In Defense of an American Icon’s Decision

When I started writing articles, I never thought I'd actually be writing a serious column about a fictional comic book superhero, but this has garnered so much attention, I couldn't help but put my two cents in.

Personally, I'm not a huge Superman fan. I was always into more "realistic" comic heroes (if you can call them that) such as Wolverine, The Punisher, Batman and Iron Man, superheroes nowhere near as powerful as Superman, but that was their appeal to me. Three of the ones I named don't even have any powers and need to rely on their high-tech gadgets, their wits and combat skills to fight crime. Superman was just too powerful for my liking.

That being said, there's no denying the "Man of Steel's" iconic stature in America. It's hard for me to not kind of like a guy who sets such high standards and morals for himself... he's like the ultimate boy scout, even if he does come across as a bit "goody two shoes" at times.

Few comic book heroes have embraced good-old American values and morals like Superman has, which is why it is such a shock for many of his fans when he announced in "Action Comics #900" that he was appearing before the U.N. to "renounce his U.S. citizenship".

Blogs, websites and especially conservative talk radio programs (and I imagine some liberal ones as well) have been having reactions ranging from disappointment to outrage over his decision since the news came out, claiming that Superman has become too "politically correct" or has even "turned his back on America". Some have even resorted to pointing out that Superman is an "illegal alien", since he neither legally entered the United States, nor was he officially adopted by the Kents (as if anyone could reasonably explain to the authorities how they found a super-powered alien kid in a spaceship on their front lawn).

Funny how no one seemed to really care about that until now.

I've listened to quite a bit of talk radio over the years, and while for the most part the hosts of the ones I listen to tend to be well-informed on political matters, I'll admit that they don't always get the story right, especially if it's a story that's just recently been broken.

So I was a little skeptical as I listened to the story as it aired on 3 different conservative talk radio programs yesterday. Experience has taught me that there is almost always more to a breaking story than what's being told, so I decided to look into it myself. Surely a beloved American icon like Superman didn't really just suddenly turn his back on America and "gone global"?

While it's true that he has announced his intention to go before the United Nations and renounce his citizenship, it's not for the reasons many are speculating on; he hasn't become more "PC" or anti-American as conservatives seem to think, nor is it because he no longer believes in "outdated" American values and principals and has become enlightened in "global thinking" as the liberals will likely claim.

It stems from the storyline called "The Incident", in which he flew to Iran to show his support for the citizens who were protesting against the Iranian regime (most superhero comics tend to tie their stories into actual events). He didn't say anything, he didn't beat anyone up... he simply made his presence known to the Iranians so that they knew that they weren't alone against a brutal regime. The demonstration ended peacefully, likely because of his presence.

To no one's surprise, the Iranian regime immediately accused Superman of acting on behalf of the U.S. President, turning his show of solidarity with the demonstrating Iranians into an international incident, and a perceived act of war.

In frustration, Superman informed the national security advisor that he intends to go before the United Nations and "renounce his American citizenship".

"I'm tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy" he proclaims. "'Truth, justice and the American way'... it's not enough anymore".



"The world is too small... too connected."

Unfortunately, many critics see this as Superman abandoning America; I don't feel that's the case. To me, it seems that he doesn't want the United States being blamed for just doing what he does outside of the country, nor does he want to be considered "under the thumb" of the U.S. government.

Think about this for a second...

Remember the actual protests that occurred in Iran a few months back, when students pushing for democracy held demonstrations all over the country against Ahmadinejhad? What did President Obama do? Other than some basic lip service that meant nothing, he didn't once show any solidarity to the students who were pushing for democratic reform in Iran. Instead, he simply said the violence against the students "concerned him", but he also assured Ahmadinejhad that they could still do business once the protests were over. At least Superman tried to show some real support. The thought of one like President Obama sending Superman to show his support to the Iranian students is laughable when you think about it.

Considering him and the rest of the buffoons that currently run the White House administration and the congress, would you want to be represented by them? Can you really blame the guy if he doesn't want to be mistaken as a representative of the U.S. government? Would you, as Superman, want Americans who despite your technical "illegal" status by and large embraced you, to be the scapegoats for any actions you perform outside the country that would anger a foreign dictator?

The way I see it, Superman is giving up his citizenship not to abandon America, but to protect it. It's not so much a renouncement as it is a sacrifice, even if I don't think that action is really necessary.

Maybe he should've just put a disclaimer on his Facebook page or something... "The actions and/or statements of Superman are strictly his own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government or the United States of America in general."

Anyway, this isn't a done deal yet, at least not to my knowledge. Maybe he'll think better of it. Maybe he'll change his mind after a few issues and thinks of a better way. This is the world of comics... anything can happen.

If Superman can be killed by some freak named "Doomsday", then brought back to life later, I don't think requesting his citizenship back would be too much of a stretch.

So relax, all you comic geeks and talking heads. Superman still embodies the best of America. He has not abandoned us, nor is he embracing any countries' values but ours... he's just expanding his options and operations outside of America. It's not that unbelievable.

We are talking about a guy who can fly so fast that he can reverse the earth's rotation, after all.

Links:

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship: Wyndham Wyeth, Paste Magazine, 04/29/2011

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship: Dareh Gregorian, New York Post, 04/28/2011

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in "Action Comics" #900: Laura Hudson, Comics Alliance, 04/27/2011

No, I’m not talking about the recent Supreme Court ruling.

It’s because they have successfully managed to tick off every single demographic in the United States. 

From gays to straights, from Christians to atheists, from black to white, male and female, liberals and conservatives, military to civilian, young and old, even from model citizens to gang bangers, everyone hates these guys.

Now, as far as the recent 8-1 decision by the Supreme Court that upheld the rights of this “church” to free-speech, yes, I suppose congratulations are in order here too. As much as I despise this group, I have to grudgingly agree with the majority (Sam Alito was the lone dissenting vote). Of course, it doesn’t help much when Margie “mouth of God” Phelps makes statements like the following:

“The rule of law that applies here is that you don’t get to use your objective standards to call my religion ‘intentional inflection of emotional distress’. Otherwise, y’all would have to shut up, so get off that! The court said, get off of it.”

"Let me tell you what this church does: Shut up all that talk about infliction of emotional distress," she continued.

“When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin, you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God”.

To make it short and simple, the rights of free speech apply to all, no matter how much you disagree with what that group says, or what it represents. If we were to start making exceptions for one group, then who is the next group? 

Think about this for a moment. How many times have you heard one side accusing the other of some form of “hate speech”, especially in these last couple of years? What is “hate speech” exactly? How does one define it? 

Some would say that “hate speech” is meant to target a particular demographic for the specific purpose of inciting hatred for that demographic (or even a single person representing it), in an effort to ridicule that demographics’ race, gender, religion, political views, etc. with the goal being to make that demographic less credible in the public eye. 

But just what is it? Let’s look at a couple of examples of what was considered “hate speech” in the past…

Former governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was accused of “hate speech” when she uttered the phrase “don’t retreat, reload” against her opponents to her supporters last year. 

Back in 2008, Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, was angrily accused of “hate speech” by black colleagues when he referred to city’s central collections as a “black hole”, because paperwork was routinely lost, never to be found again. 

In 1999, a Washington DC Public Advocate named David Howard, a white male, was accused of “hate speech” and forced to resign from his position by outraged black colleagues for using the word “niggardly” during a staff meeting, an ancient, seldom-used term for “miserly”.

Opponents of President Barack Obama are frequently criticized for “hate speech”, with groups citing that these critics disagree with him on most issues simply because he is black. 

So there are a few examples of what has been referred to as “hate speech”… but are they really? Where exactly do we draw the line? What would have happened if the Westboro Baptist Church had lost their case? What are the unforeseen consequences, and most importantly, how would certain groups have taken advantage of, and abuse the ruling had the Supreme Court ruled the other way? What other groups do we target?

But enough of playing “Devil’s Advocate”; I’m going to exercise some free speech of my own.

While I disagree with Justice Sam Alito, I sympathize with his viewpoints. Personally, if I heard that this so-called “church” was, say… “accidently-on-purpose” burned to the ground; I wouldn’t exactly feel any sympathy for them. Hell, I’d probably celebrate it.

Was what I just said “hate speech”? Did I cause the church any “emotional distress”? 

Well, you could say that, but hey, to paraphrase Margie Phelps’ quote from above, you don’t get to use your religious standards to call my viewpoints “intentional inflection of emotional distress”. Freedom of speech works both ways. What are they going to do… sue me? Their own court ruling victory assures my right to say it.

