Initial Thoughts on Trump’s Address This Evening

Following are four initial reactions to the President’s address to the Nation and the Democrat response.

1.  I wish that the President has been stronger in asserting how and why the border is a crisis and why it is essential, even if it means a long shutdown, that he not just sign a bill that does not include funding for the wall/border barrier.  There are strong facts to support these assertions (some referenced in my blog post earlier today).

2.  The Democrat response was as usual an attempt to play on our emotions, to distort the facts and/or lose focus on the exact issue before us, and, of course, to attack President Trump.

3.  Speaking of the Democrats, I do not think that they (or whatever party is the opposition) should be granted equal air time for every Presidential address.  That is divisive.  The President (who won the election) is our Nation’s leader and the one who has the power to give a presidential address.  It is to and for the entire country and we should listen and then, if we are troubled by it, there are many venues for response (best venues for Senators and Representatives would be the floor of Congress, as well as actually negotiating with the president).  But to give the Democrats (at their demand) essentially an equal venue to oppose and attack the president simply furthers the anger and division in our country.

4.  The Democrat response made it clear that there is no hope for a compromise on the shutdown or the budget that addresses the need for border security.  There is a crisis at the border as thousands enter our country illegally with a variety of motives.  I think it time that the President declare a National Security Crisis and build the wall, or have the military build the wall.  Until our border is secure and we get over the daily traumas of and assaults on our border, we are not going to address the deeper problems of necessary immigration reform.  But for the fact that it is Donald Trump who is demanding the wall, there would be many Democrats who would favor this increased border security; it is certainly better and safer that having a line of armed guards across the border which is what it is likely to come to if we don’t secure our border in a more rational way.

Immigration - Borders, Laws, Walls

In my most previous post I argued that people needed to stop arguing over or refusing to accept proven facts, and instead begin to discus the varying perspectives that are held about those facts.  Someone asked me if I would please present such an argument about immigration in full in my blog.  Well, I could write that, but it would be more like a book than a blog. 

Most important issues are complex, require not just having the facts, but thinking about them and their interactions with other facts and considering the many ramifications of various courses of actions.  It also requires an examination of one’s own beliefs and values and an understanding how they interact with various perspectives on and solutions to current facts and issues.

So, immigration discussions might need to begin with a discussion of what is, and what do we want a country or nation to be.  The definitions (these are facts; these are how the words are defined today) are as follows:  A nation is “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”  A country is defined as “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” 

One can have opinions about the positive or negative ramifications of those definitions.  In the context of immigration this becomes a debate about whether one favors open or controlled borders (some aspects of that discussion are presented HERE 

Reaching an agreement that we need controlled, not open borders leads to the discussion of how to control them.  We cannot discuss that unless and until we agree that there must be some form of control. A person who adamantly advocates for open borders is not interested in controls.  At least some Democrats are advocates for open borders.  They are not interested in discussion ways to fix current problems with our methods of controlling our borders.

(As an aside here, I would note that it is not at all productive for those who seek open borders, or even borders more open than we currently have, to call those who favor controlled borders racist or similar epithets.   Nor is it useful to use the border and its openness or not as a political weapon in the ongoing campaign to destroy the president.)

When we finally get to a discussion of the immigration problem today, it can be focused entirely on whether or not to build a wall or other barrier, or on whether we need to revise our immigration laws and if so, in what ways and areas should they be revised.  In both instances, there are provable facts that cannot be ignored or denied.  And these discussions might also be couched in terms of whether we have a crisis at the southern border.

Facts must play into all of these discussions.  Currently, our country does not have open borders; that is a fact and is why we have immigration laws and procedures for allowing and welcoming immigrants into our country, both temporarily and permanently.  The existence of those laws, as well as their text, are facts; another fact is that some of those laws are being enforced, and some are blocked.  I happen to think that if we have laws, they should all be enforced uniformly against all violators, and it is the President’s job to see that is so (that it is the President’s job is a fact under our Constitution). 

Many of the relevant facts regarding legal admissions are compiled by various agencies and departments and can be found on the Homeland Security website.  LINK .  In the first quarter of 2018 approximately 264 thousand aliens obtained lawful permanent resident status.  Fifty-three percent of these were admissions adjusted status while within the United States, and 47 percent entered as new arrivals.  New arrivals were primarily from 6 countries:  Mexico, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, India, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines.  About 44 percent obtained status as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and an additional 18 percent obtained status under a family preference category. Employment-based preference categories and refugees were the next-largest classes of admission, each accounting for 14 percent of new arrivals. 

As to refuges, over 5,000 refugees were admitted in the first quarter of 2018.  Refugee arrivals increased by 19 percent from the previous quarter.  For the first quarter of 2018, 83 percent of refugees were from six leading countries of nationality: Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, Ukraine, Eritrea, and Russia.

