Busting Myths of Liberal Media

And now for some random thoughts. Here are some liberal myths that need busting.

Right-wing protests and activist groups are more violent, racist, and intolerant
False. Tea Partiers and allied groups have had demonstrations, protests, and gatherings in every city across the country for over a year and the number of violent incidents is almost zero. In fact, there have been a couple instances of Tea Partiers being attacked by Union thugs as in St. Louis, as well as Black Panther and other groups actively trying to obstruct, disrupt or outright attack such movements.

The Oklahoma City bombing is often invoked as the consequences of letting right wing passions run high. In the last twenty years that is the only incident, and in that case McVeigh and Nichols acted alone without any support or validation from other groups. In fact, conservatives and the supposed "right-wingers" were among the most strident groups demanding justice. In every case of armed militia groups going off the deep end, conservatives never sympathize. The only sympathy they receive is when the government goes in heavy-handed and kills a good number of them as in Ruby Ridge and Waco (religious group in this case). Even, then most conservatives I know have very little sympathy for these types of groups.

Left-wing groups meanwhile have a more checkered past (Weather Underground for one). No bombings recently but - pro-illegal immigration groups attacked pro-rule of law demonstrations in Arizona not two weeks ago. In fact they are pushing hard for draconian efforts to punish Arizona for its passing of the law. In other states they are actively trying to obstruct business with Arizona, bordering on criminal. Radical environmentalists, socialists, and even some anarchists violently protested the WTO meetings in Seattle. Anti-war groups constantly disrupt public proceedings, block roads, protest military events, and even protest at military funerals.

Overall political violence in this country is very low, but a lot of it comes from the left wing, not the right.

Liberals still believe that conservatism is still dominated with groups that are intolerant, racist, and even violent towards those that oppose them. What they fail to see is that white supremacists have become so small and fringe, that they are not a part of the "right wing" anymore. They are radicals to conservatives. Liberals on the other hand are not always tolerant. Opposition to the liberal worldview is met with suspicions of racism, intolerance, and greed. Their blood begins to boil and they lash out at those that disagree with them. It is ironic, but in many cases liberals are the most intolerant of those with different beliefs and ideas.

It is difficult to enter this country legally, or its so complicated and takes so long that people have no choice but to cross the border illegally.
In 2009 alone roughly 700,000 immigrants became U.S. citizens including 110,000 from Mexico. At that rate, you could populate Chicago with nothing but newly naturalized citizens in four years. One has to ask, what number of immigrants and level of citizenship is appropriate or desirable? Should be we welcoming over 1 million per year? 2 million? Are our doors too narrow?

And why is it that we are so tolerant of illegal immigrants from Mexico only? Why is it that Mexico gets the opportunity to cross illegally in such a quick and easy manner? Those from China and other parts of Asia must spend the journey in cargo containers a lot of the time (when they are illegal) or worse. There are probably millions of Africans dying to come to this country as well. Why is it that Mexico gets the edge only because they are on our southern border?

How many people do you think would immigrate here and become citizens if given the opportunity? Two million a year? Three million a year?

The Time Square bomber was a lone wolf attacker, a novice, who decided to attack because he lost his home to foreclosure and was having difficulty in the economic recession
This is such bull shit I have a hard time responding. The bomber was born in Pakistan, had made several trips back home and probably had jihadist leanings well-before he lost his house. He married an American to become a citizen despite the fact he should've been on a watchlist for his visits to Pakistan and other evidence of a possible threat. In my mind, he is not an American, he is still Pakistani. I do not suggest any change in immigration law, but at the very least we should take a closer look at those who marry themselves into citizenship.

Many have lost their homes, jobs, or worse in this recession. To date, only one tried to bomb something. That person was of Pakistani descent, had made several visits there and clearly had some sort of tie to the Taliban. Even if he got no logistical support from the Taliban, he clearly wasn't just some nut living alone and going insane with anger and a desire to do violence.

I have no sympathy for this man, and if the liberal media wants to stop their downard spiral of TV ratings and circulation, they should try to keep their expressed sympathy for this human piece of shit to a minimum.

Conservatives and Republicans are greedy and selfish. That is why they are opposed to social programs, equal protection, and social justice.
Statistically Republicans give more to charity in both absolute terms and relative terms (per capita). And it is not because Republicans are rich. Statistically Republicans and Democrats average roughly the same in terms of salary and personal wealth. That is changing, as a portion of the Middle Class is starting to leave the Democratic Party and become independents thus moving the Democratic number downward.

To the conservative, wealth is created, it is not a static number or overall amount. If that were true then we are all greedy for desiring to protect the piece of wealth we currently control. We are also greedy for wanting to expand our piece whenever possible, as we all do. Any attempt to increase the size of our piece of the pie must in effect be taking from someone else. This theory is false.

