December 7, 2011, - 4:19 pm

Illegal Aliens Get Major Dictionary to Change “Anchor Baby” Def (Editor is Gay Activist)

By Debbie Schlussel

How bad is political correctness?  So bad that you can no longer trust your dictionary to give you an accurate, uncompromised definition of a word.  So bad, that the American Heritage Dictionary changed its definition of “anchor baby” to please the illegal alien/open borders crowd.  Last week, the open borders crowd whined over the definition of “anchor baby,” and within a day–presto change-o!–American Heritage Executive Editor Steven Kleinedler capitulated and changed the meaning to their liking.  Hmmm . . . I wonder if Mr. Kleinedler’s relatives were Frenchmen in WWII. Yup, your dictionary now comes “complete” with editorial comment from the left. 


An immigrant advocacy group says editors of the American Heritage Dictionary have agreed to revise a recently added entry “anchor baby” to note that it is a derogatory or offensive phrase.

The website Immigration Impact, representing the view of immigrant advocates, took up the issue last week when it criticized editors of the American Heritage Dictionary for using a neutral definition for the term, which first appeared last month in the latest edition.

OMG, who ever heard of a dictionary using a “neutral definition?” The nerve of them. So glad they remedied that problem.

The dictionary defines an anchor baby as “a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”

Saturday, the website reported that the dictionary’s Executive Editor Steven Kleinedler agreed to revise the definition to note the derogatory or offensive nature of the phrase. Kleinedler said he would begin implementing the yet-to-be-determined changes by today, according to Immigration Impact. . . .

The American Heritage Dictionary officially changed its definition of the phrase “anchor baby” on Monday, reflecting that it considers the phrase to be “offensive.”

In an interview Monday, dictionary Executive Editor Steven Kleinedler said the phrase was one of the 10,000 new words and phrases added to the fifth edition – the first revision of the dictionary in a decade – and that the lack of an offensive disclaimer was an oversight.

Kleinedler said he immediately realized the error when he saw Friday’s blog post by Immigration Impact.

“When we saw the post, we looked at (the definition) and said ‘They are completely right, we should change it,'” Kleinedler said. “This is a change that needs to be made.”

The new definition, which will be included in the online dictionary and the next printing of the print edition, says the phrase is used “as a disparaging term.”

No s–t, Sherlock. Breaking the law, then being a sperm or egg/womb donor to stay here is a behavior worthy of disparagement and shame. But, hey, thanks for taking the shame out of it.

I wonder if American Heritage Dictionary notes that the words, “thief,” “murderer,” and “fraud,” are disparaging terms. Time to change those definitions, too, because who are we to judge. Right?

American Heritage Dictionary Editor Kleinedler is a militant gay activist with extremist left-wing politics, so you have to wonder how many other definitions in American Heritage Dictionary he’s similarly change to fit his personal political views and pimp then on America. Here is at least one other instance:

In 2009, Kleinedler’s husband died suddenly, just two months after Kleinedler and fellow editors had revised the definitions of several marriage-related words to reflect the changing culture. The definition of widower, for example, was revised from “a man whose wife has died and who has not remarried” to “a man whose spouse has died and who has not remarried.”

American Heritage Editor & Gay Marriage Activist Steve Kleinedler

If I wanted a left-wing bible, I’d buy Michael Moore’s books.  When I buy a dictionary, I expect to get word definitions and spelling, not some gay editor’s personal political beliefs.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses

Let’s change child molester to lover of children so we don’t offend Pedifiles. Murders to takers of life, We already change homosexuals to gay, lets just keep going eh?

Alan on December 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Debbie I’m going to try my hand at this:

Israel: Land created by G-d for the Jews to settle

G-d: Higher power who curses those who curse the Jews and vice-versa

Jews: Funny, smart people, typically not too tall. Not great one on one fighters but really effective in uniform.

Obama: Crypto-Muslim waiting for second term to attack Israel

Son: Male offspring capable of saying Kaddish

DS: Pretty Jewish lawyer I couldn’t find on Jdate.

A1 on December 7, 2011 at 5:05 pm

And so it goes…farther and farther down the shi**er! It’s so sad to see where America is going because of these DISGUSTING liberals. They are all frauds.

Guess it’s time to re-read “1984” again! You can almost see Winston Smith chucking the folded piece of paper with “anchor-baby” down into the chute to the incinerator.

They can take it out of our (liberal) dictionaries but they will not take it off of my tongue.

