Think About It

Political Correctness or Pandering?

Veritas is our guest blogger.  His thread is on illegal immigration and politicians. 

It is a fact that we have millions in the United States that have entered illegally, stayed beyond the limits of their visas or engaged in employment contrary to the conditions of their entry into the USA.

No matter how I view their conduct I come to the inescapable conclusion that they have violated one or more of our immigration laws.  The term "illegal immigrants" is frequently used to describe this group of people. I know that the people involved are not "illegal" and have a right to exist. I wish that there was a better word to describe the group, but I object to referring to them as "undocumented immigrants."

Use of the term "undocumented immigrants" is frequently used by some politicians and others who seek to curry favor with the immigrants and their friends. The word "undocumented" carries the connotation that something is lacking in the paperwork and it is just a matter some formality not being observed. Such is not the case. These "illegal" immigrants have broken one or more laws in entering and staying in the USA. Let us not trivialize such behavior by calling them "undocumented immigrants." Would you refer to one who entered your home without your permission as an undocumented visitor or would you refer to them as a criminal or trespasser?

The next time you hear or read of this group being referred to as "undocumented immigrants" ask yourself if the writer or speaker has a motive for using the term or is he or she incapable of knowing the difference between legal and illegal behavior. Think about it.

Will Obama and/or Hillary End Free Speech?

If the Democrats win the White House in November there exists the real possibility that free speech as we know it will end.  I'm kidding, right?  After all, that's what the First Amendment is all about, right?   No folks, it's real.

The left wing of the Democratic party has longed to shut down conservative talk radio.  Many of them believe radio hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan and others were responsible for John Kerry's defeat.  If Obama or Hillary is elected in November there is the likely possibility that they will order the FCC to implement the so called Fairness Doctrine.  The Fairness Doctrine works like this:  Because public airwaves are being used, owners of radio and TV stations will be forced to broadcast "balanced" programing.  This is code for censorship.  Station owners will have three choices: 1) Order their talk show hosts to water down their opinions to the point there are no opinions; 2) Add another talk show host to espouse the opposition opinion; or 3) Discontinue all talk radio shows. 

Conservative talk radio hasn't had a problem in attracting sponsors.  Why?  Because they have a large listener base.  On the other hand, liberal talk shows, such as Air America, have experienced low ratings and  wobbly financing.  Under the current system, the left wing is welcomed to talk radio, providing they find sponsors to pay for it.  If the left wing is successful in implementing the Fairness Doctrine, radio and TV stations will face not only oppressive federal regulation, but will be faced with lawsuits from those radical groups who feel a particular station isn't being fair enough.  Watch this one closely.

Is the Surge Working in Iraq?

When President Bush announced he was sending a surge of 30,000 more troops to Iraq, the screams in Congress could be heard in all the way to Baghdad.  Who among us can forget the infamous "General Betrayus" ad the liberals placed in newspapers the morning Congress was to begin their "impartial hearings" on the surge.  Then there was Hillary Clinton, flanked by fellow New York Senator Chuck Shumer, telling General Petreus that in order for her to believe his testimony, one "would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief."  A not so polite way of saying, "You're a liar."

Fast forward to the January 2008.  Terrorist attacks are down.  The dreaded Anbar region is once again under control.  The Iraqi police are assuming control over areas previously patrolled by coalition forces.  Normality is returning to Iraq.  Have terrorist attacks have stopped?  Of course not, but they have dwindled to the point they are manageable.   This will ultimately mean stability in Iraq.

Even the most vocal media opponents have grudgingly admitted the surge is working.   That is, except for a few die hards who have retreated into their media bunkers.  Michael Kinsley, who writes for the Washington Post, Time magazine, and Slate magazine (the liberal trinity) recently opined the surge isn't working.  How does he know?  He cites the fact there are still 130,000 troops in Iraq!  Wow, I didn't know that.  (Kinsley is a unabashed Obama supporter who believes the fact that Obama spent the first four years of his life in Indonesia qualifies as foreign affairs experience.  But that's another story.)  Kinsley is representative of the hard-core Bush haters, who will never have a kind word to say about him.  I strongly suspect that history will treat George W. Bush far kinder than he has been treated by today's media.

The Hollywood Drug Connection

I have a love/hate relationship with Hollywood.  Much of what Hollywood produces is pure crap that caters  to the simple-minded, but I remind myself that it is, after all, fiction.  Each year, before the Academy Awards, I try to see the top movies that are up for awards.  The movie American Gangster picked up a couple of Oscar nominations, including a nomination for Ruby Dee for her portrayal of the mother of drug lord Frank Lucas.  The movie opens with a full screen comment that the movie is "Based on a True Story."   Frank Lucas was probably the biggest drug lord in American history; he cut out the middle-man and established a direct connection to heroin manufacturers in Asia.  Lucas and his underlings mainlined misery and death into the U.S. for two decades before the Feds put him in the slammer. 

