The Left’s Blur

by GABRIEL GARNICA, ESQ. June 7, 2012

As someone who once suffered from extreme nearsightedness and astigmatism, had laser surgery and now, after nearly 15 years, beginning to relapse into some blur once again, I know a thing or two about blur.  The dictionary defines blur as the condition of being indistinct, hazy, or obscure. Most of the time, normal people try to avoid blur, so they wear glasses or have surgery to correct it.  Most of the time, we would be suspicious of anyone who favored this condition, wondering why anyone in his or her right mind would want to perceive things in such a state. In fact, we might even wonder if said person was insane or simply hiding something.

One of the Left's favorite tags is profiling, which it defines as the unfair habit of lumping people together based on some biased and sweeping notion that members of a given group are "all alike". The Left preaches that profiling is wrong, intolerant, evil, dangerous, and its ever-popular accusation, hateful. While it is certainly true that lumping people together without any rational justification is wrong and harmful, communicating distinctions inherent to specific, relevant traits and facts in relation to a specific situation or action is not only not wrong but, actually, useful. 

For example, while it is obviously wrong to assume that a bank robber is Hispanic without any evidence thereof ( bias), it is useful to communicate that, in fact, the person who happened to rob the bank on First Avenue and Norton Blvd today at 3pm was Hispanic, for the sole purpose of helping authorities find said person. This, along with that person's physical characteristics and what he was wearing, for example, would and should be legitimate examples of acceptable profiling. Profiling is also used in constructing a composite representation, visual or psychological, of a targeted person.

The Left will argue that the above examples are not examples of profiling because profiling occurs when generalizations and assumptions are made about a person or a group of persons based on biases and subjective perceptions of that group. However, that definition of profiling is only its latest, politically hijacked version. The original meaning of the world profiling is to outline or represent something or someone. We must remember that the Left loves to hijack and twist words for its purposes and agenda, and this is no exception.

Despite its distaste for lumping people together, however, the Left conveniently does the very same thing when convenient to that very same agenda. For example, the Left will lump legal and illegal immigrants together and call illegal immigration issues "immigration" issues to expand, manipulate, and frame the debate on its terms and for its benefit.  As a proud and legal immigrant, I resent this form of profiling by the Left, as it actually increases discrimination against all immigrants in the long run by encouraging anti-immigration people to blame all immigrants for the actions of illegal ones. Without getting into the whole separate issue of whether illegal immigrants should be called "undocumented", it is clear and obvious that the media tends to use the term "immigration" as synonymous with illegal immigration because this form of profiling happens to favor its biased political agenda.

Similarly, we find that Left will be critical of any efforts to categorize, arrange, or describe various groups as potential terrorists yet, whenever it is convenient or practical, as it often is, these same members of the Left will call religious people terrorists for daring to proclaim and defend their beliefs and conscience. In the first instance, the Left will argue that such profiling is both unacceptable and evil.  In the latter case, however, that same Left will applaud and agree with the characterization of such religious groups as terrorists. Thus, we once again see that the Left blurs the distinctions between most religious groups and radical Islamic extremists who actively and aggressively seek the destruction of America. We also see how the Left conveniently blurs the distinction between criminals and their background, conveniently ignoring any mention or reference to said criminals' racial and cultural background lest prejudice set in.

Likewise, we see how the Left blurs the distinction between women who agree with their positions and those who do not, recently wailing incessantly about the so-called Right-Wing War on Women despite the fact that most and increasing numbers of women do not believe that such a wide-scale assault against women's rights and agenda actually exists. Why bother with statistics and polls which show that their Right-Wing War on Women is not legitimized nor accepted by most Americans including the very women the Left pretends to be defending when one has bigger fish, conservative fish to fry. 

On the other hand, that same Left will fling the most vile accusations, mockery, and slanders specifically against conservative women such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Backman, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Romney, clearly targeting and distinguishing between such women and their liberal counterparts.  Simply put, the Left will blur distinctions between women when convenient yet profile and target any distinctions between women it finds useful to its agenda.

Finally, and most harmfully, the Left will blur the distinction between this great nation and the numerous nations that seek to emulate it. It will blur this country's great accomplishments and people and tacitly condone race-baiters and radicals whose hatred for this country is palpable. Thus, we repeatedly and consistently see how the Left's blur is selective, tending to increase when convenient and decrease as practical as well.

As discussed above, a blur intentionally manipulated to further one's radical agenda is pure hypocrisy, cowardice, and fraud. The Left stands as the epitome of such intentional blur, incessantly and annoyingly hiding behind its blurred perception of the world while pretending to champion carefully selected and targeted groups. The irony is both delicious and despicable.

Gabriel Garnica, J.D., M.S. Ed., is a college professor and licensed attorney whose regular commentary also appears on New, The Daley Times-Post, and Michnews. He holds a law degree from New York University and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from St. John’s University in New York.

blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary

More in Politics ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )