president is somehow re-creating the Clinton administration to reach an even higher pitch.”

Let’s see … Hillary at State, Elliott Richardson at Commerce, Ram Emanuel as Chief of Staff, Eric Holder as Attorney General … yep, sounds like a third Clinton term to me. And this is what Obama calls change?! It just proves him to be nothing more than an empty suit, filled with rhetoric, and run by a gaggle of Clintonoids. If things continue in this direction, look for Monica Lewinski to get a special job with the administration (but most likely under the table). Maybe Monica can be appointed as a Special Assistant to Hillary. Now that would be fun!

The flip side of so-called Obamaphobia, is Obamamania. This is where liberals like Steinberg exhibit an obsessive and literal worshiping of all things Obama. To the afflicted, Obaba is seen as the savior. In reality, he is as a god to the godless.

But wait! There's more buffoonery from Neil.

“What those raising the supposed specter of the nightmare Clinton years forget is that for people who weren't foaming party fanatics, it was a pretty good time: The nation was prospering, war was minimal. The issues that so agitated the GOP -- Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky -- were pointless exercises in vindictiveness....”

Ah, the vacuousness of the liberal mind when it comes to the Clintons! The prosperity of the 1990’s resulted from the Republican majority in Congress forcing Clinton to finally balance the federal budget. To claim “war was minimal” depends on what you mean by “minimal.” As the 9/11 Commission observed about the Islamic terrorists, “they were at war with us, we were not at war with them.” In hindsight, Clinton never responded to the continuing attacks by Al Qaeda and 9-11 was the tragic result of his inaction. And what about that nasty little slaughter in Darfur that Clinton ignored? Yes Neil, war was very minimal indeed.

As intentionally obtuse as Steinberg and his ilk can be, the pursuit of justice in Whitewater and Monicagate was never a “pointless exercise in vindictiveness.” Whitewater was a rigged land deal designed to illegally make money for the Clintons. Think of it as similar to the Chicago real estate deal cooked up by convicted felon Tony Resko that helped the Obamas to purchase their million dollar house.

Monicagate was not actually about sex as the liberals claim (although sex was definitely on Monica's lips!) The legal aspects centering on impeachment had to do with Bill Clinton lying under oath and suborning perjury. The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct ultimately disbarred Clinton for giving misleading testimony (i.e., lying) in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. Subsequently, the US Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court. There was much more to all this than “just sex.”

“… and the nation is now ready to move forward with whoever can do a good job, such as Hillary Clinton, who can tackle tough tasks. Yes, she didn't solve the health care crisis -- but then again, she was the last person to even try.”

Let me get this straight. Hillary can tackle tough tasks! Like what? Selling short in cattle futures? Losing Rose Law Firm billing records in the White House residence for several years? Standing by her man while Bubba chased every skirt in sight? And what about health care reform – the one task she took on during her years in the administration? Well, that was such a dismal failure that Hillary essentially disappeared for the next seven years. Can you say cluster buck?

A word of advice, Neil. You could have made a more convincing argument if you had just said that Obama can’t be any worse than Hillary.

Updating Obama’s Nightstand

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:27:30 -0600

An article in the Nov. 18, 2008 Tribune caught my attention: "FDR books on Obama's nightstand" by Patrick T. Reardon.

Mr. Reardon claims that the books he cites give us a glimpse into the future Barack Obama presidency. There are a few other books that should be added to that list.

A good review of the failure of the New Deal can be found in "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression" by Jim Powell.

Two of Obama's favorite books should also be added: "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky.

Finally, Obama himself would benefit from a truthful reading of his own record, as found in "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" by Jerome R. Corsi.

I believe that my list provides a better indicator of the true direction of the upcoming Obama administration than that of Mr. Reardon.

Shameful Outcome

Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:17:10 -0600

With the election of a Marxist as president of the United States, I am sad to say that for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really ashamed of my country.

This item appeared in the Chicago Tribune’s Voice of the People section on November 9, 2008. There were a few comments made in the Tribune’s web comment section. Professor ProfessorGAC of Channahon, IL replied:
 Maybe the Tribune needs a [sic] editorial policity [sic] in whcih [sic] they should only print letters written by people who only know what all the words they use actually mean.

It's patently obvious Gregg Dudash doesn't have the slightest idea as to what a Marxist is, if he thinks Obama is one.

There are plenty of stupid letters to the editor in Voice. Very few are any stupider than Dudash's.

My reply:

College professors cling to their liberalism as a religious dogma that is not to be challenged or questioned. Such is the case with ProfessorGAC in criticizing my letter. I doubt that he has ever read Marx, Engles, Lenin, Sartre, Gorz, or Marcuse, much less, Hegel or Feuerbach. I have. I have a degree in philosophy and I have studied Marxism extensively. I know what a Marxist is and Obama is a Marxist.

