Ostrich or Bolshevik?

I find it difficult to understand how many Americans still support President Biden and his Leftist agenda.  I guess they must be either ostriches or Bolsheviks.

Ostriches, with their heads in the sand, are unaware of the obvious going on around them which include, but are certainly not limited to, the following examples: 

• Suppression of free speech –  Testifying at a House hearing yesterday our Attorney General acknowledged during questioning that he, the DOJ, and the President consulted only with the teacher’s union and then put forth the memo requested by the union that essentially condemns parents who speak up at a school board meeting in opposition to the union policies and especially to the teaching of the racist CRT. The idea that such concerned parents might be called domestic terrorists certainly has a chilling effect on their ability to speak out no matter how much the AG tries to talk his way around it.
• Intimidation and cancelling of ideas not aligned with the Left – Includes inconsistent application of laws, demands that people embrace – not just tolerate - ideas (including such things as gender fluidity or necessity of 2-year-olds wearing masks) that are not supported by science or other civil necessity.
• Loss of privacy – the White House, allegedly to prevent IRS fraud by the rich, wants to have access to bank accounts with any transaction of over $600. Most people who work and have paychecks deposited, or who pay a mortgage will have transactions of that amount on a monthly basis and hence have their personal financial transactions open for government inspection.
• Economic disasters – Job reports falling well below expectations, gas prices at a seven-year high, inflation at a 30-year high and continuing to rise, food prices up along with costs of housing, energy, and other essentials, interest rates likely to increase. The economy is failing, and the middle class are the ones who will suffer most from its failure.
• Supply chain problems – meanwhile the Secretary of Transportation is on leave since August and has not left a specified point person in charge.
• International standing – plummeting. The Afghanistan pullout was a complete embarrassment and a huge hit to America’s reputation. China outpacing us with development and successful test of a hypersonic missile (made in part using US technology).
• Military and law enforcement – Afghanistan. Disrespect for military and police; focus on inclusion and equity rather than readiness
• Coronavirus – Cases continue to rise. Mandates eviscerate the idea of personal choice when the science behind vaccine and covid is still being discovered. Meanwhile Biden policies and mandates result in firing of essential workers, leaving them without jobs, pensions, etc, and the people whom they serve without service.
• The border – Migrant encounters at the border are at a 21 year high. The Biden administration has effectively created open borders. Children are living in overcrowded cages and are flown around the country in the middle of the night. Drug and child trafficking are up. Single adult males account for about 2/3 of the crossings. Migrants are released into the interior with only a request that they return for a hearing. The President says he has been too busy to visit the border, yet he has taken any number of vacations.
• Corruption and lack of transparency – run rampant in this White House. Questions are not answered or are answered with falsehoods. Investigations of possible corruption or unethical behavior are suppressed. Even the Attorney General himself refused to have evaluated the ethics of his involvement in the threat to parents about opposing CRT at school boards despite his association via son-in-law with a firm that benefits significantly from schools using CRT.
• Biden and his administration – blame everyone else for the problems, refusing to take responsibility for anything. Biden ignores the idea of rule of law when he does such things as judge border agents guilty when accused of whipping illegal border crossers, even when the evidence shows it didn’t happen. The Administration becomes more and more authoritarian every day. And, like other authoritarian governments, while they make many rules to govern every aspect of citizen’s lives, those rules are not applied to themselves. Also, like most authoritarian governments, they are intent upon silencing any opposition to their policies and their power.

Or Bolshevik?  If you are aware of the above and the many other problematic and authoritarian activities of this administration, but continue to support Biden’s policies, then perhaps you are a Bolshevik. 

Bolshevism (from Bolshevik) is a revolutionary Marxist current of political thought and political regime associated with the formation of a rigidly centralized, cohesive and disciplined party of social revolution, focused on overthrowing the existing capitalist state system, seizing power and establishing the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It originally referred to Russian communists, but now the term is used more generally for those who support such views and policies.

I find it hard not to characterize most of the activity of Biden and the Left as intent upon overthrowing and totally changing what we call America.  Thus, those who support such activity can easily be termed Bolsheviks.

Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin put it well earlier this week in a speech to the International Valdai Discussion Group in Sochi.  Whatever else you may think of Putin, as former KGB he understands revolution, communism, and communist suppression.  Here are some of the more relevant parts of his speech:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

 

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

 

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. . . .

 

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

 

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

. . . .

Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.

I do encourage you to read the entire speech which can be found here:  LINK  

I wonder if in 1917 the Russian ostriches and Bolsheviks knew what they were in for in the “brave new world” they either were creating or allowing to happen via their indifference.  The Bolshevik dream gave them Stalin’s reign of terror and decades of living with hunger, hardship, and fear in the fully government-controlled society.  They lived without freedom until, even when communism fell, they found they had forgotten how to be free.

Our Bolsheviks actively work towards a complete reconfiguration of America.  But their touted new world is not a new idea and it is more frightening than enlightened.  Nonetheless, their actions and support for Leftist policy tells us this is what they indeed seek to create.

But our ostriches, with heads lost in the sand, are supporting this revolution as well.  If the ostriches would raise their heads and look around, they might see what is really happening and hopefully speak out against it.  Indifference is a vote and a win for the Left and ultimately for the tragedies and horrors that come with their new world order.

One More Lie

Case in Point.
(An example of what is being discussed)

I am not alone in often having lamented that the Left ignores facts that do not fit their narrative, that they use emotion to work people up, and that what they do is nearly always beneficial to themselves and unfair to everyone else.

Here is another case in point:  The recent photos of mounted border patrol agents as they are surrounded by illegal immigrants, most of whom happen to be dark skinned, at the border near Del Rio Texas.

The horses are being ridden in the Western style which uses long, separated reins that often hang down.  The purpose of these reins is to control the horses.  Western riders sometimes twirl these ropes. 

This gives you a calm look at what these Western style reins look like:

These ropes are reins.  If one tried to use them to provide a whipping it would hurt the horse and likely the rider too. 

Here is another photo which shows just how far down the Western style reins hang:

Actually, in this photo, the border crosser is the aggressor as he can be seen grabbing the horse's rein and bit.

Here is the photo that is most widely shown as evidence of Border Agents whipping illegal crossers. From some angles it may appear that the ropes are coming into contact with the illegal border crossers.  According to the photographer that is not the case.  

When you look at the above, the top two photos may on first glance appear to show a whip, but when one looks closer at the bottom blow ups from the same photo, one sees that is just the rein flying to the side as the border patrol agent grabs the border crosser’s shirt.

The photographer who took the images said Friday that the border agents never whipped anyone. "Some of the Haitian men started running, trying to go around the horses.  I've never seen them whip anyone.”

Photos can be deceiving.  In some photos the riders twirl the reins, which is common in Western style riding.  According to the photographer, “swinging it [the rein] can be misconstrued when you’re looking at the picture."   

Yes, some of the photos were misleading and misconstrued.  But the problem is not the photos but the way that the White House and the Left reacted to and then used them.  Indeed, they are still using them to support a false narrative, but a narrative that they find useful.

When the idea of whipping was first suggested the White House labeled these photos as “horrific.”  Not factual, not truthful, but horrific.  That the photos are horrific remains their justification to use this non-event to attack hard working border agents overwhelmed with a border crisis of Biden’s making.   A border that there is no evidence that Joe Biden has ever visited.

The photo has become a justification for the Left’s racist claims against the border agents as well as against anyone who disputes their false narrative.  These mostly Haitian border crossers are dark skinned, so the Left wants us to equate these “horrific” photos and their false narrative with violence against Blacks, and especially Black slaves, of more than a century ago.

Remember, the underlying premise that border agents were whipping these illegal border crossers has absolutely no basis in fact.  Its only basis is in a photo that some call “horrific”, a photo that stirs negative emotions in some, but which provides no evidence whatsoever of border agents whipping or otherwise abusing the people from whom it is their job to protect legal residents of the United States of America. 

That is, the job of our border agents is to protect our borders from those who would cross into our country illegally as these individuals are attempting to do.  Being mounted helps them to patrol the vast area and Western style reins and riding style make the most sense in this terrain.  That’s it.  Think what you will of the photos.