The problem with American Gangster is this:  The Hollywood schlock merchants mitigated Lucas's evil by riddling the film with numerous scenes of payoffs to crooked drug agents, leaving viewers with the feeling that poor old Frank was just trying to make a living in this hard-knock world.  The movie climaxes with Lucas cheerfully fingering all the crooked drug agents for the federal prosecutor.  The screen fades to black with big white lettering that announced that three-fourths of the drug agents were convicted with the help of Frank Lucas.  Only one problem:  It didn't happen.   

In January, Federal and state drug agents filed a class action defamation lawsuit against the film makers.  The lawsuit cites the fact that no drug agents were ever arrested and/or convicted in connection with the Lucas case.  Even Lucas acknowledges that only 10% of the movie is true.  The federal prosecutor stated, "I don't know where that came from," referring to the way the film makers portrayed the drug agents.

So what's going on here?  How many gape-mouthed youth will watch this blockbuster and walk from the theater confident that society and the police weren't any better than Lucas?  Was the film deliberately designed not to paint Lucas as too evil so young African-American audiences wouldn't be turned off by the film? 

Hillary and Obama's Bilingual Society

I noted in last night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that they are both advocating a bilingual society, complete with bilingual education.  While advocating bilingual education, they oppose any move to adopt English as our official language.  In other words, let's not assimilate illegal immigrants, let's make sure they stay segregated by virtue of their language.  I've always found the liberals' position on this subject to be at odds to their professed ideology of helping the poor and downtrodden.  Those of us who have lived in major metropolitan areas with large Hispanic populations can attest to the fact that huge numbers of illegal immigrants, thanks to misguided politicians, continue to live in their cozy enclaves where they can continue to speak their native language, have their kids educated in their native language and culture, watch their TV programs in their native language, take their driver's test in their native language, and vote on multi-lingual ballots.  There is little incentive for them to learn English, and they can navigate a lifetime in their insular world.  In short, the bilingual, no English route is a one-way ticket to a continued life of low income.   

McCain and the New York Times

What is going on with the New York Times?  They're citing anonymous sources for a page one story that John  McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight or nine years ago, maybe, but not real sure.  It's what they heard or at least they think they heard.  Then there is the the matter of the letter McCain sent to speed up an application that was pending before the FCC.  The FCC had only sat on the application for nearly three years.  Tsk, tsk.  Is the Times really this overtly stupid or is this a foreshadowing story to build interest for the big story, the one with some actual evidence? 

What's Driving the Obama Craze?

Obama may well win the presidency in November; he certainly seems to generating rock-star sized crowds.  Nearly everyone agrees that Americans of all parties are tired of  "politics as usual" in Washington, but why are they so willing to buy the proverbial "pig in a poke."   Obama is polished and well spoken, not unlike a Black JFK, and Obama tells Americans what they want to hear, mainly the word "change."   Third, he touts his simplistic message that he will bring the troops home from Iraq.  And, finally, Obama is promising an updated version of "a chicken in every pot," but this time he's promising a veritable smorgasbord of social programs and giveaways.  The truth is most voters are desperate to elect a leader who will actually change things in Washington, so they are willing to gamble everything on the off chance he might be their political messiah.  But, can we afford to shoot craps with so much at stake?

Obama's Numbers - Are they Real?

It appears Obama has scored another victory in Wisconsin, defeating Hillary by a decisive margin.  One has to wonder whether these Obama numbers will hold when he squares off against McCain in November.  Why?
It is well known that many people, Republican and Democrat, have a visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton.  Is it possible that some of these Obama wins were nothing more than a Democratic backlash to Hillary Clinton?  How many Republicans voted for Barak Obama and against Hillary Clinton in the cross-over primaries?   Will the voters who voted for Obama in the primaries vote for him in the general election?  Or, do Democrats perceive Obama as their 2008 political messiah?

Obama - Fainting

What's with all the fainting at Obama rallys?    An occasional incident of fainting is somewhat understandable, but, what, six or so?   The scenes of Obama directing the EMTs are reminiscent of an evangelist presiding over tent meetings.  Are these staged to show candidate Obama as Obama the Compassionate?  Or, are these merely a coincidence?

Obama - No Joke

An interesting thing is happening in the world of political humor.  I notice Jay Leno and other comedians have an over abundance of jokes about Hillary, Huckabee, and McCain.  However, they are strangely silent when it comes to making jokes about Obama.  Is it political bias?   Or is it the problem of doing a joke about an African-American without it sounding racial?