As Marx himself said:“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” That pretty much sums up Obama's reply to Joe the Plumber regarding the need to “spread the wealth” around. Obama supporters of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your minds! (Note to GAC: read the Communist Manifesto or, at least, the Cliff Notes.)

(Further note to GAC: When you wrote, "the Tribune needs a [sic] editorial policity [sic] in whcih [sic]…" that was not grammatically or linguistically correct. You should have said, "The Tribune needs AN editorial POLICY in WHICH..." Please use proper grammar and correct spelling in the future! I would maybe give you a C- on your letter, GAC.)

By the way, the letter that I wrote was actually designed to turn Michelle Obama’s famous quote on its head about her finally being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Turning someone's own words against them is called irony. That's probably why the Tribune published my letter. It was deliciously ironic. ProfessorGAC is apparently too clueless to have caught that point. What Podunk community college would ever hire someone so dimwitted?

ProfessorGAC concluded with the statement, "There are plenty of stupid letters to the editor in Voice. Very few are any stupider than Dudash's." Yours is, professor!

Journalism 101

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:30:49 -0500

Neil Steinberg's Opening Shot column [Oct 24, 2008] was an amazing display of the limited nature of his intellectual abilities.

In his article, Steinberg sought to deconstruct a genuine moral decision made by Sarah Palin and then to render it as somehow defective. But in so doing, he presented a completely simplistic and confused attempt at logic.

It is for good reason that journalists generally avoid involving themselves in philosophical issues. That is also why the stupidest kids in college go into journalism and not into philosophy.

But, sound reasoning was not Steinberg's goal; trashing conservatives was. ("The Republican vice presidential candidate is the darling of the religious right for a variety of reasons.") It’s just so much easier for liberals to recite their liberal dogma than to actually think something through.

As best as I can understand Steinberg's bewilderment regarding Sarah Palin's decision not to abort a child with Down syndrome, he is simply confusing morality with legality. He thus utterly fails to understand the role of free will in making moral decisions.

Steinberg essentially argues that people with a solid moral core (the religious people that he so hate) should actually not be admired for their moral decisions! He seems to think that their very morality compels them to make moral decisions. Simply put, Steinberg attempts to reduce morality to compulsion. Being so compelled, there is no free will involved. It is as if morality creates a psychological condition that forces moral people to act morally. In philosophy, we call this 'circular logic.' Another term for it is 'stupidity.'

While a person's morality guides their actions, it does not determine those actions. Even a moral person can make immoral choices. That point alone refutes Steinberg's argument. Morality does not shield one from having to choose. If Steinberg's assertion were correct, then a "moral person" would be compelled to never act immorality. In cases where a moral person did act immorally, then this type of pretzel logic would have to conclude that the person was not moral in the first place. But since you can't prove a negative, there is no way to logically validate such an assertion. To put it simply, Steinberg is just being a schmuck.

The real issue here is Steinberg's hatred of the so-called 'religious right' and for objective morality itself. In the twisted depths of his secular soul, he disdains those who believe in God and try to live by a moral code. But the Ten Commandments are not called the 'Ten Suggestions.' Steinberg should check with his rabbi on this.

His next error is in attempting to require the existence of legal abortion as the condition for making a moral choice. This is bone-headed. In Palin's case, abortion was a de facto legal medical option for her, which she chose not to do. Even if abortion was suddenly made illegal, abortions could and would still be performed. (We would call those 'illegal abortions.') But the element of choice would still, of necessity, be present. The choice precedes the act. That is the moral component.

Steinberg's attempt at irony clearly falls flat. He claims his example is "too fragile to gather notice." Rather, his assertion is just too stupid to be taken seriously. Abortion is a choice just as much as choosing to give birth is a choice. The choice is separate from and precedes the legal status of abortion. The choice itself is the moral dimension, which may or may not have legal consequences. One should not confuse morality with legality.

Steinberg states that not committing a crime is mandatory. All that means is that there will be a legal consequence to your actions if you are caught and convicted. But you can still commit the crime. That explains why there are all those people in prison. They made a choice, a bad choice, but a choice nonetheless.

And if, as Steinberg suggests, "society demands that you not go around killing people," then why does society allow women to get abortions? Isn’t an abortion killing someone?

What is lofty and noble about Sarah Palin’s decision to have the child with Down syndrome is that she lived up to her own moral ideals in spite of the difficulties that she could have avoided by taking the easy way out. In the old days, we called that living by one’s convictions. I doubt that she make this decision just to show her moral superiority. What is it with liberals? Why are they so obsessed with what they perceive as moral condescension on the part of conservatives?