Yet, because the photos are, according to some, “horrific”, because they raise emotions, the Left realizes they can use them to find the agents guilty and then to transfer that guilt to any who oppose the Left's open border strategy.   Not guilty of what some claim the photos portray, because there are no facts to support that.  Rather, the Left will simply perpetuate the lie that the photos actually portray something which they do not. Even though facts contradict this narrative, the president proclaims, “Horses run them over, people being strapped.”

The Agency promises an investigation.  But the President has already proclaimed the agents guilty of abusing the illegals.  Again, the horses were running over no one, and the agents were holding onto reins, not whips, to control the horses – indeed, the reins were used to pull the horses in order to avoid contact with the border crossers who were surrounding and grabbing at the horses and their riders.

But when the President has already proclaimed that the border agents are guilty, how will any investigation be fairly conducted?  (Rhetorical question – the clear answer is, it won’t be.)

President Biden said the following:  "To see people treated like they did, horses barely running over, people being strapped — it’s outrageous.  I promise you; those people will pay. There will be an investigation underway now and there will be consequences. There will be consequences."

Consequences for what?  That someone took a photo that appeared to show something that did not occur and based on that the President will see the innocent border agents punished?  Their horses prohibited?  C’mon man, look at the actual facts!

Biden added that it is "an embarrassment, but beyond an embarrassment, it’s dangerous. It’s wrong. It sends the wrong message around the world. It sends the wrong message at home.  It’s simply not who we are." 

Well, I agree with that statement, but not as referring to the border agents.  Rather, the fact that the President would rush to judgement without facts and even when the judgment he arrived at is proven erroneous he sticks with it, that is indeed an embarrassment; moreover, that type of behavior is especially wrong and dangerous when it is the President of the United States who holds all sorts of international power in his hands.  And yes, a president who behaves like that does indeed send a frightening message around the world as well as at home.

And what is “simply not who we are” (or at least who we used to be) is a country that jumps to judgement based on emotion and incomplete understanding that are not based in fact.  But that is the country into which the Left is remaking us.

The White House and the Left have done a good job of spreading their narrative.  This morning I listened to a talk by my Episcopal Diocese’s Bishop's Canon to the Ordinary about the Del Rio crisis, its causes, possible solutions, etc.  It was wise, well-reasoned, and interesting until it got to the point where the Canon referred to the photos as portraying “the horrible thing that happened on the border.”   He bought Biden’s phony bill of goods without inquiring further.

Sadly, that is what too many do.  It is exactly what the Left wants you to do.  While they have avoided the topic of the border for weeks despite the escalating crisis there, they now are all over the false but useful narrative of the "evil border agents."  And, because they have turned this false whipping story into a racial issue, they can now call racist anyone who defends either the border agents or simply the truth.

Mark Morgan, former acting Border Patrol Commissioner stated, "The Border Patrol agents have been abandoned, scapegoated, and thrown under the bus by their own Secretary and now vilified by the President of the United States. They have been condemned, careers ruined, and reputations irreparably harmed without any due process -- all to distract from the out-of-control catastrophic crisis at our southern border."

And, of course this also serves as a nice distraction from the many other crises that this President has created:  Afghanistan, the return of terrorism there, the 13 dead military,  the Americans we abandoned, and a drone killing innocent civilians including a US Aid worker and 7 children; inflation; the economy; the current covid situation including mandates and rationing of treatment based on party affiliation; budget; taxes, new info coming out about Hunter and about Biden’s unpaid back taxes; to name just a few.

Actually, the White House very well might not consider any of these to be a crisis.  Biden has indicated and stated his stance for open borders, and this is just the mess that comes with it.  Just as he told us the disaster in Afghanistan was necessary for his result which he thinks is fine.  I suspect he really sees no crises but rather just the necessary turmoil as he goes about remaking America. 

The trouble is that Joe and the Left’s remaking is detrimental to so many people as well as destructive to America.  The President is making decisions without the appropriate input from the people and without the appropriate deference to our laws and constitution.  