I wonder what IS more offensive to Americans…the word in a dictionary or *a woman who has an “anchor-baby” while shacking up with an American male (a drunk one too!) and when the American male can’t keep off the booze she kicks him out and lives RENT FREE in an apartment she can no longer afford to pay for (or it’s expensive ELEVTRIC utilities)…for over TWO YEARS. And the apartments were made for “couples” or single people (one bedroom) but still gets to stay rent free (even if she annoys other PAYING tenants who don’t have kids in a one bedroom apt.) because the Landlord feels “sorry” for her and social services have set it up that she can NOT be evicted (even if the landlord wanted to!) while waiting for “public” housing.*

The above is a TRUE story and is what I think of when I think of anchor babies.

The Liberals have done a number on this country…as will the jihadis…because the Liberals have helped them.

Skunky on December 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm

I think anchor baby was meant to be offensive because ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE OFFENSIVE!!!!!

Memo to dumbshit liberals Offensive words are usually given to people who are offensive.

CaliforniaScreaming on December 7, 2011 at 5:14 pm

That’s one dictionary I won’t be consulting any time soon.

NormanF on December 7, 2011 at 5:16 pm

New definition:

Digusting: Homosexual shirtless man posing with oversized TrampStamp

CaliforniaScreaming on December 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm

The dictionary will go the way of the magazine.

Little Al on December 7, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Is this the “Newspeak” dictionary we have heard so much about? It is so nice to know that what goes into or is excluded from the American Heritage Dictionary is determined by self-interested activist groups. Will rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers, or other miscreants get a chance to edit their dictionary definitions as well? Why not just leave the whole book blank just to play it safe?

This is actually an appropriate place to note this:

Here is a relevant quote from this:

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.”

“To give a single example – The word free still existed in Newspeak, but could only be used in such statements as “The dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispenses with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day. Newspeak words were divided into three distinct classes, known as the A vocabulary, the B vocabulary, and the C vocabulary. It would be simpler to discuss each class separately, but the grammatical peculiarities of the language can be dealt with in the section devoted to the A vocabulary, since the same rules held good for all three categories.”

This did come from a fictitious society that was imagined in a novel, but if you eliminate or replace the words Ingsoc and Party, the concept holds up even today. When one controls the language that can be written or spoken in public or private, one controls the mind. Many activist groups on the left are quite totalitarian in their worldviews, but are reluctant to reveal this publicly. So, they indirectly work towards their goals by pursuing seemingly marginal things like attacking dictionary definitions that may reflect the real situation, but are not in accord with their interests or ideology. The effects of such endeavors are cumulative over time. One only sees the true impact after the it is almost or actually too late to fight back. Even using terms like anchor baby, states rights,illegal alien, out of wedlock births, or even capitalism can either not be used at all or only in a manner that is cautionary.

Worry01 on December 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    It never gets old Worry.

    And to think when I read it for the first time in 1983…I thought (due to being in a BLUE state!) that the book was a warning about Republicans and NOT socialism. I don’t even recall a discussion on socialism in regards to the book!

    But one part I did get 100%. The fact that the Upper-Party (O’Brien) got better stuff than the lower-party members. That part did NOT get by me at all.

    Skunky on December 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    It never gets old Worry.

    And to think when I read it for the first time in 1983…I thought (due to being in a BLUE state!) that the book was a warning about Republicans and NOT socialism. I don’t even recall a discussion on socialism in regards to the book!

    But one part I did get 100%. The fact that the Upper-Party (O’Brien) got better stuff than the lower-party members. That part did NOT get by me at all.

    Skunky on December 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

Completely insane….its getting to the point where we might as well be silent the rest of our lives because we might offend someone somewhere….

George A. on December 7, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Okay I’ll play devil’s advocate…
What’s wrong with noting that the term is usually used in a derogatory manner? Many other words in the dictionary have similar notes. Idiot and imbecile are just two. I would actually think folks here would be glad that this term is referenced as offensive as opposed to something neutral.

Two more minor points…
This is not akin to 1984, seriously read it again. There are actual examples in today’s society, this ain’t it.

What difference dose it make that this guy is gay? When talking about Hoover it seemed like there was a lot of “even if he was it doesn’t matter”, but with this guy it seems to be a sticking point.

petebone on December 7, 2011 at 10:04 pm

I thought if your parents were here illegally when you were born your still not a citizen. That they were called anchor babies because no judge or politician wants to clarify that legal point. That and the fact that they figure they will vote democrat so leave them be. Send them home where they belong.
Where on the welfare form does it have anchor baby?

Ender on December 8, 2011 at 2:02 am

I would rather throw these far left activists out of any dictionary edition and publication business. They have no business in that profession. THROW THEM OUT!

Bob on December 8, 2011 at 11:53 am

I have some American Heritage books that I will get rid of this week.

texag57 on December 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm

It also uses the incorrect term noncitizen instead of illegal alien.

Miranda on January 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Leave a Reply for CaliforniaScreaming

Click here to cancel reply.

* denotes required field