And now, a personal message to the church, especially to Margie Phelps.

I know you’re emboldened by your victory, and that you’re planning more protests. I know that right now, you feel that you’re “protected” by the law of free speech, and feel “untouchable”. You can’t wait to rub our faces in it during the next protest.

Let me educate you a bit about laws.

One of the greatest illusions in America, possibly the world, is that laws “protect people”. 

They don’t.

Laws, at best, are designed to punish those who have wronged you and at worst, control your behavior. They are reactive, not proactive. They do not protect you from anything, or anyone.   

If that were true, then restraining orders would actually work. Banks and other “gun-free” zones would never be robbed at gunpoint. Murders, burglaries, child abuse, rapes, etc, all of which are illegal under the law, would never happen; neither would revolutions. There is no such thing as “protection under the law”; it doesn’t exist. 

Laws punish after the fact… they do not prevent.

One day, and one day soon, you are going to push someone too far. One day, you will be rushing a member of your congregation to the emergency room to have one of your “God Loves Dead Soldiers” signs surgically removed from his head, courtesy of a bereaved funeral attendee, and unlike any of you, that person will be willing to face the consequences of his actions.

That day is coming… I don’t need to be a prophet of the Lord to see it. 

And nothing… no court ruling, no law, not even God Himself, is going to protect you.

Don’t like what I said? The Supreme Court says I can say it, so “shut up” and “get off of it”… you jerks.

Links:

Westboro Church: Verdict Amplifies Their Message: YouTube Video, Margie Phelps Interview, Associated Press, 03/02/2011

Supreme Court: 'hurtful speech' of Westboro Baptist Church is protected: Warren Richey, Christian Science Monitor, csmonline.com, 03/02/2011

Westboro Church Plans Anti-Picketing Law Challenges in Wake of Supreme Court Victory: Andy Marso, Fox News, foxnews.com, 03/04/2011

Westboro Baptist Church Promises To 'Quadruple' Down On Protests After Supreme Court Ruling: Nick Wing, The Huffington Post, huffingtonpost.com, 03/06/2011

It wasn’t that hard to learn, to tell you the truth. It’s really easy to absorb a new word when you hear it over and over and over again for three days straight. 

So what does the word “vitriol” mean? According to the handy dictionary, in this particular case it means “subject to bitter verbal abuse”. In this case, the “subjects” are the poor American masses that are being force-fed a non-stop diet of hate speech against our elected officials and fellow citizens by the likes of those evil right-wing talk radio shows and Fox News. Let me provide you a few examples of “vitriol” as provided by a well-known politician...

“They bring a knife…we bring a gun”

“Get in their faces!”

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

“Hit back twice as hard.”

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose (censored) to kick.”

“Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat.”

“It’s time to fight for it.”

“Punish your enemies.”

“I’m itching for a fight.”

"They (working class voters) get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

“They (Republicans) can ride with us, but they have to sit in the back.”

“At some point, you’ve made enough money.”

"I've been a little amused in the last couple of days where people have been having these (Tea Party) rallies about taxes.  You would think they would be saying 'thank you'!"   

Oh, by the way… all of these vitriolic statements came from your president and mine, Barack Hussein Obama.

And yet, no one in the media seems to remember these comments, as evidenced by the CNN interview with conservative talk show host Neal Boortz when he pointed those very facts out to the interviewer yesterday. 

The left sure didn’t have any problems placing the tragic shooting of Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords and several others, including an innocent 9-year old girl (who was one of the children born on the day of September 11^th, 2001 and featured in the book “Faces of Hope”) on the Tea Party movement, or conservatives in general, though. It didn’t even take a half-hour after the bullets stopped flying before the accusations against conservative talk radio programs and Fox News began.  

So far, the most infamous comments have come from Arizona Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik of Pima County, AZ, who stated that:

“I think that when the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust about government, about paranoia about how government operates, and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis 24 hours a day, 7 days a week has impact, especially on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with.”

There’s a problem with that statement, however.

I’ve read several articles about the shooter, Jared Loughner. There was a lot said about him; how his college teachers and fellow students were frightened of his erratic behavior, his rambling theories about the government “using grammar to control the populace”, his drug use, his rejection by the army recruiters, and his conspiracy theories, particularly that 9-11 was an “inside job”. His favorite books included “Animal Farm”, “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” (the last two I’d hardly consider conservative favorites). There was even mention of a strange shrine in his backyard with a skull lined with candles, a sign he was into the occult. It also appears that he’s had a beef against Rep. Giffords that went back to 2007, long before the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin’s rise to fame.

But what is especially interesting is what the articles didn’t say; not one mention of Loughner ever listening to right-wing talk radio, watching Fox News or even talking about them… ever. 

So… how could he be influenced by conservative media sources that he hasn’t even been confirmed as listening to?

Of course, this isn’t the first time that the mainstream media has jumped the gun in its conclusions. History is filled with examples:

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the right-wing was accused of doing it. Turns out that the assassin (conspiracy theories aside), Lee Harvey Oswald, was a dedicated left-wing Marxist that at one point in his life, even went as far as “defecting” to the Soviet Union before he wimped out and came crawling back to the U.S.

When John Kennedy’s brother, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated on June 5^th, 1968, again, right-wingers were blamed. As it turned out, the assassin, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, was an anti-Semite who blamed Kennedy for his pro-Israel stance.

Remember Joseph Stack, the pilot that flew his plane into an IRS building last year? He tried to destroy a government building; therefore, he simply had to be a conservative, the media theorized. After all, conservatives hate the government, right? 

Wrong again. Joseph Stack hated capitalism, “greedy corporations”, the wealthy, and he really hated George W. Bush. He was particularly angry that he wasn’t getting the financial help he thought he deserved from the government, as indicated in his manifesto.

And of course, who can forget the infamous “Times Square Bomber”… remember that guy?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg was certain that the bomber was a Tea Partier angry about the recent passage of the “Obamacare” Bill. He wasn’t alone, as “The Nation’s” Robert Dreyfuss also theorized that the bomber was “either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right”.

Whoops, not so fast! As we now know, the bomber, a Pakistan-born Muslim-American named Faisal Shahzad, was attempting to flee to Dubai when he was caught. 

Well, so much for that theory. 

I wondered what the reaction was to President Ronald Reagan’s attempted assassination by John Hinkley Jr. back in 1984; what was the conservative reaction to this? Did they blame it on a “left-wing loon” before they learned that Hinkley was just a mentally unstable, pathetic loser that was trying to impress Jodie Foster (who ironically, is a lesbian and wouldn’t have been interested in him anyway).

That answer is hard to find. No mentions of the right blaming the left so far in that instance. The closest I could get was an article by Brian Bolduc (When Reagan was Shot). It seems that the main focus back then was on gun control, which is typically championed by, you guessed it… liberals. 

Even when the target of an assassination was one of the best known conservative icons of our time, the liberals still managed to find a way to blame conservatives.

So there you have it, folks. Now we know that the shooter wasn’t a right-winger. In fairness, he wasn’t really even a left-winger as some would claim. He didn’t have any wings at all; he was a nut job, pure and simple. 

If there’s any justice at all, this guy will get the death penalty for the horrible crimes he committed. Hopefully, he’ll never harm anyone ever again. 

Then again, liberals are against the death penalty… they’ll probably blame conservatives for killing him too.

Links:

Shooting Suspect’s Nihilism Rose with Isolation: Justin Pritchard, Associated Press, 01/10/2011

Sheriff Dupnik on Gifford’s Shooting: “AZ is the Mecca of Hate and Bigotry”: YouTube link to CNN Video posted by “Attention101”, 01/09/2011

Boortz Schools CNN: YouTube link to CNN video posted by “WeaselZippers”, 01/09/2011

Arizona Shooting Coverage Is a Media Campaign to Criminalize Conservatism: Colleen O’Boyle, Media Research Center, mrc.org, 01/10/2011

Obama Mocks Tea Partiers: “You Would Think They’d be Saying ‘Thank You’”: Breitbart TV, breitbarttv.com, 04/16/2010

When Reagan was Shot: Brian Bolduc, National Review online, 01/10/2011

Pilot Crashes Into Texas Building in Apparent Anti-IRS Suicide: Fox News, foxnews.com, 02/18/2010

Raw Data: Joseph Stack Suicide Manifesto: Fox News, foxnews.com, 02/18/2010

Liberals Accuse Tea Partiers of Role in Failed Times Square Car Bomb Attack: Mike Riggs, The Daily Caller, dailycaller.com, 05/04/2010

Liberals wasted little time in ridiculing the reading, even going as far as attacking the Tea Party… again.