Naturalization data is also available on the Homeland Security web site and includes the following.   A total of 163 thousand aliens were naturalized in the first quarter of 2018 compared to 106 thousand in the same quarter in 2017.  Roughly 43 percent were from Mexico, India, the People’s Republic of China, the Philippines, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. These were also the six leading countries of nationality during each quarter of 2017.

Finally, there are non-immigrant admissions which include Visitors entering for pleasure or business which comprised 79 and 11 percent, respectively of all non-immigrant admissions in 2017, followed by temporary workers and families (5.1 percent) and students and dependents (2.5 percent).

I would argue that we are enormously generous when it comes to legal immigration.  With such generous acceptance of those entering our country legally, I believe we can justly deal harshly with those who break our laws and enter illegally.  Those who would accept illegal aliens and ignore that their first act on entering is one of breaking the law, are in essence advocates of open borders.

By the very fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and thus not inclined to announce their presence, the exact numbers of illegal immigrants has to be an estimate.  However, statistics and other research can provide fairly accurate estimates.  The figure is estimated at slightly below 12,000,000.  (see full report with its reference bibliography HERE)  

The Department of Homeland Security is required to keep detailed records of known unlawful entries and of apprehensions.  Their detailed report is HERE.  A report from the office of immigration statistics on efforts by DHS to estimate Southwest border security and dated  dated 2017 (see full report HERE).  includes the following:  the U.S. Border Patrol made 408,000 southwest border apprehensions in 2016; survey data, mathematical models, and USBP assessments suggest that a growing share of attempting crossers between ports of entry are apprehended or interdicted; USBP’s observation-based estimate of known got away was 106,000 in 2016.

There is a significant problem with people, especially on the southern border, entering illegally.  As to those entering illegally, some end up in custody upon entry (for example, here are statistics for those in custody as of September, 2017 HERE . We also know (from a variety of reports, and from other research, that illegals enter the country for a variety of reasons:  some simply are unwilling to wait through the legal process of immigration; some are encouraged to come here perhaps as political pawns by entities such as “Pueblo sin Fronteras”; some are child or drug traffickers, gang members, or other form of criminal; some who enter respect and seek to assimilate into American culture while some are in one form or another anti-American.  There are also estimates on things like employment statistics, education, needs for various public services, etc.

The bottom line, as I see it after considering the above, is that we do have an illegal immigration problem.  It is the duty of our leaders to secure and protect our country (this is a fact – see the Constitution).  If they refuse to address the border issue they are failing in their responsibilities to us the citizens.   I find our laws, for the most part, to be good if they would be enforced and not thwarted by things like sanctuary cities and endless litigation.  I would like to see requirements that those seeking entry show that they want to participate in our nation, not change it to some other model; that those seeking citizenship should be eager to give allegiance to our country and its government and institutions, and that there should be some way in which their immigration will benefit this land.  Chain migration (where one legal immigrant can essentially bring scores of family along) should be limited to spouses or other similarly close family member.  And, there should be methods of keeping track of those whose legal entry is for a limited time and a requirement of deportation when that time ends unless there is a renewal of the entry permit. 

Our real problem is with illegal entry and the acceptance of such illegality by many of our politicians.  Not only is allowing this to continue in essence signaling an approval of those who ignore our laws, it is unjust and unfair on many levels.  It is also dangerous to those legally in this country.  Failure to recognize this, to stand for our laws and our people, is gross neglect of their responsibilities and oaths by those politicians who refuse to even negotiate on border security.  We have laws and those laws include a controlled border intended to keep our country secure.  We have methods of changing those laws, but until they are changed, unless we have open borders, the laws and the border controls must be enforced.  Emotional responses to the alleged plights of illegals does not justify failure to follow the law. 

(As an aside, I fail to understand why the anti-Trump politicians who have also become anti-controlled border, seem to place the welfare of those who are not part of our country above those who are.  Similarly, I find it interesting that they now seek all sorts of medical facilities on our very rural and isolated borders where residents of this country have always lived without such concern or facilities.) 

I would do away with our catch and release policy which essentially allows individuals to enter illegally, be detained, promise to return for a court hearing, and be released freely into our country.  While many do return, others do not; some of those that do not have a variety of criminal intents.   Of course, enforcing the immigration laws becomes much easier if there are limited ports of entry into the country.  This is where the wall comes in.  Most defined nations have some sort of barrier around and defining its borders.  Sometimes that is a natural geographic occurrence, and sometimes it is manmade.  But, in my opinion some form of barrier is necessary if one is to maintain, protect, and sustain their nation. 