Neil, we don’t care about you. Be immoral. That’s your choice. Celebrate your immorality. Be a reprobate. Go to hell. We just don’t care.

Dumb and Dumber

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:59:04 -0500

Steve Chapman just got today’s talking points from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and immediately put them to use in his newsblog entry “Sarah Palin: McCain's inexcusable choice.”

The apparent DNC strategy is to shoot-through Sarah Palin to get to John McCain. The upshot of this ridiculous DNC assertion is that McCain is unqualified because he picked Palin as his V-P. After all, McCain is 72 years old “and has had serious health problems.” That means that he'll probably die in office the very first week, leaving us with an allegedly unqualified President Palin.

I believe that politicos call this “complementing the ticket” much as Obama picked an old time Washington insider to complement his own utter lack of experience - either domestic or foreign.

Talk about inexcusable. Steve Chapman should consult a doctor to see if there is a medical procedure that might successfully detach his lips from Obama's butt. Maybe then, his babbling idiocy would come to an end.

By the way, you look for experience at the TOP of the ticket. Obama has none. In fact, Palin has more executive experience than does Obama. And the so-called foreign relations expertise of Biden has been wrong, dumb and inexcusable.

I think it’s time to rename the Democrat ticket as “Dumb and Dumber” (and not necessarily in that order!).

Obama’s Offensive Speech in Berlin

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:35:27 -0500

In his recent speech in Berlin, Sen. Obama proclaimed “I know my country has not perfected itself.” Feeding into Europe’s anti-America sentiment, he apologized to his German audience for America. While America may not be perfect, there is no reason to apologize to the Germans, architects of the holocaust.

America saved Europe from Germany twice and lost hundreds of thousands of men in so doing. The very right of Obama to speak freely in Germany was gained at the expense of American blood and treasure. America has been a force for good in the battle against evil.

Obama’s speech went beyond offensive. Obama is not an American idol. He is a disgrace.

This item appeared in the Chicago Tribune’s Voice of the People section on July 25, 2008. There were a few comments made in the Tribune’s web comment section. Russ99 replied:
 I've found that Germans are some of the most peace-loving people I have ever met. How much longer are some of you going to make them pay for things that happened over 70 years ago? Perhaps we as a nation should also be held to the same standard with our racial inequities from the same timeline...

Maybe if Gregg and some of the rest of you posters opened your minds instead of making crass and offensive generalizations about people you never met and countries you never visited, you'd have a different take on things.

Russ99

My reply:

Hey, Russ99, I'm sorry if history offends you. I have no doubt that today's German's would love to have everyone forget their country's evil decent into Nazism. But the reality of the unspeakable horror of Hitler's genocidal pursuit is not lost on its victims or their descendants. 70 years is a drop in the bucket of history. As George Santayana said: "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Today's Russians still understand this, as do the Poles. Jews especially understand the nature of Hitler's systematic holocaust carried on with the complicity of the German people. Jews say "never forget." I'm sure that the Germans you met are lovely people. Why don't you also meet some Israelis and ask them what they think about your blanket amnesty? My guess is that they will see you as both "crass and offensive."

I don't need to visit Germany or Japan or the former Soviet Union to understand the nature of evil. I can read history. I can even remember my mother telling me about my Great Uncle killed by the Nazis in Poland. These are events that occurred within a lifetime (unlike slavery in the US). We can forgive but you must never forget.

We need to remember the evil perpetrated by others in the past if we are to protect humanity in the future.

It amazes me how simplistic liberal thinking truly is. Where is that fabled power of "nuance" that you liberals claim to possess? You completely miss the point because reality apparently falls outside the realm of the fantasy world that is liberalism. Liberals continue to harp on America's original sin of slavery and even demand reparations for an institution that ended almost 150 years ago. But these same people are willing to give Germans a pass for the Holocaust simply because they the Germans are fellow socialists advancing the cause of socialism. That would be you, Russ.

The Germans today are no longer paying for Hitler. The country was reunited when the Berlin Wall fell and Germany is now a central part of the European Union. My point had to do with the disgusting display of our very own Senator B. Hussein Obama apologizing for America to the anti-American socialists in Germany (in light of their past). The offensiveness of this act is not hard to grasp. Get a clue.

In God We Trust

Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:22:52 -0600

For liberals, the word that cannot be spoken is “God.” They fear that simply invoking the name of the deity will cause their secular belief system to collapse like a house of cards in a windstorm. Liberalism is as brittle as it is godless.

Even when they claim to be religious, liberals hold to a worldview that is grounded in secularism. Traditional Judaism and Christianity are not liberal. The left-leaning variants of these two great religious traditions are malevolent mutations. God is not a socialist, no matter how much liberal Judeo-Christian sects seem to believe it to be so. More to the point, the Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions. Morality is black and white, not an endless mosaic of shades of gray.