“It’s an air-kiss they’re blowing to the Tea Party!” Barney Frank spitted and sputtered.

“They’re treating it like a sacred document!” raged New York congressman Gerald Nadler.

Journalist Dahlia Lithwick described the Tea Party movement’s fondness (or as liberals would put it, “obsession”) of the Constitution as a “fetish” in her column.

Then again, she’s a Canadian, so in my view, her opinion on this matter doesn’t count for beans.

Some liberals have even moaned about how much time and money was wasted by taking the two and a half hours to read the document. Trust me folks, Congress has wasted a lot more time, and a hell of a lot more money, on worse projects than this.

However, the worst complaints came from those liberals who demanded to know why the Constitution was not read in its “original” format, before the amendments were added. In particular, they point out to this section of Clause 3: “Apportionment of Representatives and Taxes”:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

“Why wouldn’t those Republicans read the part about African American slaves being counted as only ‘three fifths’ of a person” they scream? “We all know that it was written by rich, white slave owning males!”

If I didn’t know better (and I think I do), I would swear that they are actually trying to vilify the Constitution by pointing out the flaws of the past. What these folks conveniently leave out is that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, passed after the so-called Civil War ended, abolished slavery and the “three fifths rule”, so that particular part of the clause no longer applies… so why read it? When you read a document, you’re supposed to read the most updated version, not the earlier ones. 

I should also point out that the “three fifths rule” was originally a compromise to begin with, in order to satisfy the slave states, which wanted their slaves to count as “complete people” for their census, and the free states, which didn’t want them counted at all. It was either that, or the slave states would refuse to participate in the convention, let alone ratify the Constitution. 

Apparently, not all of the founding fathers were slave owners, and they, most notably Benjamin Franklin, fought fiercely to make slavery unconstitutional, but the compromise was the best they could manage at the time.

But despite all this, my favorite comment by the liberals was actually uttered by a lawyer that was in a debate with Sean Hannity yesterday on his radio program (though her name escapes me). She actually claimed that the reading of the Constitution was not only a waste of time and money, but completely unnecessary, since all politicians are already “generally familiar” with the Constitution when they are sworn into office.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem… that our politicians and mainstream America only have a “general understanding”. You only need to look at some of the most common misconceptions that people have of some of the articles and amendments, notably the 1^st Amendment, or the right to free speech, which doesn’t actually allow you to say what you want about anyone, wherever you want… it was designed to protect those who criticize the government from acts of retaliation by the government. 

Another is the freedom of religion, which is commonly misinterpreted as “separation of church and state”, which is actually nowhere on the document. It means that the government cannot establish or enforce any particular religion; it does not mean that we must bend over backwards to accommodate everyone’s religious beliefs, as the “Ground Zero Mosque” supporters seem to think. 

Of course, we also have the good old “right to vote” (“the right to vote shall not be infringed”) part as well. Contrary to popular belief, there is no right to vote in a federal/presidential election. You cannot be denied the right to vote because of your race, gender, religion etc., but there is no specific right to vote. 

As the old saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

No, the reading of the Constitution will not magically make everything all better. It was for the most part a symbolic gesture by the GOP that they “get it” this time, and that they are listening to the American people (though whether they actually do or not, we’ll see in time). It is a reminder to all, Republican and Democrat alike, what ideals they are supposed to be standing for. 

The Constitution, while imperfect (I’ve ranted about the 16^th Amendment extensively already), is a shining example of its kind in the world. To the best of my knowledge, no other country has anything like it; many cannot even add amendments to theirs. It is the basis of all of our freedoms, privileges and rights.

And that, Congressman Gerald Nadler, does make it a sacred document.

Links:

GOP Reads the Constitution Out Loud – Except for the Embarrassing Slavery Parts: Jill Tubman, Jack and Jill Politics.com, 01/06/2010

Article One of the United States Constitution: Wikipedia

Read it and Weep – How the Tea Party’s Fetish for the Constitution as Written may get it in Trouble: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com, 01/04/2010

Things That Are Not in the U.S. Constitution: U.S. Constitution.net

Why You Are Filing Income Taxes Every April 15^th: David Hudson, Associated Content, 04/14/2010

But as time passed, it would appear that travel-weary Americans have given up and surrendered their rights of reasonable privacy to the government, at least in the terminals. 