In the case of the United States, we do not have natural boundaries at many of our borders.  Hence we need some sort of man-made device.  It seems that the wall (or fence as it was called by previous administrations) is what those who have studied the situation seem to find as the best form of border barrier (that includes not only the current President, but also former presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama).  I, personally, would like to have more information about technological capabilities such as drone technology to substitute or supplement border security in places where a wall is not feasible.  But, as a nation, we must protect our borders and a barrier is the first step in that protection. 

With a barrier in place to stop the flood of illegal entries, we can then thoughtfully consider how best to amend and improve our immigration laws and policies.  This is such a complex issue; it will not be resolved overnight.  But it will never be resolved if Democrats continue to use it as simply another way of hating Trump.  I do not understand how, given the facts relevant to illegal entries and illegal immigrants, that the Democrats can stand by and do nothing while urging that our current laws not be enforced.

Tonight the President will talk to the nation about the border.  It is his job to do so and to provide to the nation the assurance that its laws will be enforced and that its border will be secure.  The congress should be helping the President to carry out those duties rather than refusing to even discuss solutions.  If the Democrats have a better solution than the President’s proposal of a wall, then they should present it for discussion.  Ignoring the given facts - that we are a nation that has a controlled border with laws allowing legal entry by compliance with our laws and that those laws are being regularly violated - is not a solution to our problem.  Ours, like most nations, is not one with open borders and to pretend it is in order to further some political goal is a gross neglect of elected office and one which we the people should not stand for, regardless of how we may feel about the President.

Points of View Are Not Facts; We Need Both and We Need to Understand the Difference

Apparently during a meeting at the White House about funding for the wall last Wednesday, the following interchange took place:

Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: “I reject your facts”

Nielsen to Pelosi: “These aren’t my facts.  These are the facts.”

If people are unwilling to acknowledge, let alone accept given facts, then how can we ever have a discussion, let alone resolve differences or solve important issues?

Unless we wish to discuss apples and oranges as if they were the same thing, we must be willing to accept facts – things that provably exist.  That is not to say that we must have the same opinions of those facts, but we must all begin discussions of issues with an acceptance of those things that simply are.  Then we can express differing opinions about those facts and their significance to the particular issue that we are discussing.  It is during that presentation of differing views that we have the opportunity to learn from those who seem to disagree with us.  It is that sort of discussion that allows differing sides to move forward to a compromise of or solution to their disagreement, a solution that might change for the better facts that exist in the future.

But, if we are unwilling to accept given and provable facts, if, instead of arguing about their significance, we choose to dispute the indisputable, we are unlikely to move forward.  If we dispute pure facts themselves, then the dispute is essentially some version of "I am right and you are wrong" and each side simply tries to convert the other side to their “facts”; when the conversion does not occur, the conversation ends.  There is no solution to such a dispute.

However, if we begin by accepting the provable and certain facts, then we can evaluate those facts from differing viewpoints and perspectives.  We can accept the relevant facts on an issue and also the fact that differing experiences often lead people to interpret facts differently.  That is the beginning of a rational discussion and hopefully a rational resolution to a problem. 

Here’s a quick example.  Let’s say I run a stop sign, and there is no dispute about the location of the stop sign or a nearby tree, that I ran through the stop, and (we are assuming I’m truthful here) that I assert I did not see the sign.  Those are facts.  What we might dispute is whether, given the location of the sign and the tree, I should have seen it, or, whether the city should have placed the stop sign in a more visible location.  Those are interpretations of the basic indisputable fact of the sign’s location.  But if we spend our time disputing where the stop sign was located or if there really was a tree located near it, etc., then we will never get to a resolution of issues such as whether I should pay for damage I caused by running the sign or whether the city should move the sign or trim the tree that may have blocked it.

So, when we discuss immigration, there are certain facts that, while we might not like them, are indisputable.  Things like the numbers of illegals in this country; the numbers crossing our border both legally and illegally, the numbers in custody; the numbers of children; that some are criminals; that some families are separated at the border; that border agents have rescued aliens and that some aliens have died in our custody; that sanctuary cities protect aliens from ICE; that there are a variety of reasons why migrants seek to enter America, both legally and illegally.  These and many other facts can be specifically supported with statistics and other evidence.  Similarly, the laws and their requirements can easily be read.  These are all facts.  If we are going to actually have a productive dialog about immigration, then we must accept the facts that exist – all the facts, whether they further our argument or not -  and discuss their significance to our country in light of varying views and interpretations of those facts.  We can try to understand those views that differ from ours and try to persuade those who hold them to perhaps see some of the facts from our perspective instead. 

But, if we are going to reject those actual facts that don’t support our position, if we are going to turn facts we don’t like into something refutable that belong to the other side of our issue, then any attempts at discussion must go nowhere.  Facts, indisputable evidence, is not something about which we can rationally disagree.  And so statements such as that made by Speaker Pelosi are simply a way of blocking any rational discussion of the immigration issue. 