As with everything it touches, liberalism is a corrupting influence. Reform Judaism is essentially modern liberalism with an option for belief in God. Liberal Christian sects like the Episcopalians have more in common with Madonna videos than with traditional Christianity. In the struggle between good and evil, liberalism sides with the devil every time.

Chicago Tribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice is another confused liberal who understands neither liberalism nor Christianity. In a stunningly clueless column entitled “Silent moment is best left out of classrooms,” Trice puts her ignorance on stage for all to see. She thinks that she is a Christian. But the sad reality is that her true religion is liberalism.

Trice is distressed that the State of Illinois recently passed legislation that mandates a moment of silent reflection in school, The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. The law requires teachers to "observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day." Trice opposes this legislation because she believes (you can’t really say that she thinks) that the law requires students to pray. It doesn’t. They can reflect or pray or do neither.

Liberals do have their own faith. They worship the state. They believe (in the face of clear wording to the contrary) that the Constitution requires there to be a “separation of church and state” that bans the free exercise of religion from the public square. There is no such language in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Rather, the phrase appeared in a private letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote on January 1, 1802, eleven years after the First Amendment was ratified. He used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" to assure a group of Baptists that the federal government would not establish a federally recognized state religion.

A review of the First Amendment and those who wrote it reveals that the founders never intended there be a “wall between church and state” as liberals understand it. The intent was to assure the uninhibited freedom to practice one’s religion, without constraint by the federal government. The law was enacted to prevent the government from requiring citizens to practice a specific religion, such as was the case with the Anglican Church in England.

Trice gets it right when she says, “although religion is paramount in many of our lives, the founding fathers were wise to resist any instinct to impose one religious doctrine on such a diverse society.” But she gets it wrong when she suggests that “The God of ‘In God we trust,’ ‘God bless America’ and ‘One nation under God’ was not a Christian God, but a non-denominational deity that was bigger than the sectarian parts.”

Actually, the God of the founders was indeed the Christian God. The early settlements from Massachusetts to Georgia consisted of various Christian denominations and all the early American colonies were established on Christian principles. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles that were central to the Christian faith held by the founders. The Constitution was intent of securing religious liberty for those who fled from England to escape religious persecution. Christianity is the foundation upon which our Constitution rests. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

But even with the undeniable Judeo-Christian underpinning of the Constitution, the founders balanced the free exercise of religion with a prohibition against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. However, while they prohibited the establishment of an official religion, they did not then require the elimination of religion from the public square. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Emphasis added). The First Amendment is designed to protect the free exercise of religion at anytime and in anyplace. This is the undeniable truth that liberals attempt to disregard.

Liberals have taken the notion of “the separation of church and state” and have used it to seek the removal of any acknowledgment of God from the public domain. They attempt to reduce religion to a purely private affair, having no place in public life. The end result is that liberals are seemingly intent on establishing an official state religion in America – the religion of secularism. Simply put, liberalism is a secular religion that seeks to supplant Christianity as the dominant religion in America.

To mandate a moment of silence in schools does not force students to pray. It simply provides for the free expression of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment. Freedom is not compulsion. Students are free to pray; they are not forced to pray. In clear opposition to the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, liberals attempt to make religious expression unconstitutional.

Trice adds: “So here's a prayer: Dear (You fill in the deity), please help state legislators figure out how to properly fund our schools, the Chicago Transit Authority, the pension system and health care.” Translation from the Libspeak: take more of our money, limit our freedom, restrict religion, and grow government to the point where the state becomes our god.

In concluding her colossal monument to stupidity, Trice ‘prays’ to the secular god of liberalism to enlighten the Illinois state legislators. “And please give them three-ring binders, so they can better organize (and prioritize) to get to work on the things that really matter.”

Actually the legislators did prioritize things when they wrote this law. Like the founders, they spoke in support of limited government and the guaranteed freedom to practice one’s religion. Trice’s problem with this legislation is that it does not support her religion, which is to say, the secular religion of liberalism.

In contrasting the secular toxin of liberalism with the religious intent of the founders, we are reminded that this is indeed a nation under God and, ultimately, it is in God we trust.

The Myth of Drybacks

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:56:24 -0600

Liberals have mastered the art of linguistics. They understand that words can be used to change the very perception of things. Reality is infused with the meaning that we give it. The words that we use to describe a thing shape our impression of that thing. In politics, this has become the art of spin. Every political battle begins with a fight to establish the primacy of one’s own perception.

Chicago Tribune columnist Kathleen Parker has written an excellent article entitled “Incentives fueling illegal immigration.” Parker’s main thesis is that, given the illegal status of undocumented aliens, there is no reason to provide them any additional incentives such as drivers’ licenses or in-state tuition. If you accept that illegal aliens are, by definition, illegal, then creating disincentives makes complete sense.

