How a whole month proved crazy

HERE WE GO GATHERING
NUTCASES IN MAY, 2007


I lately heard audio of the fanatical atheist Christopher Hitchens
claiming that the late Jerry Falwell was a crook, "sniggering over
what he got away with." He was saying this because he _wanted_ it
to be true, in total disregard of the fact that people as far removed
from Falwell's positions as Jesse Jackson have borne witness that
Dr. Falwell's personal character was actually upright and exemplary.
A rank-and-file supporter of Hitchens called the Michael Medved
program with a dazzling bit of originality: comparing Dr. Falwell to
Benito Mussolini instead of the usual Hitler. This radio caller's
profound argument was that Dr. Falwell expressing his views in
_words_ was exactly the same as Mussolini ordering executions
and helping to enslave Europe and North Africa. Why, of course
it's the same; we've all heard how many people get shot to death
by 45-caliber words and rocket-propelled editorials!

Hitchens flung his mud more broadly, calling all evangelists
"pickpockets" because they accept _voluntary_ donations. But
naturally, the hard left has no objection to a central government
TAKING our money by FORCE.

The month of May 2007 has been a fertile spring not only for
Christian-bashing, but also for bashing the Western civilization
that grew from Christianity. On a public-radio program--ironically
originating from American University--a leftwing historian was
interviewed about his book, which claims that the United States
trying to enforce its vital interests AT ALL is the same thing as
the Roman Empire conquering, possessing and enslaving other
nations. In the same vein, I listened to a "special broadcast" of
"The Prairie Home Companion," in which Randy Newman, another
devout mocker of all faith, sang a politically-correct ballad of highly
selective moral indignation titled "Great Nations Of Europe Coming
Through," finding and magnifying every possible fault of European
colonization of the Western Hemisphere. He gave not the slightest
acknowledgement of all the slavery, human sacrifice, and even
cannibalism that were practiced against Native Americans BY
OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS before Columbus ever sailed,
nor the fact that Hernan Cortez was SUPPORTED BY INDIANS
because the regime he brought COULD NOT be any worse than
what the Aztecs were inflicting on Mexico.

Speaking of Mexico and issues relating thereto:

Geraldo Rivera offered a splendid example of cognitive deficit,
and also of the fact that the FoxNews Channel is NOT guilty of
hiring only conservative talent, or indeed even only truthful talent.
In keeping with his pet cause of removing absolutely all restriction
or control over immigration to the United States, Rivera set up a
tearjerker interview with a Haitian man who was (cue violins to
play) going to be deported from this country. The Haitian openly
_admitted_ to Rivera that he had spent eleven years in prison for
narcotics dealing; but Rivera made himself not hear this, and with
a straight face described the jailbird as "doing nothing but good"
for all his years in America!

Also in this month of May, not for the first or second time, George
Bush has embarrassed the conservatives who voted for him--
by being as willfully blind as Geraldo Rivera to the truth about
the illegal-invasion crisis. Mr. Bush, for one thing, showed support
for allowing untrained Mexican drivers, in Mexican semitrailer
trucks that have _not_ passed meaningful safety inspections, to
have unrestricted access to U.S. highways. And if there's anyone
remaining in the Western Hemisphere who thought that John
McCain was a conservative, his lockstep dance with Teddy
Kennedy on amnesty legislation surely will have dispelled
this delusion.

Meanwhile, Democrat ambulance-chaser John Edwards gave a
speech about compassion for the poor...and was paid more than
fifty thousand dollars for giving that one speech!

There has been so much politically-correct lunacy this May,
that I just can't remember all the examples as I sit here typing.
But perhaps the most irritating single piece of nonsense was in
the border-violation connection again. It appeared in a newspaper
photo of a march protesting against enforcement of America's
national sovereignty. A big banner was being displayed which
read: "NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL."

Okay, let's examine that. As on so many other occasions, the
emotional flailing conceals a line of reasoning that's full of holes.

Given the immigration context, in which American patriots are
objecting to foreigners wanting to consume our nation's benefits
without giving any loyalty to our society, that banner is telling us
that our objecting TO AN ILLEGAL ACTION is one and the
same thing as declaring that the person doing the illegal action
is in some abstract way _entirely_ illegal as a person by nature.
(A political version of Total Depravity doctrine?) Any opposition
to what the poor little border-jumpers do (including if the border-
jumpers are members of the homicidal Mara Salvatrucha gang)
is the same as invalidating their personhood, which is bigotry.
Once again, therefore, the liberal way of thinking decides that
the only crime is to oppose crime.

But if calling criminals criminals is a crime, _every_ illegal
deed has to get a free pass. If I had been a psychotic murderer
on the scene of that protest march, and if I had begun throwing
firebombs into the middle of the dense (in more than one sense)
crowd, BY THEIR OWN LOGIC, they would have had NO right
to raise any objection to my action--because calling my _action_
illegal would, by their own logic, be calling my very _personhood_
illegal, and we know that no human being is illegal.

I guess there's a certain comfort in the marchers' reasoning. Or
should I say, a certain comfort food? The blank-check approach
to morality certainly is convenient for Mexican border-jumpers
who, enroute into El Norte, kill and eat the cattle of border-state
ranchers, then move on, leaving piles of garbage and feces at
their picnic sites.

But through that sewage smell there wafts a hopeful breath of
sociopolitical fresh air. In Hazelton, Pennsylvania, something
happened that I don't think has _ever_ happened before in the
United States: _both_ Democrats and Republicans nominated
ONE AND THE SAME PERSON as their candidate for mayor!
That man was the incumbent Republican mayor of Hazelton, who
has been courageously resisting the takeover of his town by the
growing influx of illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate to United
States culture. Democrats in Hazelton had gotten just as fed up
as their Republican neighbors, and so they WROTE IN their
mayor as _their_ candidate also!

Take note, all you red-state rednecks who've been told that
you are being racists if you don't like American hospitals going
bankrupt from giving free medical care to swarms of parasitical
border-jumpers: it IS possible to resist. If they keep calling you
white supremacists, let me know, and I'll gladly tell them about
my efforts to assist a _Chinese_ legal-immigrant couple (who
are so uncool as to want to be _loyal_ United States citizens).
We could even revise an old hippie-era slogan to say something
like, "SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A RECONQUISTA AND
NOBODY CAME?"



--- JOSEPH RICHARD RAVITTS