Word Police

Washington State has taken another step in its effort to out-nanny New York State. The word police are out in full force to make sure the state legislature becomes totally gender neutral. Words such as “fireman” and “policeman” were found to be offensive and banned from the legislature as far back as 1983, but that was not enough.

In this latest effort, terribly offensive words such as “freshman” and “watchmen” have been eliminated, protecting all from serious injury. However, new ground is being broken with the elimination of not-so-obviously offensive words such as “penmanship”.

How could we have survived so long being bombarded by these harmful words? We are finally coming out of the semantic Dark Ages that have been “keeping our legal terms anachronistic” and replacing them with neutered words that “respect our current contemporary times”.  It’s a shame our intelligence doesn’t get such respect.

Liz Watson, a National Women’s Law Center senior adviser, tells us: “Words matter…This is important in changing hearts and minds.” Ahhh…”changing hearts and minds” – how quaint – or should we say anachronistic?

In an attempt at preventing the word police from banging down your door, it would be wise to refrain from using several other words that may soon be found to be offensive: mandolin, Mandella, German, humane, mention, manager, and so many (oops, there’s another one) more. The list is endless and it may become necessary to hire more word police, but that would at least help lower unemployment.

One has to wonder, though, why “mandate” is not yet on the list since it’s already been replaced with “tax” by the Supreme Court.

David J. Hentosh

Spinning the Boston Bombing

The Washington Post wants us to believe that we are incapable of coming to grips with the Boston bombers because they “don’t neatly fit into pre-existing boxes”. Since they are not dark skinned, our limited brains cannot connect any dots. Race being an obsession of the left, it is the yardstick all are expected to use – for everything.

Also, the fact that the bombing brothers had Muslim affiliations is to be overlooked. Had the brothers been Christians, their religion would certainly have been fair game, but we are to make nothing of their association with a “religion of peace”. As an Atlantic headline chastised all: “The Boston Bombers Were Muslims. So?”

Had the brothers been the first or only Muslims to use terror and random murder for their “cause”, one might agree with the Atlantic. However, only blind, foolish adherence to an agenda allows someone to embrace pretense rather than the reality that another terrorist attack has been perpetrated by Muslims; not Buddhists, Christians, Jews or Scientologists.

The far left’s severe disappointment that the bombing brothers are not white, right-wing, anti-Obama fanatics is being compensated with accusations that “we” are the ones somehow in the wrong. Let down again by their failing idealism, they are spinning as fast as they can to validate an agenda dependent upon denial.

Chris Matthews, a hard core liberal, jumped the gun wondering if Tax Day was a motivation while planting the idea (wish?) that domestic terrorists always come from the right. Once it became known the bombers were Muslims, he spun around and wondered why it was necessary to find out the reason they did it. He not only wants to deny the truth, he wants to bury it to keep his dream alive.

The Obama administration has presented a false sense of security for political gain. Obama’s drone war in a far-away land allows him to pretend he has defeated terrorism. Terrorist threats on US soil are a political liability that shatter the illusion and interfere with his “transformation of America”.

The spin starts at the top.

David J. Hentosh

Ignoring the Law

Obama’s directives for the non-enforcement of immigration laws legitimized disrespect for the law. His continuing skirting of rules, laws, and regulations with executive orders and political maneuvering has displayed an arrogant disregard for the rule of law and has been a top-down example many are following.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano emulated Obama and blatantly ignored the law by issuing a memo offering a deferred action and employment authorization to illegal aliens which was part of the Dream Act that Congress refused to pass.

Deportation of non-citizens who commit crimes has been ignored under the current push for amnesty for all. This type of non-legal amnesty is being expanded and enforced more than current immigration laws, putting society at risk. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the dead terrorist who bombed the Boston marathon, is the latest example of someone who should have been deported (having been convicted of domestic violence) but was not.

The Northern District of Illinois has the lowest firearm prosecution rate of all federal court districts while Chicago, residing in that district, has one of the highest rates of gun-related murders. The cry for more gun laws continues, but current gun laws are not being enforced. They are being ignored.