Now they simply sigh and shrug as the TSA goes about its business of feeling them up and seizing mundane items like bottled water and souvenir snow globes (one bright spot… it seems they now allow fingernail clippers and sewing scissors again), some items which are even sold in that very terminal. 

Despite the initial outcry for the TSA to concentrate on the far more efficient method of profiling suspicious passengers instead of merely looking for objects, they have steadfastly refused to change their methods (they have added a few “behavior detection officers”, though with profiling still forbidden, I wonder how effective these officers really are), counting on Americans to at some point simply give up the fight.

It worked. 

If there is one fatal flaw that we Americans have, it’s that while we usually have a strong initial push to bring about changes, we have little stamina for the long run. We “adapt” too quickly and easily into deluding ourselves that “that’s just the way it is now, why fight it? I just want to get done what I need done.”

Case in point, let’s look at a few quotes from some recent passengers…

“If it means me getting naked, I’ll get naked and get right on the plane.”… Gil Torres.

“I’m willing to give up a lot as long as I can fly safely.”… Erika Holland

"A lot of people who come through (the image machines), their standard response is, 'That's it? That's what all the fuss is about?'"… Chris Soulia, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1234

The new attitude is this; “I’ll do whatever they ask me to do, just as long as I get on my flight on time”. 

Americans are once again giving up for the sake of moving on with their lives. 

We gave up when the travesty known as the “income tax” was ratified as the 16^th Amendment of our Constitution on February 3^rd, 1913; an amendment that was never intended by our forefathers. 

We gave up when the government introduced the “withholding” act, which allowed them to seize a portion of your income before you even received your check. 

We gave up when Social Security was introduced, which allowed the government to seize even more of our income for the express purpose of redistributing it to the elderly, rather than allowing us to keep that money to fund our own retirement accounts.

All of this was done “for the greater good”. 

So I’m wondering… how long will it be until we give up the fight against “Obama Care?” 

What will happen the next time a massive push for amnesty for illegal aliens is introduced, or to protect our borders from being invaded by “honest folks who just want a better life?”

What about the fight against the “victory mosque” currently being developed close to the former World Trade Center? I’ve seen no news about it recently. Have we given up on that already? 

Will we have the strength, stamina and commitment to continue the fight, or will we simply accept these as “just the way it is now” because they’re for “the greater good”? 

We’ll see.

Links:

Travel-Trained: Americans Take Security With Sigh: Chris Hawley and Tamara Lush, Associated Press, 12/21/2010

Why You Are Filing Income Taxes Every April 15^th: David Hudson, Associated Content, 04/14/2010

How Tax Withholding Came to Be: Part 1: David Hudson, Associated Content, 04/18/2010

How Tax Withholding Came to Be: Part 2: David Hudson, Associated Content, 04/19/2010

Mr. Sanchez went on the attack right from the word “go”, demanding Rep. Murphy to tell him what his “beef” was with illegal immigration.”

From there, the interview quickly devolved into ridiculous, rapid fire questions by Sanchez, first by asking him if he “was an elected official”, then “do you think that people who come into this country all steal? Do they all live in caves?”

These questions were clearly not designed for an intelligent response, but rather to throw Rep. Murphy off guard so that Sanchez could smugly make some “triumphant” retort.

Mr. Sanchez even countered Rep. Murphy’s comment that illegal aliens do not pay taxes by giving the tired old argument that all illegals pay taxes, because they all pay sales taxes and property taxes.

When Rep. Murphy suggested that “well, most cities here don’t tax groceries”, Sanchez shot back that he was acting like a “smart guy” and he “didn’t want to hear his talking points”.

For his finale, Mr. Sanchez gave his last “gotcha” statement…

“Did you know that illegal immigrants subsidize you and your Social Security to the tune of 7 billion dollars so that someday you can retire on money they put into the system that… they can never collect?” He quoted the New York Times as his source.

When Rep Murphy suggested that they (the illegals) were doing this on the backs of those whose identities they had stolen, Sanchez replied that he was wrong, saying…

“Did you know that most illegal aliens are given something by the federal government called a ‘Tax ID’ that allows the government to collect social security taxes from them? Did you know that?”

Well, actually I didn’t know that. But let’s take a look at the interview point by point.

