Gallery

DEFENDING THE LANGUAGE: The Meaning of ‘Amnesty’

I believe I have found a timely subject for the first post of our new series on defending the language.  I was listening tot he radio today and heard a news clip of Obama’s press Secretary trying to argue that Obama did not grant ‘amnesty’ to five million illegal aliens last night, Thursday, November 20, 2014.   So the first post in this series is going to examine the meaning of the word, ‘amnesty.’  But first, I desperately need you to accept something.  I need you to accept that I am sincere when I tell you that I do not mean to sound preachy in this post.  I do not want to ‘talk down’ to anyone, or sound like I am lecturing you.  Nor do I think I am better, or smarter than you.  The truth is, I am just trying to share a process with you that I habitually apply to myself and to my own thinking.  So, in a very real sense, I am inviting you to share in my personal thoughts.  I beg you to accept this post in this manner — please.  And with that said, it’s time to look at the meaning of the word ‘amnesty.’

We start with Webster’s on line dictionary:

am·nes·ty

: a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free

Next, we apply a little logic to Obama’s actions:

1 — The law says Obama — as the chief executive of the nation — has a duty to find, prosecute and deport as many illegal aliens as possible (see the U.S. Constitution and Federal Immigration laws for proof of this claim).

2 — Obama has refused to perform his Constitutional duty.  Quite the contrary.  The Obama Administration has actually been advertising for and actively importing illegal aliens since the Spring of 2014 (see The Blaze for these stories).

3 — On November 20, 2014, Obama unilaterally declared that he not only wouldn’t prosecute these illegal aliens, but if they would do certain things, he would grant them ‘legal’ status within the United States.

 4 — Conditions aside, Obama’s declaration that he would not prosecute those who have broken the law amounts to a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free.

That is the very definition of ‘amnesty.’  There is no argument here.  It is a matter of definition, and the rules of logic say that you cannot break the definition of a thing.  It is what it is — period.  If someone then comes along and tries to re-define the term, he does not redefine it, he just defines something else using the same word (this is actually the logical fallacy of ‘equivocation’).  It works like this:

If you bring me your dog and I say, no, that’s a cat, then act as though you are crazy because you still think your dog is a dog, have I changed the dog into a cat simply because of what I say and how I act? No.  All I have done is violate Natural Law: the Natural Laws governing both logic and language.

So why would someone accept the same argument when Obama grants amnesty to five million people, then tells you he didn’t grant amnesty and anyone who says he did is crazy?  Seriously, who is the crazy one in these situations: the person who is holding to the definition of the word, or the person who insists that they can violate the laws of Nature simply because they speak it?

This is why we must know and understand the meaning of words.  When we know and understand what our words mean, then we have a lot less work to do when we are trying to determine whether or not we are being deceived.  All we have to do is watch what people do (grant amnesty), listen to what they say (no, it wasn’t amnesty), then apply the definition of the word (a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free) and the conclusion draws itself: it is amnesty and the Obama Administration is trying to deceive us. At that point, we don’t need to know why they are deceiving us.  It is enough to know that anyone who is willing to deceive to achieve their goals should not be trusted, and we can act accordingly.

So, to conclude this post, Obama did — by definition — grant amnesty to five plus million illegal aliens.   Now, Obama’s Press Secretary is trying to lie to America and tell them Obama didn’t grant amnesty.  In other words, Obama’s Press Secretary is telling you your dog is a cat, then acting as though you are the crazy one in the room.

[BTW: if you happen to believe in God, you should recognize this as original sin.  Whenever someone tries to change God’s laws, they are essentially placing themselves on God’s thrown.  In fact, since they are claiming they can undo God’s work, they are placing themselves above God!  However, if you do not believe in God, but you believe their are Natural Laws, the same applies.  The person who claims they can change Natural Law is claiming to be above those laws, and that means they are claiming to be the master of the universe.  In other words, they are claiming to be God.  Either way we slice this one, anyone and everyone who tries to ‘will’ changes to Natural Law is claiming to be God, and that either makes them guilty of blasphemy or  insane.  I’ll leave you to decide which is which according to your own understanding of the universe…]

Advertisements

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s