Democrats and Liberals can't discriminate

Discriminating, for the sake of argument, is defined as: To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: To make or constitute a distinction in or between (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2006, Houghton Mifflin Company).

Over time, it's become a matter of observation that when engaging a Democrat or Liberal in debate, eventually they resort to using pejoratives. I wonder why it is that when one disagrees with them, they resort to pejoratives rather than discuss the subject. Ad hominid fallacies are all too common as a means to attack the speaker in order to distract from their argument, thus circumventing the need to discuss their arguments. I've come to the conclusion this is necessary for Democrats and Liberals because they're incapable of stating something is wrong or evil, thus they lend a hand to it for their inability to condemn it and for their unwillingness to call a tiger a tiger.

Airport Security. With the exception of the Oklahoma City bombing, terrorist activities have been committed by Islamic Terrorists. 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, all were Muslim. The bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were committed by Muslims. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, committed by Muslims. The first bombing of the WTC was planned by Sheik Omar Rahman, a Muslim. The leader of Hezbollah, a Terrorist Organization, is headed by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, a Muslim. The bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's was carried out by Hezbollah, a Muslim Organization. The bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was financed by Muammar Gaddafi, a Muslim. The killing of the 1972 Israeli Olympic Team by Black September, a branch of Yasser Arafat's Fatah Organization, of course carried out by Muslims. Despite all this evidence that Muslims carry out a disproportionate amount of terrorist acts in the US and around the world, Democrats and Liberals insist that we don't profile at airports and screen each and every single Muslim, Arab or Middle Eastern person wishing to travel in the U.S. Instead, we have this insane policy of dressing down white grannies and treating them the same as possible suspects. If you disagree with this policy, you're an Islamophobe despite all evidence pointing to the undeniable fact Muslims are the ones committing the acts of terrorism, not white grannies.

If we're a Nation of Laws, then all laws need to be enforced, including Federal Felonies. But Democrats and Liberals rationalize breaking this law when it comes to illegal immigration. They go so far as to create Sanctuary Cities where illegal immigrants can live without fear of being questioned over their status. If you disagree with their policies, as I noted earlier, you're a racist/bigot/xenophobe/nativist/etc. Democrats and Liberals refuse to acknowledge or debate the fact that illegal immigrants broke our Immigration Laws by their very act of illegally entering the country or overstaying their visa.

Democrats and Liberals believe in living in a secular society, free from religious interference. We see this every year around Christmas with the renaming of Christmas Trees to Holiday Trees. The invention of Kwanzaa. The secularization of Easter with bunnies and eggs and candy. The removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. The challenge towards the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase "One Nation under God." How soon before we challenge "In God We Trust" on our currency? Any person that challenges Democrats or Liberals about their challenge against religion in the public sphere is a Right-Wing-Christian-Fundamentalist, a Bible-Thumper, a Jesus-Freak, etc. Whatever happened to the First Amendment that no Governmental Agency has the right to prevent "the free exercise thereof" of religion?

Recently I've read and heard Liberals and Democrats attack Sarah Palin for her belief in Right to Life. They've said she doesn't represent the majority of women. That she would be a setback for "reproductive rights." That she would work to overturn Roe v. Wade and women would be forced to seek back alley abortions. I've read comparisons between Palin and Pontius Pilate and between her and Fascism. It's enlightening when you do some research and find out who the founder of Planned Parenthood was. Margaret Sanger was a Eugenicist. She wrote (In a Plan for Peace, 1932, p. 106) that "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." She also wrote (What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, 1915, p. 140) that "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Her views are remarkably similar to the Nazionalsozialistische Deustche Arbeiterpartei or better known as the Nazi party of Germany and their favorable outlook on the Aryan race and purging Germany of non-Aryans. The Utopian notion that Democrats and Liberals share, intrinsically contains the notion via "Pro-Choice" that "an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Do Democrats and Liberals want to dismiss Pro-Life advocates as Nazis when their own Pro-Choice advocacy actually shares the Eugenicists roots of people like Margaret Sanger and the Nazi Party?

Next time you hear a Democrat or Liberal refer to an opponent's argument via a pejorative, not only are they most likely wrong on the position they're advocating, but the position they're advocating is one that given facts, would contradict a logical conclusion.