AP Bans the Term Illegal Immigrant

Doublespeak is one of the favorite methods tyrants use to intimidate and ostracize dissenters. Turning the language on its head and shunning those who don't conform, also confuses an issue and conceals its inconvenient aspects and the ugly truth.

The latest entry is the Associated Press's decision to abuse its stature and tell us illegal Aliens - the term under the law - are not even illegal:

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.illegal immigration ...Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Evidently, the dictionary will now have to change the word illegal from an adjective to a verb in order to conform with AP's declaration. Even the current politically correct term is unacceptable:

The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)

Hey, just because you don't have a passport, visa, or green card, it doesn't mean you're undocumented if you can produce a Sam's Club membership card.

Dumb Reporter Gets a Lesson on Liberty

President Bush shot down the entire premise of a media moron question from someone who was either not around or drunk during the 70's:


Q Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and will continue long through the campaign and into the next administration -- one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?

(He could also put on a stupid cardigan sweater and berate us for our malaise a la Jimmy Carter. Or maybe impose price controls and a windfall profits tax. That worked out well, right? )

THE PRESIDENT: They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done, is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars, they want to conserve. But the consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works.
Secondly, we have worked with Congress to change CAFE standards, and had a mandatory alternative fuel requirement.
So no question about what you just said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to save, is to conserve. And as you notice my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks.

Q But you don't see the need to ask -- you don't see the value of your calling for a campaign --

(Translation: Mr. President, don't you see that the people are a bunch of ravenous stupid children? Obviously I and the rest of the anointed can be trusted to think for ourselves and do the right thing, but surely you're not -snort- suggesting that the masses should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of what we no know to better for them and the country, are you?)


THE PRESIDENT: I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there's some easy steps people can take. You know, if they're not in their home, they don't keep their air-conditioning running. There's a lot of things people can do.
But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money, or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.
And as much as I regret that the gasoline prices are high -- and they are -- I also understand that people are going to make adjustments to meet their own needs. And I suspect you'll see, in the whole, Americans using less gasoline. I bet that's going to happen. And in the meantime, technologies will be coming on the market that will enable them to drive and save money, compared to the automobiles they're using before. And as you notice, the automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home as consumer demand changes. And the great thing about our system, it is the consumer that drives our system; it's the individual American and their collection that end up driving the economy.