Mr. Sanchez asks if we think “all people who come into this country steal”. 

This is what I would call a “reverse broad brush” tactic. Rather than making a broad general statement about a demographic yourself, you imply that your opponent is doing it when they suggest that all members of a demographic are linked to an activity (usually in the negative sense), even if they clearly did not intend it that way. For example, if you said that “illegal immigrants who sneak across the Mexican into the U.S. border are criminals”, I would accuse you of saying that all Mexicans who crossed the border were criminals. 

See how it works?

And to answer Mr. Sanchez’s question, no… of course not everyone who comes into this country “steals”. Sure, illegals have been known for stealing at times, some would even suggest as far as saying they steal jobs, but we’re not going to lump legal immigrants and tourists into that category.

Mr. Sanchez’s next question was “do they all live in caves?”

Now, being the smartass I am, I would’ve replied “Gee, I don’t know Rick, do you?” That probably would’ve ended the interview right there, but Rep. Murphy is a much nicer guy than I am.

First, Mr. Sanchez sets up Rep. Murphy to put him in a negative light by suggesting to the viewers that Murphy (along with those of us who are also against illegal immigration) that we consider illegals “less than human” by asking him “if they all live in caves”.

Then he fires off his first “gotcha” statement by claiming that all illegals pay taxes, because they pay sales taxes and property taxes. 

The problem is that first of all, if the store has a sales tax… everyone who shops there pays them, not just illegals. You can’t avoid a sales tax; it’s simply a part of the product or service that you’ve purchased. For Sanchez to imply that illegals go out of their way to pay American taxes simply because they shop here is absurd.  

When we accuse illegal aliens of not paying taxes, we are generally referring to income taxes, which most illegals do NOT pay. Uncle Sam does not take a big chunk out of their paychecks, because they typically don’t receive paychecks, they receive cash under the table. Do you really think someone getting cash under the table is going to go out of his way to tell the government how much he made, especially if he’s in the country illegally? I don’t think so.

And as far as illegal aliens paying property taxes… well, Mr. Sanchez is correct, some of them do. 

But this begs the question; why are illegal aliens even allowed to purchase property here to begin with? 

Sanchez mentioned that the federal government actually gives Tax ID’s to illegal immigrants, which allows the government to charge social security taxes from them. It should be noted that the Tax ID also enables an illegal to get a loan to purchase property, bypassing the need for a Social Security number.   

All this tells me is that this is just one more way our federal government is contributing to the problems of illegal immigration, rather than fixing it. It doesn’t seem so strange for them to be so reluctant to enforce its immigration laws now, does it? 

I should thank Mr. Sanchez for providing us with more ammunition to use against them.

But now we get to my favorite part; his claim that they contribute over 7 billion dollars to our social security system so that “we can retire” and that the illegals receive no benefits for themselves.

Seven billion dollars… that’s a lot of money. 

So where the hell is it?

The last I heard, our Social Security was close to bankruptcy, if it isn’t already. Some have even claimed that it’s little more than IOU’s. Mr. Sanchez did not specify whether he meant 7 billion a year, or if that was the grand total within a certain timeframe, but either way, what happened to the money?

I’ll tell you what happened… the government likely already spent it on “other projects”. They can do that, you know. Social Security is not a special “lock box” that’s reserved just for you… the Social Security taxes you pay actually goes into the general fund, which is accessible to politicians whenever they feel that they “need it”. 

Those Social Security statements that you get every few months… that’s how much you are owed, not how much you have.

Let me put it this way… when I plan my retirement; I’m not even going to factor Social Security into it. I doubt that it’s even going to exist at that point. This is especially true if the Obama administration gets its way and creates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, who would then likely qualify for Social Security. You can kiss any money that’s left “bye bye”.

Besides, Sanchez quoting his statement from the New York Times is laughable in itself, as if I’d trust anything that liberal leaning rag printed; almost as laughable as Rick Sanchez’s show itself.

Now go back to your cave.

Links:

Even Illegal Immigrants Pay Taxes: (Video) CNN, Rick Sanchez interviews Rep. Rick Murphy, 07/29/2010

Rick’s List: Even Illegal Immigrants Pay Taxes: (YouTube Video), submitted by CNN

Undocumented Immigrants Buy Into Home Owning Dream: Nurith C. Aizenman, Hispanic News.com, 06/18/2004