In Denver, a publically announced and planned rally celebrating marijuana, which is still illegal to smoke in public, was held. Allowing (and ignoring) 80,000 people to openly break the law is a slap in the face to the rule of law. What signal does this send to our children? How can respect for the law survive?

Laws are to be followed, enforced, altered, or removed, but they should never be ignored. Judges may have discretionary powers when enforcing the law, but they have no right to ignore laws or make up new ones; nor does the president. Unfortunately, the example has been set and consequences are sure to come. Don’t be surprised when the hit.

David J. Hentosh

Here Comes the Immigration Reform Farce

A bipartisan group of senators is ready to put forth a so-called “broad” immigration bill that is nothing but a farce. In today’s skewed political climate, “bipartisan” is only mentioned when conservatives cave in to the loud, shrill demands of the left. If a liberal moves to the right, he is called a traitor, a racist, or much worse, but never “bipartisan”.

Amnesty, the only goal of progressives’ immigration reform, is on the way. The “bipartisan” demand to secure the borders first, an absolute necessity before real immigration reform can begin, was given lip service and then watered-down to appease the “bipartisan” senators who will now pretend they fought hard for, and won, a working compromise.

The bill allows ten years of planning and/or securing the borders before any real impediment to citizenship can be put into place for failing to comply. Meanwhile, a path to citizenship for illegals will begin immediately with nothing to stop it from morphing into full-blown amnesty. In the span of ten years with little border security, that “path” to citizenship will become a fully paved, toll-free, four-lane, busy highway.

True comprehensive immigration reform is impossible until the borders are secure. Therefore, other immigration reforms will not even become a topic for discussion. One of those other reforms in need of addressing is assimilation.

According to a Hudson Institute’s comparison study of native-born to naturalized American citizens, native-born Americans are: 30% more likely to consider themselves American rather than citizens of the world; 30% more likely to believe the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law; 31% more likely to believe schools should focus on American citizenship rather than ethnic pride; and 23% more likely to believe all citizens understand English.

Assimilation allowed the US to become a successful “melting pot” never before seen in the history of the world. We have become a less cohesive society the more we have ignored the importance of assimilation. We can’t realistically address this or other reforms until the borders are secure. This latest bill is a farce, reforms nothing, and opens the door to chaos.

David J. Hentosh

Putting the Cat Back in the Bag

Once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, it is next to impossible to get it back in. So it has been with laws. Once on the books, it has been very, very hard to get a law repealed unless, that is, repeal dovetails with the progressive agenda.

Colorado is set to erase the crime of adultery from its books in order to “keep the government out of people’s bedrooms” and because the law is “archaic”. It seems we are to ignore that the government has already been in our bedrooms forcing health insurers to pay for abortions and provide free contraception. As long as the government is watering-down morality, bedroom intrusion is acceptable.

The traditional family unit is no longer considered as important as self-gratification. Adultery, divorce, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and open marriage have not only become acceptable, they are often being advocated. An entire generation has been raised with a low regard for the family unit and are left with no cornerstone for building the future.

Obamacare was passed hastily in order to satisfy Obama’s personal desire for universal health care. He did not read or understand the bill beforehand and didn’t care how damaging it could be as long as it was passed. Unfortunately, it will now be very difficult to get any of it changed or repealed. The common good was neglected in order to benefit 10% of the population – and there is no going back.

Gun control and immigration reform are the current cats being let out of the bag. Both require a serious and impartial analysis of consequences, but both will be handled by knee-jerk, emotional legislation instead. Years from now, there will be a lot of consternation as legislators try to repeal thE soon-to-be hastily passed laws. They will chase those cats for a long time but they will never get them back in the bag.

David J. Hentosh

40 Years After Vietnam

The last US combat troops left Vietnam forty years ago on March 29, 1973. This was a result of a so-called “peace agreement” signed in Paris, but no peace occurred in South Vietnam. In fact, the ensuing year after the agreement was more deadly in South Vietnam than any year of the war.  That’s because the US wanted out of Vietnam, cared little about consequences, and declared “peace with honor” by signing an agreement everyone knew would not be honored by North Vietnam.

