“Because current law sets an easily met standard for "credible fear," refugees fleeing actual persecution and violence are bogged down in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services backlog, which has swelled more than 1900 percent since the end of the 2012 fiscal year. (WhiteHouse.gov) This means that the Obama Administration set the precedent of setting asylum seekers free with the frankly ridiculous directive to return for court dates.
The Left labels the Trump approach as unfeeling simply because, as a law and order president, he’s instructed his departments to follow the law. The Left ignores that the Obama administration’ sometimes employed the same methods (putting illegal aliens in pens) and other times ignored the law entirely (keeping some families together, when the law requires separation.) By following the law, the President upholds his job as executive. By publicly explaining his actions, he rightly passes the buck to Congress, which refuses to create functional legislation. Additionally, if Trump instructed his departments not to follow the law (as did President Obama) he could be impeached.
The Left argues that the Wall won’t solve anything, that most illegals do utilize points of entry, that citizens along the border don’t want a wall for various reasons - including tourism, and that illegals commit crimes at a lower rate than the population. However, all news sites - even Left leaning ones - that focus on border towns which have a wall or fence say that crime in these communities dropped substantially after construction. One wonders that, if illegals don’t commit crimes and walls don’t work, how crime could’ve reduced. And, if illegals use ports of entry, how would building a wall shunt the flow of illegals to a new location?
As Saul Alinsky once said, “The issue is never the issue.” He meant that whatever issue Leftists appear to have in their sights is not their real focus; their real focus is power, and until they have absolute power, their immediate focus is revolution.
The more desperate Liberals get for power, the more controversial issues take center stage in politics and the news. Perhaps the most controversial issue of the post World War II era is abortion.
This article won’t attempt to change your views; rather it points out that the recent spate of states (New York, Rhode Island, Virginia) amending their constitutions or creating pro-abortion legislation is in reaction to the possibility that, if Justice Ginsberg dies and President Trump appoints another pro-life justice, Roe V. Wade could be overturned. New York and Virginia seek to overturn the 2003 federal law preventing partial birth abortion nationally. And Rhode Island is vacillating between one bill, preventing partial birth but allowing siblings over 25 and grandparents to approve abortions for minors, and The Rhode Island Reproductive Health Care Act which lifts all limitations, including partial birth.
Last year, Rhode Island’s Governor, Catholic Democrat Gina Raimondo, supported including pro-life insurance policies on the state’s Obama care exchanges (wpri.com); she met with a firestorm from the Left who turned against her and raised big money to support another Democrat candidate and unseat her. She won, but has radically changed her views to keep her political career alive.
In the State of the Union, President Trump said: “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth…These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world.”
What do his words really mean? 1) If viable full term babies can be killed on day one, what’s to prevent killing them the next day, or whenever suits a parent’s need? If a parent isn’t competent to choose, the state would get involved; then the state would determine who lives and dies, no matter the age; 2) therefore, the “beautiful babies” are all of us. If the Left wins their power grab, we may all lose our “chance to share [our] love and dreams.”
A recent CBS poll declared 76% of Americans approved of the president’s speech. According to a 2018 Gallup poll, 87% of Americans oppose late term abortions. The similarity of those numbers shows that most Democrats oppose late term abortion. Science has advanced since 1973, when Roe became law. Not only has medicine provided an array of contraceptives including the “day after pill,” but ultra sound and other advances show fetal development. Of babies born at 22 weeks 25% survive; 90% of those born at 27 weeks do. Only 59 countries allow abortion for any reason; more than half of those demand parental permission; only 6, including the US, allow abortion after the 22nd week. While science has yet to pinpoint the exact moment the soul enters the body; it has provided a clear picture of what’s possible with respect to bringing lives into the world.
With 5 children and 9 grandchildren, the president agrees with the 87 percent. And he knows that states rushing to pass abortion laws are not protecting women. By making late term the new standard, the Left further divides the nation by making abortion a black or white issue. It’s not enough for Americans to support abortion prior to 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, they’ve got to agree with it in any form, at any time, even after a healthy full term birth. To support these extremes, one must be so afraid that one is willing to hand over one’s rights to government - or be hungry for the kind of power that tyrannies provide.
Hunger for power explains why Virginia’s Democrat Governor Northam would include a joke KKK photo in his medical school yearbook, then 40 some years later chillingly support infanticide. His combined actions remind us that the Left brought us slavery and we become their slaves again if we hand over control of the right to life. This right extends beyond the maternity ward to our “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In honor of our rights, it’s important that open-minded discussions on controversial topics continue; regarding abortion, we’re still debating the exact moment life begins. But that important truth is not the issue here. Because the issue is never the issue; the issue is power.
So, when President Trump declared his pro-life views during his recent State of the Union address, he was actually defending the liberty and rights of all Americans.
The New Green Deal. Be. Very. Afraid.
Previously, this column devoted itself to our president's triumphs; but in light of the struggles he faces with the Democrat Congress, this issue will focus on one particular struggle: the "Green New Deal,” a concept coined by journalist Thomas L. Friedman in 2007 (Wikipedia), implemented to some degree with President Obama’s stimulus package (remember Solyndra?), dismantled to a great degree by President Trump’s anti-regulation policy, and now brought back with a vengeance - and new marketing spin - under the guise of HR-1’s euphemistically described “anti-corruption election policy” and the backing of self-described “Democratic Socialist”/Freida Kahlo look-alike Alexandria Octavio-Cortez.
Be. Very. Afraid. The Green New Deal (GND), in the guise of saving the world from “climate change,” calls for a sweeping restructuring of our political system into a Marxist inspired “democracy.”
According to the Green Party website (go to the GP links below; read it all), the GND has four pillars: 1) The “Economic Bill of Rights” uses gargantuan taxes to guarantee work for all, free college, free health care, the right to a living wage, housing and utilities; 2) “The Green Transition” will convert the "old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible” which is code for seizing power and giving it to GND backers; 3) “Real Financial Reform” reacts to the financial crisis of 2008 and contains some appealing elements (remember Conservatives were as angry as Occupy Wall Street about the corruption). But it also includes breaking up, then restructuring, large banks and the Fed, putting them under the Treasury Department, regulating derivatives, and supporting “public owned non-profit banks”. Finally 4) “A Functioning Democracy,” the most devious pillar, requires the overhaul of the election system as described in HR-1. This includes promoting vote harvesting, statehood for the left-leaning District of Columbia, voting by felons and illegals, as well as destroying the electoral college (so that the coasts can dominate the deplorable in the center of the country.) In fact, item #4 contains one chilling item after another - too many to list.
“Broadly, the proposals for a Green New Deal echo the recommendations of United Nations organizations…of global NGOs, and …monetary accords, especially as these relate to reforms to measurement of fundamental ecosystem risk and financial liabilities (Wikipedia).” In order words, it supports a one world order and ultimately contributes to an international power class.
Compare the Green New Deal to the tenets of Marxism. Explaining how the proletariat came into existence thanks to the Industrial Revolution, Marx justifies the elimination of private property and competition: “The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries….Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian…The slave frees himself when….he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property.” Explaining what big business and big government have in common, Marx says: “The very qualities of big industry which…produce misery and crises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and these catastrophic [economic] depressions.”
Simply put, working people are free (and all people not in the power class are working people) only when they let the government take full control. Of everything. Workers appear to lead better lives than slaves while enjoying the “benefits of slavery:” no competition or property. The Green New Deal eliminates competition and restricts personal property; it destroys our ability to govern ourselves and establishes a new ruling class. The GND is straight up Marxism.