The crocodile tears that the Left so often sheds for this or that group betray the fact that the only group they truly care about is themselves.  Anyone else is just used to raise emotions in favor of their own narratives.  Those emotional causes will be abandoned when they no longer serve the Left's purposes (e.g. Obama cages at border mostly ignored, cages during Trump administration focused on as horrifying, current cages under Biden which are far worse that either of the prior administrations are completely ignored – they don’t fit the narrative.)

This White House and the Left are chronic liars.  They have a narrative, and they will tell it – facts and science be damned.  They will stir up your emotions to foment antipathy if not anger to anything that is not their narrative.  They care about no one and no thing other than their power and complete acceptance of and obedience to their doctrine.  The border whipping story is just one more example – a case in point - of the sick game that they are playing.

Is the Biden Administration Guilty of Migrant Hoarding?

Today’s excellent blog post is by guest author Susan Sobaky.

Is the Biden Administration guilty of migrant hoarding?

As an animal lover and advocate, I can usually find an animal analogy for most human situations and behaviors. In the case of the crisis President Biden has created at the southern border I can only compare it to the same behavior that results in animal hoarding. So I will call it migrant hoarding. Please note, I am talking about behavior; I am not comparing people to animals.

Let’s look at a definition of animal hoarding:

“An animal hoarder is defined as someone who has accumulated a large number of animals and who: 1) fails to provide minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, and veterinary care; 2) fails to act on the deteriorating condition of the animals (including disease, starvation or death) and the environment (severe overcrowding, extremely unsanitary conditions); and often, 3) is unaware of the negative effects of the collection on their own health and well-being and on that of other family members.”

Frost RO, Steketee G, Williams L. Hoarding: A community health problem. Health Soc Care Comm. 2000;8:229–234.

To characterize what is happening at the border we could define it as migrant hoarding and use the above definition, just exchanging the word “migrant” for “animal,” change “veterinary care” to “medical care,” and change in 3) "other family members" to "the entire country."

Not convinced? Let’s look at some pictures (taken from Google Images).

These 2 are animal hoarding situations:

These 2 are migrant conditions at the border:

Animal hoarding generally starts with good intentions. As stated on the ASPCA website, “Animal hoarders often appear intelligent and clearly believe they are helping their animals. In addition, many hoarders possess the ability to garner sympathy and to deceive others into thinking their situation is under control. They often are blind to the fact that their animals are suffering under their care.”

Hoarding, whether animal or migrant, may start as the caring, humane thing to do but in both cases can get out of control quickly. I think the Biden administration thinks they are doing the humane thing by continuing to let thousands of migrants into the United States, and they are trying to deceive us into thinking the situation is not a crisis and they have it under control. They have lost sight of the potential damage this action is doing, not only to the migrants, but to the citizens of the United States, not to mention the billions of dollars in cost and resources.

An animal hoarder could be arrested and charged, potentially with animal cruelty or abuse. They could go to jail or pay a hefty fine. As I consider the similarities of animal hoarding with what is happening at the border, migrant hoarding, I wonder how is the Biden administration getting away with it? 

Understanding Long Term Consequences Requires Overcoming the Laziness of Immediate Gratification

In many ways we have become a lazy society, and that laziness means that, amongst other things, we do not use our minds to consider the many consequences of our actions.  Rather, we do what feels good or right at the moment without pondering or even anticipating the long-term effects of what we do.

Laziness is defined as “the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy.”  The laziness I am considering in this writing is the unwillingness to use the energy to work one’s brain.  

There are two issues at the top of the news these days where this laziness is readily apparent.  In both we see people readily willing to take actions, but they do so without exercising the mind and thus fail to realistically become aware of the consequences of their actions.

One is in the area of abortion.  My previous blog addressed that issue, so here I will only briefly state that if individuals about to engage in sexual intercourse would first take the time to consider the possible consequences of that act and whether or not they are willing to take on the responsibility that comes with the consequence of pregnancy, then we would not have women claiming that their right to choose comes after the pregnancy has occurred rather that at the time they decide to engage in sex.  Taking the time to think about this fact and when a woman can freely choose what to do with her body (before there is a second individual within) might significantly change the abortion debate.