The US abandoned South Vietnam; much like it is abandoning Iraq and, eventually, will abandon Afghanistan (the “good” war). That is the lesson we learned from the Vietnam War. Declaring a politically incorrect war to be over is as good as a victory if it can be “sold” to the public as a win. That has now been expanded to simply declaring the economy to be fine, declaring the deficit to be no problem, declaring contraception to be a right, or declaring that the rich pay no taxes. Ideology trumps all.

One’s opinion of the Vietnam War is irrelevant to the issue of abandonment. A commitment was made to South Vietnam as part of the “peace agreement” to provide assistance if North Vietnam continued aggression, but a Democrat-controlled Congress refused that assistance when it quickly became needed. The US blatantly reneged on its commitment, abandoning South Vietnam to a total collapse and slaughter – because of ideology.

With war comes a responsibility, regardless of the reasons for the war. One should enter into war with clear goals and to win, or don’t enter into it at all. Allowing changing social mores, public opinion, or ideology to override responsibility or dictate rules of engagement is wrong. A “humane” war is an oxymoron and a losing strategy. War is hell, and hell should be entered only with good reason and traversed through as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Forty years after Vietnam, we have still not learned. Our enemies, on the other hand, learned well: Stick it out long enough and the US will tire and retreat. Where is the honor in that?

David J. Hentosh

Our Disabled Country

According to a January article in Forbes, 5.9 million people have been added to the Social Security Disability program (SSDI) since 2009 while only 2.5 million jobs were created during the same period. One in fourteen workers are now on the SSDI dole costing taxpayers $128.9 billion in 2011, and the program is carrying a deficit of $25.3 billion.

A recent investigation found that the federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled workers than it does on food stamps and welfare combined. Since disabled workers are not counted in unemployment figures, the full extent of the erosion of the American workforce ends up hidden from the public.

It should come as no surprise that the increasing number of disabled coincides with an increase in qualifying conditions for disability. Some of these conditions have been watered-down enough to include almost anyone willing to go through the process. The investigation found that 33.8% of the newly diagnosed disabled cited “back pain and other musculoskeletal problems”, difficult conditions to disprove.

Some qualifying mental conditions called “Affective Disorders” seem to rely on a self-diagnosis. These include such things as: decreased energy, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbance, difficulties maintaining social functioning, and marked difficulties maintaining concentration. A doctor needs to sign off on these conditions but has to rely on the word of the patient for verification.

Obviously, the program is ripe for fraud and, consequently, it is rife with fraud. Getting around the system is easy and many alcoholics and drug addicts (conditions which do not qualify for SSDI) find a way in, as do many others. The possibility of receiving up to $1100 a month makes it attractive to those having menial, low paying jobs, especially since free Medicare comes as a bonus after two years on the disability rolls.

The American work ethic is dying and the “system” continues to assist in its death. What was once a ‘safety net’ has become ‘money for nothing’ because of progressive tendencies that put the individual above the common good. The continuous expansion of government assistance programs is occurring with no foresight or oversight and it needs to stop before the entire country becomes disabled.

David J. Hentosh

Reagan Was Right – Again

As a result of North Korea rattling its nuclear sword with long range missile tests and development of a mobile launcher, Obama reluctantly reversed his decision to freeze the Alaskan missile defense system and allowed ground-based missile interceptors to be deployed. By doing so, Obama inadvertently pays homage to Ronald Reagan’s SDI initiative.

Thirty years ago, Reagan was demonized and ridiculed for his “evil empire” speech against the Soviet Union and his idea of a missile defense initiative (SDI). It was sneeringly labeled “Star Wars” by Sen. Ted Kennedy who had no such ridicule when President John F. Kennedy pushed the limits of technology by calling for a man on the moon in less than a decade. Technology is only embraced by liberals when it fits their political ideology.