Wealth in general is not a static thing. Our economy was $6 trillion in 1993, it is now $14 trillion. Wealth is created, it expands. Conservatives want the opportunity to create as much as possible, not "take" it from another source. Those who want to take it from others are not capitalists, socialists or any other label - they are the ones that are truly selfish, greedy, and dangerous. But those are not ideologues, they are the opposite, they have no principles at all and therefore could be anywhere on the cultural spectrum or more likely they have no strong feelings either way. They just want what isn't theres.

Illegal Immigration: Discuss without Fear

Immigration is a subject that caused the most heated discussions during my time in law school. It was surprising to me. I thought it would be abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, torture, or maybe gun control but no it was illegal immigration.

Liberals are unable to argue rationally on the issue. They get angry and almost immediately start throwing out personal insults, allegations of racism, and all sorts of other things. Voices get elevated, heart rates jump, and beads of sweat begin to form, and many times it is on white faces. For one to resort to personal attacks so quickly in a debate should be a sure sign of weakness. And in this case it most definitely is.

We want to stop criminals, undocumented workers, and potential terrorists crossing into the United States BUT we want documented workers, skilled laborers, and a steady flow of new citizens into the country. So how do we do both?

The conservative/legalist argument is that it is pointless to reform immigration law before we restore security at the border first. They want to close up the border with a fence and strict enforcement of immigration laws, with a clear documented record of who is coming in and who is leaving. Within the United States, they want illegal immigrants deported. Problem is there are probably anywhere from 12-15 million of them here already, many that have been here for years.

Another more mixed conservative proposal is to secure the border THEN decide what to do with those already here. In this case, they don't want mass deportations, rounding up of individuals. They are willing to listen to pathway to citizenship but will NOT grant amnesty. the legalists will not grant amnesty or offer any path to citizenship that does not require them to jump through all sorts of hoops and in many cases go home.

Moderates want to secure the border, create a path to citizenship, and really thats it. So they want a secure border and essentially amnesty. In this debate there are probably very few moderates.

The liberal will not secure the border until we have a clear path to citizenship, amnesty for those already here, and equal protection of those that came here illegally with those that come here legally.

Which of the four positions stops the criminal element from entering the United States? all of them except the liberal proposal.

Which of the four positions provides a means of discerning the criminal from the non-criminal immigrants (productive from nonproductive immigrants)? The two conservative proposals.

Which of the four positions provides a path to citizenship to immigrants that are already here? All four.

Wait a minute? You mean those crazy right-wing racists want a path to citizenship? Yes they do. It would not be easy and millions would likely have to leave under their plan. It requires paying a fine, paying back-taxes, becoming registered, learning English, and proving that they have no criminal record here or in Mexico. If they just got here, they would probably not have this option, they would probably have to leave. In addition, they would want the federal government to strictly control the flow of immigrants from this point forward to ensure we are receiving only productive new members of America.

Here is what offends a lot of people. hardliners would want those illegal immigrants who do not do all the above to be deported. That number could be quite large.

I believe the hardliner position is actually rational, except for the active effort to deport illegal immigrants. We should not focus law enforcement efforts in rooting out illegals but rooting out the reasons they come here, unscrupulous employers that have no problem hiring illegals and paying them sub-minimum wage. I also believe people should be given a fair chance to stay here, earn a living, and become a citizen. No Amnesty, but lets not make it impossible for a hard-working immigrant to get it done.

What is happening in Arizona? Self-defense. Arizona is not making a statement on what to do with illegals. What they are saying is that the lack of immigration enforcement or a reformed policy has led to an explosion of crime on the border. It is a situation they can no longer tolerate and are hence authorizing state police to do what the federal government will not do.

Arizona should not be doing this, but they were forced into a corner. What should happen is the federal government stop being cowards and actually agree on illegal immigration reform. At that point, the Arizona Law should be repealed.

I believe illegal immigration is stalled because of a giant electoral "boogey" man that does not exist. Somehow politicians fear a massive backlash from Hispanic voters if they support a strict or tough immigration policy. I do not believe that to be true. First, illegal immigrants do not vote and neither do their families. those that did come here illegally and were either granted amnesty in the 80s or have become citizens some other way since then will certainly not like the new law but I don't they have such large numbers, nor vote reliably.

What about those that came here legally? There is no compelling evidence that legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens strongly oppose tough immigration policy. The demonstrations are large and sometimes violent as it was in Arizona the other day, but one must ask: how many demonstrating are illegal immigrants? In other words, what portion of those protests were from non-citizens?

It is nothing more than a boogey man that moderates and conservatives must ignore. The majority of this country does not want amnesty, and they want the border secured. Go with that and you will not face this shadowy backlash from the electorate.

This situation needs to be solved. We are in such dire economic condition, we cannot help neighboring countries deal with their poor and unemployed until we can deal with our own.