However, liberals cannot tolerate the light of truth shining on those hiding in the shadows of illegality. A letter to the editor entitled “Immigrants are trying to make better lives” attempts to refute Ms. Parker. This opposing article was written by Fred Tsao, Policy Director of the so-called Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIR) in Chicago. Mr. Tsao advocates open borders but lacks the honesty to assert his real agenda.

Tsao begin by using one of the standard liberal ploys against Ms. Parker: he simply misstates her position. He claims that she “presents no evidence to show that undocumented immigrants are settling in the U.S. because of the possibility of driving documents, in-state tuition for their children or any other government benefit.” The implication is that illegal aliens are here for the free driver’s licenses. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Parker said and Tsao knows it.

Everyone agrees that the motive for sneaking across the border is to make money. “Just like previous immigrants, today's immigrants by and large come to the U.S. to try to make better lives.” However, Tsao conveniently skirts around the fact that they are doing this illegally. When he does finally address that issue, he treads lightly. “Now the avenues for legal migration are narrow. For many, "getting in line" doesn't work, because there is no line to get into. Even those who qualify for a place in line must wait years for their turn.”

Of course there is always a line to get into: the deportation line! So, what Tsao is saying is that being legal “doesn’t work” for illegals. He adds,” Parker simple-mindedly ignores the obstacles that prevent people from complying with the law, and then blames and attacks them when they cannot comply.” Let’s be honest. The “obstacles that prevent people from complying with the law” are inconvenient little things like having to wait in line and possessing a skill more valuable than just a strong back. This is like refusing to stand in line because it takes too long to get to the checkout. It’s just sooooo much easier to cut in front of everyone else. Moreover, Mr. Tsao, nobody “attacks them when they cannot comply.” Actually, they can comply. They just choose not to. This is a simple, not a “simple-minded,” truth as Tsao suggests.

Tsao continues his parade of lies, half-truths and left-spin. He claims that “Before 1965, immigration from the Western Hemisphere was largely unrestricted, so those who wanted to come for work could do so perfectly legally.” This is not true. In 1954, a project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), ‘Operation Wetback,’ was initiated to remove about 1.2 million illegal aliens from the southwestern United States, with a focus on Mexican nationals. Operation Wetback deported approximately 80,000 Mexican nationals in the space of almost a year, with an additional 500,000-700,000 fleeing to Mexico before the campaign actually began. Operation Wetback was implemented for the purpose of removing illegal Mexican aliens way back in 1954. This was well before 1965, which, according to Tsao, was when restrictions started. He lied.

As an aside, the US government popularized the term “wetback” when it initiated ‘Operation Wetback.’ The term referred to an illegal alien wading across the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas. It was never a slur against all Mexicans, just a term describing illegal ones. The term is essentially synonymous with “illegal alien.” And since this terminology is anathema to liberals, the political correctness movement has attempted to classify the term as a racial slur. It is not a racial slur, it is a synonym for illegal alien. Those who find this term offensive, in reality, find the truth to be offensive.

In their efforts to exorcise the word ‘wetback’ from the lexicon, liberals are attempting to create the myth of ‘drybacks.’ Drybacks are simply illegal aliens without any trace of their illegality remaining. This deceitful sleigh of hand transforms “illegal aliens” into “undocumented workers.”

Words mean things. There is a world of difference between the technically correct term “illegal aliens” and the politically correct term “undocumented worker.” In defining the issue of illegal immigration, conservatives believe that a description should properly mirror the given reality. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that language is merely a tool for implementing social change. Changing the terminology thus becomes the first step in changing political reality. Conservatives use language to describe what is. Liberals use language to describe what they hope will be.

You can readily grasp a person’s political position on this issue just by the terms they use. Whenever there is a discussion of the immigration problem, liberals always attempt to implement a linguistic lie. They never use the words “illegal” or “alien.”

Phrases like “reform our immigration system” and “a comprehensive approach to immigration” means creating de facto citizenship for illegals. But according to Tsao, a “comprehensive approach [would] allow more people who want to come in to work to do so legally. This approach also includes enabling those undocumented immigrants who are working, paying taxes, staying out of legal trouble and learning English to earn legal status. None of this is granting "de facto citizenship"; instead it is legal status that comes only when the immigrants prove themselves through their efforts and contributions to our country.”

It is time to arrest both the illegal aliens and the liberal spin that seeks to give them amnesty. There is nothing in our immigration laws that allow illegal aliens to somehow magically earn legal status. Liberals are determined to create the myth of drybacks. In so doing, they seek amnesty for the very illegality that they refuse to acknowledge. This is where we draw the line and that line is as solid as a strong border fence. It’s time for all illegals to go back to their side of the fence. Audios, wetbacks!

