Gabriel Garnica
Democrats have distinction affliction
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Gabriel Garnica
September 28, 2010

It should surprise no one that Democrats have a blurred perception of distinctions. After all, I have always written and believed that that last thing Democrats want is for society to put on a good old pair of glasses so it can see what Democrats are really about. Simply put, Democrats embrace the blur, for it is their greatest ally.

One such distinction affliction suffered by Democrats involves the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. Apparently, it is very annoying for them to provide a clear description of whether a given immigrant has legally or illegally entered this country. Hence, the Arizona law aims to stop immigrants, not just illegal immigrants. Liberals will wail on about how this law is all about profiling and will make all immigrants targets of harassment forcing them to, for goodness sakes, actually carry around proof that they are legally in this country. Imagine having to carry some proof of legal residency in order to enjoy the incredible benefits and blessings of this country. How bothersome and abusive, right? Democrats blur this distinction because it looks really foolish to go around arguing that people who have done something illegal should be protected. Imagine marching for the rights of burglars or muggers; ok, you are right, I can imagine liberals doing that someday, but that is beside the point.

In fact, liberals conveniently blur the distinction between a person and his/her wrong whenever it is convenient as well. For example, the Columbia students who protested and stormed the stage during speeches by the Minutemen Project group carried signs saying " a person cannot be illegal" which, of course, is an imbecilic absurdity. Nobody is arguing that illegal immigrants are illegal human beings but, rather, that what they have done is illegal and should be stopped.

Another area where Democrats suffer from distinction affliction is between so-called moderate and extremist Muslims. It seems that most rational human beings would define moderate Muslims as those who support, defend, and practice their faith while respecting others' faiths and not trying to eradicate, murder, or terrorize those who refuse to convert to the Muslim faith and prefer to, oh my goodness, keep practicing their own. We can rightfully add to this description those who would answer any form of religious disrespect with peaceful protest and objection instead of mass violence and bloody revenge. By contrast, extremist Muslims would be those who go around cutting off people's heads, destroying buildings, murdering innocent people, and blowing things up because they are upset, offended, or simply want to wipe out anyone who has a slight problem with Muslim taking over the entire world. Those Muslims who financially or philosophically support such people would also be extremists. The argument for this latter point comes from the world of criminal law, where the guy who finances a bank robbery or drives the getaway car is considered a co-conspirator and guilty as well. This seems like a reasonable distinction to me, but Democrats have a little problem with this view as well.

Apparently, liberals define an extremist Muslim as one who kills and terrorizes without having a good reason for doing so. Since liberals think that 90% of the reasons such people harm others are legitimate, they spend most of their time rationalizing or even justifying these barbaric acts. Does anyone recall how liberal genius Rosie O'Donnell told us that terrorists have families too? Those who finance and support such people, by liberals' view, are moderate because, after all, they are not holding the knife or the detonator. Since liberals think a Muslim running down the street screaming "Down with the infidel U.S." is a moderate Muslim, one can plainly see why liberals think that most terrorists could star on a Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls.

Yet another distinction affliction suffered by Democrats occurs in the area of religious practice. Most liberals either directly persecute religious people or at least mock and patronize anyone who stands up for their faith by opposing any practice inconsistent with the true practice of that faith. Many liberals believe that religious people are idiots, ignorant, superstitious, or dangerous. They even use Matthew 6:6 which reads

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

to argue that religious people should hide somewhere and keep their religion to themselves.

It seems that liberals believe religion is like a birthmark on one's posterior which is a personal statement best concealed from public view. Given the statistics regarding liberals' church attendance, it is obvious that, for liberals, most religions are the equivalent of a cheap astrological belief most often practiced by the ignorant, unsophisticated, or intolerant. While most rational people would define religious practice by equally important private and public parameters, liberals have major problems with this distinction and basically see religious practice only from a private angle even as they reserve the right to publicly mock such practice. One need only look at media imbecile Bill Maher as an example of this convenient ignorance.

Although there are countless other examples of Democrats' distinction affliction, we will consider only one more in the interest of time, space, and sanity. Apparently, Democrats have real problems with the distinction between patriotic and unpatriotic Americans. Most of us would define patriotic Americans as those who passionately, consistently, publicly, and respectfully defend, support, promote and embody American history, traditions, contributions, and values as first expressed by our Founders, whose constant references in defense and honor of a religious national foundation are as plain as the smirk on liberals' faces.

Apparently, liberals define patriotic Americans as those who equate patriotism with apologizing to, cuddling, and even embracing our opponents and enemies. They define patriotism as shame, insubordination, and disloyalty to our great nation, its contributions, its history, and its values. For liberals, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Moore are patriots and Ahmadinejad and Chavez should be embraced by the leader of the United States whenever they take a vacation from spitting at, mocking, and threatening this country. In the end, liberal Democrats know about as much about patriotism as I know about communist cooking practices.

At the end of the day, Democrats either refuse to or are incapable of distinguishing between pretense and reality, treason and true service, corruption and ethical practice. Faced with the utter stupidity, foolishness, arrogance, and hypocrisy of most if not their positions, Democrats have chosen to lose their contacts, break their glasses, refuse laser surgery, get a seeing eye dog, and blindly lead the blind toward the cheese in the sky whose holes Democrats are also incapable of distinguishing.

© Gabriel Garnica

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)