“Illogical logic.” Sounds about as oxymoronic as it gets, doesn’t it? Perhaps if we take this seemingly self-contradictory phrase apart and define its parts, we’ll be able to better understand it – as well as those who employ it on a regular basis.

Let’s begin with a working definition of “logic” – courtesy of Wiktionary: A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Sounds reasonable enough; a logical, step-by-step manner for solving a problem, or arriving at a conclusion. Got it.

Then we have “illogical,” which Wiki defines as lacking sense or sound reasoning.Therefore, “lacking sense of sound reasoning” is tantamount to being irrational. Got that too.

So, one who employs illogical logic is following an irrational step-by-step process in an attempt to solve a problem, or arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, we may correctly assume that one who is illogic is operating under false assumptions, bias, emotion or the desire for a predetermined outcome  – all of which make it impossible for the illogical person to be objective.

This obviously plays total hell with the illogical individual’s ability to utilize a method which has any hope of helping said individual arrive at a proper conclusion – much less, solve a complex problem. This where (and why) liberals run completely off the rails – often, with perfect oblivionConsider the following:

“Why does the present administration oppose new anti-illegal immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia that are designed to enhance existing federal law – but not oppose so-called “sanctuary city” statutes that in some municipalities deliberately contravene federal immigration law?” (Victor Davis Hansen)

I’ll take this one, Victor: Because Barack Obama’s illogical logic is driven by bias and the desire for a predetermined outcome; he blatantly panders to Hispanics in an ongoing effort to buy their votes –for exactly the same reason liberals have been pandering to blacks for the more than 50 years.

Want more? Obama said this in Tucson:

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

But this in El Paso:

“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still gonna be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time. Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said mockingly to laughter from the crowd, Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”

And this on an Hispanic radio station:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us…it’s going to be harder.” 

Simple bipartisan campaign rhetoric? Nope. Obama feels he has the duty to make the spectacularly hypocritical comments he makes – with impunity. He irrationally believes he is justified – due to his political biases and desire for a predetermined outcome: ensuring that a large majority of Hispanics vote for him – and other liberals – in 2012.

As you ponder the illogical logic of logically challenged liberals, here are few more questions on which to noodle:

Why do liberals insist on tolerance of anything and everything that is anti-Christian, while promoting censorship for anything and everything whichis Christian?

Why do liberals use a double-standard for defining racism or sexism – dependent upon whether the target person is liberal or conservative?

Why do liberals claim that divine creation is illogical – but creation from a spontaneous explosion of nothing makes perfect sense?

Why do atheists just “know” that God does not exist, while demanding that Christiansprove it if he does?

Why do liberals so fervently support First Amendment rights and freedom of expression for people and things they like, yet demand that expression which offends them in any wayshould be subject to politically-correct censorship?

Why do a majority of blacks respect “leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, while condemning Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain?

Why is burning the Koran “hate speech,” yet submerging a crucifix in urine is art?

Why does the liberal media refer to conservatives as right-wing, while never referring to the far-left as left-wing?

As I’ve said many times in the past, the mind of a liberal is a very curious phenomenon indeed. As loony as they are, left-wingers sure do keep things interesting, don’t they?

Why does Martin Luther King get his own day, while George Washington and Abraham Lincoln share one?

Trending on Redstate Video