On Death and Lying

Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:37:52 -0600

There is an expectation when reading newspaper editorials that a paper’s editorial board is being honest and forthright with its readers. Whether we agree or disagree with the position taken, we expect integrity. Unfortunately, we don’t always get it.

In an editorial entitled “The Unreformed Death Penalty,” the Chicago Tribune reiterated its position against capital punishment. The Tribune cited a study recently released by the American Bar Association (ABA) that calls for a moratorium on the death penalty until a number of so-called problems can be addressed. In fact, the position advanced by both the ABA and the Tribune is nothing short of a stealth effort to eliminate the death penalty. But neither one has the honesty to admit the real agenda.

The Tribune begins with: “Given the many mistakes and injustices that have been uncovered in the application of the death penalty in recent years…” This is where the lie begins.

What I call “the lie” is the ABA’s agenda that seeks a moratorium on capital punishment. Stop executions for awhile and perhaps they can be stopped forever. That calculation has been part of the strategy of capital punishment opponents for decades. The call for a moratorium on capital punishment is, in reality, a stealth strategy to completely eliminate the death penalty. Once this strategy is understood, the ABA’s disingenuous position becomes transparent.

The ABA’s report is based on studies that were conducted over the past three years on how the death penalty operates in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Teams that studied the systems in Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania did not call for a halt to executions in those states. Even by the ABA’s standards, there were no significant problems discovered in half the states studied. But the ABA concluded that every state with the death penalty should review its execution procedures before putting anyone else to death. (Never let the facts get in the way of your agenda!)

“After carefully studying the way states across the spectrum handle executions, it has become crystal clear that the process is deeply flawed… The death penalty system is rife with irregularity,” said Stephen F. Hanlon, chairman of the ABA’s Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. In the meantime, state and federal courts have effectively stopped most executions pending a high court decision regarding how some executions are administered.

Not everyone agrees with the report. William Hubbarth, vice president for legal affairs for the Texas victims’ advocacy group, Justice for All, said he regretted that the American Bar Association was taking what he called “political stances.”

“The ABA has always been a very, very liberal organization,” Hubbarth told ABC News. “They have spent much more time worrying about the rights of the defendant, rather than the rights of the victims, or the rest of society.”

The major researchers of these eight state studies are all members of ABA’s Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. This group is opposed to capital punishment. As a means towards that end, it is actively working to obtain a nationwide moratorium on executions. Given the obvious bias of this group, it would seem prudent to question their findings and conclusions. In their unquestioned acceptance of the ABA’s report, the Tribune’s editorial board does not exhibit any such prudence.

The Tribune states: “It's by no means clear that capital punishment can ever be administered in such a way as to virtually eliminate the chance that innocent people will be executed. That's why the Tribune has called for the abolition of the death penalty.”

This assertion is based on the faulty premise that any human undertaking can be made absolutely free of error. No legal procedure can guarantee an error-free outcome. Capital punishment is predicated upon a well-defined legal process followed by thorough judicial review. The death penalty appeal and review process is the most thorough in the realm of criminal jurisprudence. While no system is perfect, this one is very close. Based on the Tribune’s flawed logic, we could say that any criminal conviction is potentially suspect because, to paraphrase the Trib, the process can never be administered in such a way as to virtually eliminate the chance that innocent people will be wrongfully convicted. In requiring perfection, the Tribune would have us abandon all criminal legal proceedings.

The Tribune adds: “If supporters want to keep the death penalty as an option, they have not only a moral duty but a political need to improve its administration. But it is clear that in states that insist on imposing the ultimate penalty, far more must be done to prevent miscarriages of justice.”

Miscarriages of justice? What exactly is the Tribune talking about? There is no proof of an innocent having been executed in the US since 1900! So what’s the problem? The problem is the liberal agenda of the ABA. Their report is comprised of a number of half-truths, disingenuous statements, spin and outright lies. The ABA cited such problems as:

1. Spotty collection and preservation of DNA evidence, which has been used to exonerate more than 200 inmates. (None on death row!)

2. Misidentification by eyewitnesses. (None on death row!)

3. False confessions by defendants. (This is a standard claim in the appeals process where these was a confession made by a convicted felon.)

4. Persistent racial disparities that make death sentences more likely when victims are white. (The real issue is that minorities commit the majority of violent crimes in America and so more blacks are on death row than whites.)

Death penalty opponents claim that a significant number of death row inmates have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. That claim is a blatantly false.

According to capital punishment advocate Dudley Sharp, “The law recognizes the specific distinction between those legally innocent and those actually innocent, just as common sense dictates. Yes, there is a difference between the truly ‘I had no connection to the murder’ cases and ‘I did it but I got off because of legal error’ cases.” Mr. Sharp notes that death penalty opponents combine these two very different groups in order to dishonestly increase their "innocents" numbers.