Today, however, I will write about another issue:  Immigration.  Specifically, I want to address the calls and the actions to assist those individuals who have entered the country illegally.  This is often the part of the immigration crisis that is referred to as the “humanitarian crisis.” 

We have all heard the cries from those who have crossed our border with nothing but themselves and their families; the cries for food and clothing, blankets and the basic necessities of existence.  We have all heard the admonitions that as Christians or other believers, or simply as Americans, it is our duty to help the needy. 

To some extent this is true.  But, if we would use our energy to work our brains, we would know that there are many ways in which we can generally help the needy and in this instance the hordes that are seeking a better life in this country. 

Of course, if we pass out food or donate clothing or simply write a check to those who will do so for us, we get some sort of immediate gratification:  we have done our duty; we see the smiles, we can say “they like me!” 

But let’s take a moment to consider the consequences of believing that this is enough; that this is the only, or even the best, way to help the needy.

As the caravans descend upon our border and as we take everyone in, feed them, clothe them, and perhaps give them the better life of which they dreamed, we create two clear consequences.  One is that knowing that this is the result upon their arrival at the border, more and more will come.  Those who take advantage of those coming, either monetarily or in more ugly criminal enterprises, will feel emboldened to continue and increase their practices.  That is, we are encouraging some serious criminal behavior and we are also encouraging more and more families to place their children in the many dangers that come with the long journey to the U.S.   

The second clear consequence is that at some point we will no longer be able to help – not anyone – not those who have entered nor our own citizens who need our help.  We are already diverting funds from our own impoverished citizens, our homeless, our veterans, our schools and our children, all here legally, to help those who have chosen to bypass our laws and enter illegally or to make a questionable at best claim of asylum.

America cannot sustain the whole world.  And much as we might like to help everyone everywhere who is in need, we simply cannot do so.  In the real world we must put limits on our generosity, and we must realize the consequences created by our failure to do so.

But that does not mean that we must ignore those peoples who are truly suffering and are seeing this country as a better place.  There are far better ways to exercise the duty we feel to help those in need than to simply throw money or goods at the individuals whom we see.

Of course, it is easier to reach out to those who touch us emotionally – the pictures on the news of the hungry child, the suffering mother, the father begging for work.  But, while an emotional response that provides goods to those we see may help those particular individuals, it does not help those who arrive tomorrow and it certainly does not solve the problem.

Instead, let us ask why so many are fleeing their homes.  What is it about their country or their life style that makes them feel their life is not tolerable there.    What can we do to fix that situation so that they do not feel the need to flee? Perhaps it is education that is needed – maybe they need teachers.  Maybe they need to learn how to improve their farming or business practices.  Maybe the money that we give to particular individuals might better be aggregated and donated to improve infrastructure in the individuals’ home countries.  These are just thoughts off the top of my head; I am sure that there are many many ways that we could help those in need within their home countries.

By simply giving money and goods to those already here we effectively encourage more individuals to leave their home country and seek entry here.  We encourage them to put themselves into the many negative circumstances of a migration caravan.   And, perhaps most importantly, we encourage them not to improve their home country, an act that would better serve not only them but all of their countrymen as well, both now and in the future. 

As we continue, through shortsighted acts of kindness, to encourage untold thousands to cross our borders seeking help, we are creating a situation in which, at some point, this country will truly be full.  It will no longer be able to help those who seek entry or its own citizens.  It will no longer be the country that so many are now seeking.

So, yes, helping those in need is certainly aspirational.  The easy way to do that is to hand out goods to those who touch our sympathies.  The more difficult way, the way that requires work and energy, but, the more effective way to help is to discern how to permanently help these and future seekers to improve their own living conditions in their own homelands and then to give our energies to those forms of assistance. 

Of course, there are always those who will seek America and there will always be legitimate asylum seekers.  We are a generous nation when it comes to legal immigration and we will welcome a reasonable number of immigrants who meet our statutory requirements.  But to welcome all out of some shortsighted view of the duty to help those in need in reality and in the long run helps no one.