Both George H. and George W. Bush kept SDI alive while in the White House. Bill Clinton, supposedly a far-thinking president, pointedly ignored it as best he could. Obama is only allowing interceptors because North Korean missiles may now have the capability of hitting the west coast of the US. His foreign policy with North Korea and Iran failed to stop or limit their nuclear aggression and threats can no longer be ignored.

Obama’s distaste for SDI was evident when he cancelled the anti-missile system that was scheduled for deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic as a defense against potential Iranian missiles. Obama caved to the Russian complaint (fear?) against a system that could neutralize Russian intercontinental missiles, as if defending against them was an act of aggression. Consequently, Iran’s continued development of a nuclear missile poses a threat that could have been, but won’t be, defended against.

Obama cancelled several other missile defense programs, causing us to fall behind in that technology at a time when the threat of a rogue nuclear missile is increasing. Once again, Obama’s “fundamental transformation” is proving to be out of touch with reality and dangerous to the welfare of the country. If he finishes stripping us down to the defense level of other European countries, where will we and the free world turn for protection? Reagan instinctively understood.

David J. Hentosh

Expanding Torture

The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, is trying to take human rights to a level that will interest far left progressives and stun those who are more reasonable. He is attempting to define certain medical actions and omissions along with some national policies as “torture”.

Specifically, Mendez zeroes in on abortion, wanting us to believe “…restrictions on access to abortion and about absolute abortion bans as violating the prohibition on torture and ill treatment.”  Mendez even suggests that denying prenatal testing could be considered torture because it “is imperative to a woman’s ability to exercise reproductive autonomy”.

Mendez takes his idea to an even more absurd level by considering prostitutes (“sex workers”) or anyone else to be tortured when required to undergo mandatory HIV testing. Furthermore, he considers drug addicts being tortured when deprived of parental rights because of drug use. One can easily imagine where he stands on Mumia Abu-Jamal.

This removes water boarding as the prominent torture controversy and, intended or not, labels the pro-life movement a crime against humanity. Equating the abortion issue with slavery no longer seems as ridiculous in comparison, but one can expect that the so-called “pro-choice” crowd will embrace it.

The UN will take this seriously but, thankfully, fewer and fewer people take the UN seriously. The international community, however, may embrace such an idea in its quest for a universal government that can legislate all nations down, or up, to an equal level. That, certainly, is desirable with progressives in the US, so don’t be surprised if this idea begins to grow legs. It is dumb enough to become popular.

David J. Hentosh

Pre-writing History

Repetition, repetition, repetition – It is the method being used by the left to forge public perception and pre-write history. The bombardment of false perceptions has taken root in many, and future historians may not be able to discern the truth. The squeaky wheel of the left may get the historians’ grease.

According to the progressive left (including, of course, the media): Dick Cheney is evil; the GOP is racist; the rich pay no taxes; Bush wrecked the economy; the Catholic Church promotes pedophilia; Obama has superior intelligence; the US is the most terroristic nation in the world; socialism works well; Castro is an humanitarian; there is no deficit problem; taxing the rich for their “fair share” will solve the deficit problem; limiting abortion is a war on women; Obamacare costs less; etc., etc.

The list goes on and on, with reality never making an appearance. Yet, these things are accepted by a lot of people, and they vote, sometimes more than once. Obama was elected, then re-elected, by an overflow of uninformed voters inundated with talking points from the media, celebrities, and progressive politicians. Nothing negative was attributed to Obama and, consequently, may not appear in future history books, either.

Before thinking this is too pessimistic, look at how many in the GOP have panicked and are now abandoning conservative principles in an effort to become “relevant” with what they perceive to be a progressive majority. They see the writing on the wall as: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. For them, abortion is losing its ugliness, immigration reform is beginning to sound like amnesty, same-sex marriage suddenly appeared in the Constitution exactly where the right to bear arms disappeared, social issues are becoming the government’s main responsibility, and Obamacare is beginning to look cheap at twice the original estimate.

If the Republican Party caves, only one, distorted view of history will survive and it is currently being written. Historians will have to drink the Kool-Aid because it may be the only drink available.

David J. Hentosh