We are now better able to see how the ABA uses transparent lies as the basis for their moratorium quest. Death penalty opponents have chosen deception as the way to make their case.

Mr. Sharp then connects the dots between the ABA and their willing accomplices in the media. “With remarkably few exceptions, neither the media nor public policy makers have required death penalty opponents to support their claims or to define their standards. In fact, the rule is that the media repeats exactly what anti death penalty sources tell them, without question and passes it along to their audience. This may be one of the worst ‘no fact checking’ examples in journalistic history.”

I would take it one step further. Liberals are always predisposed to take the word of another liberal, even when that word is an obvious lie. When it comes to advancing the liberal agenda, the end justifies the means. Mr. Sharp believes that this connection is simply ‘journalistic malpractice.’ I believe that this unholy alliance is better defined as ‘journalistic fraud.’

The Tribune’s closing comment only confirms this agenda. “No system of capital punishment will be mistake-proof -- ample reason to deny government its use. But the abolition of capital punishment will require a long and arduous campaign to move public opinion.”

Let me translate this from the Libspeak: Given that our impossible-to-achieve standard (“mistake-proof”) cannot be attained, capital punishment must be eliminated. But many people still support the death penalty. Therefore, WE (the liberal intelligentsia) must sway the NASCAR rabble to our position by whatever means (lies, half-truths and spin) necessary. Achieving a moratorium on capital punishment would be a good start.

The greater good is served more by preserving capital punishment than by eliminating it. As Orrin Hatch once stated: “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life.” Those of us who support capital punishment would simply note that an executed death row inmate could never be released on parole. That is a good thing. Even better, an executed death row inmate could never murder again. That is a very good thing.

We may never be able to achieve a mistake-proof legal process but it would at least seem possible for the Chicago Tribune to achieve a lie-proof editorial process.

Deconstructing the Liberal Mindset

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:55:43 -0500

How incredibly simplistic is the liberal mindset! It is utterly predictable, lacking in even the most basic common sense. Liberals see complexity where none exists and inevitably simplify matters of actual complexity. The inside is turned out and the outside is turned in. Emotions reign supreme in all liberal arguments. What passes for logic is simply the recitation of formula. The liberal mindset is trapped within the restrictive confines of tired clichés, historical anachronisms and imaginary evil demons.

The gaggles of liberal newspaper columnists serve up daily examples of this mindset. Reading their columns usually provides amusement.
Occasionally, however, these things get nasty. For example, Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times has written a zinger called “Killing the DREAM” in which he claims “History will be a harsh judge of how U.S. has treated Mexican immigrants.” I don't believe that legal Mexican immigrants are treated poorly by the US. So right off the bat, can we stipulate that Steinberg must be talking about illegal immigrants?
There are two types of immigrants: legal and illegal. To point out this obvious difference in status is a simple statement of fact. That's the problem with liberals. They ignore facts when those facts contradict the trademark emotional outbursts of self-righteous indignation that they are so fond of displaying. Liberals define themselves by how much they care – the symbol for liberalism is the bleeding heart. So anyone who opposes liberals, by definition, doesn’t care and, at worse, is a hater. So it is with Neil.

Steinberg begins his column by asserting that: “Haters always have their reasons, always always always. Good, solid, reasonable reasons, at least in their own minds.” First, I don’t accept the premise that merely because one opposes illegal immigration that it makes one a “hater.” If you accept that assertion, you allow yourself to become trapped in the box that is the liberal mindset.

Once you have been defined as a “hater,” any reason you use to justify your position is immediately rendered invalid. Your logic is bogus because your rationality is suspect. The stage is set so that no logical argument can refute a liberal position because “Haters always have their reasons...” The trap has been set. This is a very revealing assertion. It shows that liberalism is based on emotion, not reason. More precisely, liberalism is both irrational and anti-rational.

Steinberg makes a number of brash assertions. Not only does he accuse opponents of illegal immigration of being “haters,” he equates pre-Civil War era slavery with today’s illegal immigration problem. “The ‘illegal’ canard brandished by those who want a permanent underclass of Hispanic serfs -- shorn of rights except the right to work hard at crap jobs until deported -- is a stroke of genius.” This is muddled nonsense.

Illegal immigration is a voluntary act of violating the immigration laws of a sovereign nation. In case Steinberg missed it, slavery was most definitely not a voluntary act. Slaves were brought over from Africa against their will. Illegal immigrants from Mexico have not been brought to the US against their will. The difference is significant and it breaks Steinberg’s attempt to draw a valid historical parallel between the two.