Every act has consequences.  Sometimes an act provides us with immediate gratification.  But, that gratification can turn to heartache, dismay, and crisis if we do not overcome our laziness and look to the long-term effects of what we do.

Without Facts a Nation will be Lost

In today’s world everyone seems to think they are an expert on everything.  What is troubling is that people are expressing, asserting, and voting based on opinions that are woefully uninformed.

Take for example illegal immigration.

A recent Harvard-Harris Poll of 1,536 registered voters (conducted between April 30 and May 1) revealed that only about 13% (less than 2 of 15) Americans could answer correctly about the number of illegal aliens arriving at the US-Mexico Border when asked “About how many people do you think are caught trying to enter through the southern border each year?”  76% of respondents gave answers well below the current levels which are between 250,000 to 500,000 border apprehensions each year; instead, more than 75% incorrectly stated there were between 0 and 250,000 apprehensions. 

(The full results  of the Harvard/Harris poll (which deals with other topics as well as immigration) can be found HERE; the questions relating to immigration begin on page 155) 

In the same study, when those polled were told there were more than 100,000 apprehensions in the last month, 52% said they supported the Presidents declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.

Now, this poll can be found on some major media sites (e.g. The Hill), but not those that are primarily referred to as the main stream media– the media from which most people get their news (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC none of which, at the time of this writing, had reported on this poll – perhaps they were still considering how to spin it, or were simply embarrassed since it reflects the lack of information that they are providing to their audiences). 

Yet people are vociferously voicing their opinions on the border without any or with only incomplete facts.  Facts that are incredibly relevant and very likely might change the opinions voiced.

For those who are interested in basing their positions on facts, here are some to get you started:

·        109,144 individuals were apprehended at the border in April alone.

·        103,492 illegal and inadmissible aliens were apprehended during the month of March alone.

·        76,325 apprehensions occurred in February.

·        Border arrests have reached their highest point in 12 years.

·        February numbers showed a 1,744% increase in asylum claims.

·        Family unit apprehensions by Border Patrol jumped 311% during the first five months of this fiscal year over the first five months of last fiscal year.

·        4,117 migrants were apprehended on a single day in March.

·        Just 6% of the people crossing the border are expressing a credible fear and requesting asylum in one sector, according to an immigration official.

·        A recent survey found that one-third of Guatemala’s population wants to come to the U.S.

·        There are at least 1.9 million known criminal aliens sitting in U.S. jails.

·        Human smugglers are running radio ads in Central America, according to a Border Patrol official.

·        ICE is having to reallocate resources to deal with “fake families” trying to manipulate border policies.

·        Now Border Patrol reports that children are also being rented and “recycled” to defraud immigration officials.

·        Border Patrol agents in Texas over just the last week apprehended 5,500 migrants per day.

The assault on our southern border is flooding our country.  Catch and release polices result in illegals along with questionable asylum seekers being released into various locations around the country.  While the border states are suffering most, the release locations are moving further and further north.   (Interestingly, 66% of the survey respondents answered that those with questionable asylum claims should immediately be turned back to Mexico for staging).

The survey shows that a slight majority of respondents view the border as a growing humanitarian and security crisis.  Let me suggest that the humanitarian aspect of the crisis stems from the refusal of many to acknowledge that there is a security crisis and the Democrats refusal to work with the President to control our borders.  With the knowledge that many within this country will assist those seeking entry in thwarting our laws, why shouldn’t more and more arrive at our borders with the belief that they will easily gain entry, whether legally or illegally? 

As a result of the ignorance of what is going on at the border, and in a false belief that the immigration laws should not be enforced, more and more children are placed into the humanitarian crisis that even some Democrats will now acknowledge.  Then we are told that we must take tax dollars and benefits from American citizens and give them toward helping these people in the humanitarian crisis that our own refusal to enforce our laws has created.  