Neil, is it possible that there are actually valid reasons to oppose illegal immigration? If we accept the rule of law as a guiding principle, then doesn’t every sovereign nation have a right to define its own immigration policies? As a point of comparison, you might want to check out Mexico’s immigration laws. Neil, do you consider Mexico’s stricter policy to also be hateful? 
Steinberg asserts that we are the ones who are actually responsible for illegal immigration. “Forget that we invite them in with our open borders. Forget that some have been here for decades.” This is absurd. Steinberg’s argument goes something like this: A burglar breaks into your house. After being arrested, his defense at trial is that the homeowner is the one at fault for not having locked his back door. No jury is going to accept such a bogus excuse. Neil, your assertion that “we invite them in with our open border” is just as bogus. What about the tunnels in Tijuana and Nogales? Does digging under a border still make it an “open border?” And just because “some have been here for decades,” that doesn’t grant them immunity from our immigration laws.

Steinberg’s broken logic continues. He adds: “Forget that our mechanism for citizenship is broken." Hello! Our mechanism for citizenship is not broken. Our immigration laws are that mechanism and these laws works just fine for legal immigrants. According to Wikipedia, as of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. The number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million. That’s a lot of people. The path to becoming a legal citizen is apparently only a problem for illegal aliens, Mr. Steinberg.

“Their papers are not in order, so they must be made to suffer and their children made to suffer…” Neil, you clueless wonder, their papers are not out of order. They have no papers – at least not genuine ones. That’s why they’re called “undocumented.” They have chosen to sneak into our country. Any suffering that results is a consequence of their illegal act. This is not a difficult concept to grasp – except for liberals. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. As far as the children go, blame their parents. They dragged them here, not us.

Of course, immigration laws, by definition limits the number of immigrants allowed into a country. It is the opposite of an open border policy. The goal of a successful immigration policy is assimilation into the unique American culture. Failure results in balkanization, creating a multitude of additional problems.

Steinberg supports the so-called DREAM Act. I recently wrote a review of Dick Durbin’s DREAM Act entitled “Little Dick’s Wet DREAM.” This act is a shameless effort to develop a potentially huge voter pool for Democrats. It also provides a backdoor amnesty program with staggering costs to the American taxpayer. Neil, if this legislation is as wonderful as you suggest, then why did Durbin try to sneak it in as a rider to the military appropriations bill? Why not let it stand on its own merit? Why not let the American people examine the legislation and then express their views to their elected representatives? Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work? You do believe in democracy, don’t you, Neil?

Failing to provide any logical reasons to trash our immigration policy, Neil throws the whole thing open to emotional pandering. “These are days of shame. Someday, in the country we are assuredly becoming, we're going to look back and ask why we responded this way, who we thought we were fooling with our fig leaf of illegality and how we could have believed it hid our failure to act as decent Americans and compassionate human beings.” What crap! Neil, you are full of crap!

There is no shame here. Americans are a fair and compassionate people. We accept more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. But fairness requires balance. It obliges us to draw the line somewhere and to make that line simple to see. If you want to come to this country, just comply with our immigration laws.

Steinberg’s support for unrestricted immigration is unfair and unworkable, in spite of his bleeding heart. The large pool of illegal workers (both Mexican and others) willing to work below minimum wage depresses wages for everyone else. We can see the results of this economic depression in the high rate of black teenage unemployment. Neil, is it fair to advocate a policy that champions illegal non-citizens but hurts African-Americans? Neil, is it fair to advocate a policy that places a large burden on the American taxpayer while reducing the quality of health care and education services for actual citizens?

While illegal immigrants come from many countries, the vast majority of illegals are Mexicans. Even given this fact, it does not mean that opposing illegal immigration is anti-Mexican. My friend Elsie is a first-generation American of Mexican decent. Her parents emigrated legally from Mexico. Not surprisingly, Elsie detests these illegals that essentially cut to the front of the line and then demand “their rights” She sees this as a slap in the face to her parents who played by the rules. Neil, do you think that my friend Elsie is a hate-filled racist because she opposes illegal Mexican immigrants?

I would note that Chicago has its share of other illegal immigrants from such places as Poland, Ireland, and China. Why do you ignore their plight, Neil? Answer: Because they don’t fit as readily into liberalism’s victimhood mindset.

I’ll leave this final observation for Neil Steinberg, the bleeding heart liberal. The term “illegality” is not a fig leaf hiding a failure of compassion. The most compassionate policy is also the fairest policy. America must take care of its own citizens first. Charity begins at home. We simply don’t have the resources to take care of the entire world.

I don’t care what Steinberg says. I’m not about to simply let the apologist lobby for illegal aliens steal the American dream from us. Neil, take your liberal mindset and shove it firmly up your tequila bottle.