            (One example:  4-H clubs of New Mexico have had to cancel two annual events normally held at the State Fairgrounds so that the dormitories that they had reserved for these events can be used to house migrants seeking legal entry into the U.S.; while the Democrat governor of New Mexico and mayors of the state’s major cities state that there is no border crisis, tax dollars are allocated from programs that would help impoverished or otherwise suffering legal residents to help transient migrants instead.)

Those who are ignorant of the actual statistics relevant to the border, further show their ignorance as they try to shame those who would enforce border laws and security by claiming that the Bible requires everyone to “help their neighbor.”  While that is, indeed, a Christian directive, there are many ways to help one’s neighbor, including perhaps not encouraging our southern neighbors to enter the dangerous migrant caravans with false hopes for what their life will be in the U.S.  

One must also wonder whether helping one’s neighbor, as interpreted by those using that phrase to shame those who oppose open borders, means ignoring your actual neighbors who live here legally in order to help others who may or may not have the best intentions for you or your current neighbors.  Yet we see many regularly giving a political interpretation of Biblical phrases and using that interpretation to shame those who do not agree with their political agenda.

The point is that there are too many people who use only the facts that are convenient, sometimes even twisting those to their purposes or using them out of context, while remaining ignorant of all the facts about a given situation.   Ignorance may be bliss, but only if one keeps that ignorance to oneself.  When one begins to advocate a position based on incorrect or incomplete facts, then the rest of us potentially suffer. 

It is more difficult in this day of overwhelming information to not be misinformed.  Being well and fully informed is a key duty for those who live in a democracy.  What we often hear called fake news is really news that is empty of key facts. 

It is crucial that everyone be aware of those voids in the news and if they care to be involved in important issues (which means if they care to exercise their civic duty to vote) then it is essential that they take the time to discover what is and is not being reported to them by their usual sources and take the time to fill in the missing information from elsewhere.  Only then can we have realistic discussions and proper solutions to problems and crises, including the crisis on our border, that are facing our Nation.

Defining Issues - Thinking

How can we have discussions about important issues – issues that have more than one possible solution – if we can’t even define what those issues are?

This is really a question related to logic, and the reason it is a problem is in large part because a vast majority of people today seem to want to make decisions based, if not solely, at least primarily on emotion and not on clear thought.

For example, recently after the President’s speech announcing his intent to declare a border emergency, a local TV station posed this question to its listeners:  “Do you want a border wall?" Now, that question can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” though such answer would not address the depth of the situation or the answerer's support and reasoning for the answer.  But it clearly asks the recipients of the question to state their position on the wall.  Not on the emergency declaration.  Not on how they feel about immigrants themselves.  Not on what they think of President Trump.  Not on how many Democrats previously have made statements in support of the wall.  Not on what a physical barrier should be called.  Not on whether those who enter the country illegally should be treated differently from those who enter legally.  Etc.  Yet the answers given were often to one or more of these other questions, rather than to the question asked.   If a discussion had ensued between those answering, the participants would have been discussing different issues; like a tower of babel there would be no real understanding and hence no real resolution of any of the issues that individuals thought they were discussing.

All of the above are relevant to the broader immigration debate, but if we are ever going to have such a debate, we must clearly identify the pieces and their corresponding question that go into that debate and are parts that must be resolved before the larger, overall question can be resolved.  We cannot have a discussion where one participant thinks they are discussing one point while another thinks they are discussing a very different point.

Staying within the same general area of immigration and the wall, but with a different focus, people may wish to debate the President's emergency declaration.  But if they wish to have a productive discussion they must understand precisely what they are discussing.  Is it about the 1976 National Emergency Act itself?  Is the question a comparison of this declaration with previous declarations including the 31 still in effect? Is it about the 1982 statute that gives the President a number of emergency powers including the power to authorize and construct military construction projects using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions?  Is it whether Congress should revise this statute and if so, could that retroactively affect the President's powers under a current declaration?  Is it whether it is a “military construction project” to build a structure that defines at least parts of a country’s border so as to at least in part prevent illegal entry into that country? 

And, within the broad topic of immigration, underlying all questions about the wall and border crisis are the bigger policy questions of whether or not to have open borders and if borders are to be controlled what is the best way to do so and what requirements and restrictions should be placed on those wishing to enter the country.  Answers to those broader questions direct answers to more specific questions and so must be defined and debated as their own issues.

Complex issues have many complex sub-parts.  This is not only true for immigration.  It is true for any question that has more than one possible answer or solution and about which people wish to discuss and debate those possible resolutions.  Before the broad and bottom line question can be resolved, its many sub-parts must be addressed and resolved.  To do that, people must be informed about and understand the facts, laws, and other relevant information about each piece.

And, there is the problem!   When people make decisions emotionally or based on prefabricated conclusions, there is no need to consider facts.  There is no need to be fully informed or to use the mind to consider the many significances of varying interpretations of facts and the many possible consequences of varying ways of addressing those facts.  It is much easier just to react with a sound-bite and conclusory stance on an issue.

Here are some recent examples.  

     It feels good to say we will let everyone come on in to America, that we are thus caring about humanity.  Hence, one takes a stand against a wall or for open borders or against an emergency declaration without full consideration of the relevant facts or the likely real world current and future consequences of those positions.

     It feels good and conforms with the progressive script to say Amazon like all big corporations is evil, so kick it out of your town without any consideration of the people who might have found a good income from new jobs created (never mind a total misunderstanding like that of Ocasio-Cortez of the fact that a tax break is not money in hand that can be handed out to people  - see Meet the Press interview with DeBlasio in which he explains that Amazon would have brought in 27 billion in jobs and revenue and out of that Amazon would have received a 3 billion tax break, but that none of that money currently exists, contrary to AOC’s assertion that the city already had and has 3 billion to give away HERE ). 

     It feels good to say Trump should be removed from office, so never mind the fact that the 25^th amendment is not the way to go about it (Constitutional Law Scholar Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly explained that invoking the 25th Amendment to remove would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose.   See HERE ).

     It feels good to denounce Trump supporters as racist and homophobic, so don’t wait for facts before attacking them and blaming Trump for an alleged attack on Jussie Smollett.  Then follow Pelosi’s example of quietly deleting your tweets and statements once the allegation becomes questionable.  (see more generally this blog dated January 23 “Quietly Delete”  HERE )

     And, more broadly, it feels good to denounce Trump and his supporters without actual consideration of their actions, of the President’s actual accomplishments, the facts on things like unemployment, the economy, foreign relations.  It is simply enough to not like the President’s looks or demeanor, or to simply accept assertions and conclusory sound-bites of anti-Trump media and Democrats without individual thought and objective consideration of evidence.

When we react to problems with emotion, based on a preconceived and generic conclusions, we don’t think.  And when we don’t think about such things as understanding all the evidence and all the consequences of various courses of action, then we end up making poor decisions often with unforeseen and negative consequences.

Our form of government, a Democratic Republic, requires people to be informed and to use their minds to critically consider options and courses of action.  It does not demand that emotions be excluded from consideration, but emotions are simply one facet of a problem which should be considered objectively with all other evidence as one uses one’s mind to think about and fully understand an issue.  We cannot react to and make decisions about important policies based simply on a gut reaction or by mere acceptance of someone else’s conclusion without our own examination of relevant facts.

This of course takes work.  Our form of government takes work.  It is easy to have a simple democracy of mob rule where the voice (and rights) of the minority and the individual can be silenced; it is easy to have a dictatorship where one is simply told what to think; but our form of government recognizes, appreciates, and protects the individual. (For more on forms of government see this blog dated 8/10/18 Here)  

Our Democratic Republic assumes that the individual will be a responsible member of the community who will do the work necessary to be fully informed and will do the mental work necessary to understand that information.  Only then can one understand the many facets of an issue and have a productive discussion with others about that issue and how best to resolve it.  In order to continue to enjoy the freedoms and protections of our form of government, we must all do this work.

We, today, are faced with many complex issues.  We can continue to address them with emotional anger and reaction, or we can do our job as citizens of this Democratic Republic and become informed about the many complexities of important issues and discuss those complexities with rational thought and understanding.  By doing the latter we increase our odds of arriving at solutions whose consequences are positive both today and in the future.