We can have both facts and points of view on an issue.  Indeed, that is what our democracy relies upon – an acceptance and encouragement of diverse voices on an issue as we move forward to correct problems related to provable facts.  But, we can’t make up the facts.  We can’t choose which facts to accept.  The facts simply are.  It is the picking and choosing of facts to make up a narrative pleasing to one side or another and then an assertion that only that narrative is correct, that creates the impossible animosity that grips our country today.

It is easy to assert that our views are facts.  But, simply, they are not.  And, until people can accept that fact, until they can distinguish the two, there is little hope for resolution to issues and much likelihood of continuing hostility toward, instead of tolerance of, those holding differing views.

Revenge, Jealousy, and 2019

I did not write in this blog for some time because, quite frankly, it seemed pointless.  Each political “crisis” or issue was beginning to seem like just a rehash, over and over, of the same points, just dressed in different clothes. 

On any issue, the President asserts a position fairly consistent with the platform on which he was elected.  The Democrats go all out to oppose that position, primarily by ad hominem attacks on the President and his supporters.  Generally, the President’s positions tend to look to country first while the opposition tends to be less concerned about America than about a new world globalism ethic (that in the end sounds much like the oft tried and failed socialism and often looks even more like nothing more than a grab for their own power). 

But, the opposition positions often conflict with those held by the same individuals before Trump’s election.  That leads (or should lead) one to conclude that it really isn’t about the issues at all, but about a hatred of Trump and the fact that he bested them in the election and that the entire country is not fawning at the feet of the Democrats and their positions.

I had hoped that 2019 would bring an end to this ridiculous childish behavior; that people would grow up and begin to honestly discuss important issues based on objective and rational thought.  But, sadly, it does not appear that this is the case.

2019 brings us a continuation of the revenge and jealousy that has been the calling card of the anti-Trump crowd for the past 2 years.  New Senator Romney preludes his new office with a tirade against the President in today's Washington Post, rehashing his angry and jealous comments made throughout the campaign.  Romney’s niece and chairwoman of the Republican party appropriately replied “POTUS is attacked and obstructed by the MSM media and Democrats 24/7. For an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack @realdonaldtrump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive.”

Unproductive is a key word here.  How long do we have to suffer through the emotional angst of those who disagreed and disagree with the President and feel the need to act out because they didn’t or are not getting their way?  Revenge is the instinctual go-to when people believe they have been wronged.  But we need to rise above that instinct unless we prefer a never-ending conflict (and, never-ending is not an overstatement if one considers the many conflicts that have gone on for thousands of years based primarily on a cycle of revenge).

Until our politicians can rise above the personal and instinctual response of revenge and retaliation for not getting what they thought they should, we can expect to simply rehash the same personal attacks in the guise of whatever issue is the special of the day.  This is not productive; it is hurtful to our country.  The grown-ups (if there are any), need to acknowledge that they lost and move forward.  This does not mean abandoning their positions on issues, but it does mean abandoning the personal malice, hatred, jealousy they feel for the fact that they lost to someone they personally do not admire and that there are those who choose other people and policies over them and the policies they favor.

Once this is acknowledged, then and only then can we perhaps move forward with productive conversations between those with differing views on the political problems of the day.  Politicians need to remember that it is not about them, it is not personal; it is about our country and our world.  Grown-ups can understand this, can see beyond themselves, and can converse (which includes both speaking and listening!) with those of differing viewpoints, to reach compromises that are good for all of the people, even if not providing revenge for a personal hurt or jealousy.

2019 is still young.  Let us hope that we will see an end to revenge politics and a beginning of mature, reasonable, and rational conversations among those of differing views.  That can only be good for all of us.  Happy New Year.

Border Reality

Recently someone asked me why I haven’t written on immigration lately.  There are 2 main reasons for this. One, it is in many ways too complicated a topic for a short blog, and, second, it seems that this is an area where most all minds are made up already, though often not based on rational evaluation but rather on political point of view.  Nonetheless, let me try to add a few thoughts to the conversation.

Essentially, there are three approaches a country can take to its borders:  open borders, controlled borders and closed borders.  Standing for or against one or another of these forms does not necessarily mean one is racist or holds any other positions that various sides of the debate like to attribute to their opponents.  We might be more successful in resolving the immigration issues if we would focus on immigration itself, rather than on name-calling of those with whom we disagree.  That is, immigration should not be used to settle political scores.

A border is simply an outer edge that delineates where something ends.  In this case we are talking about the defining edge or boundary of a country.

An open border is one that allows free movement of people across with little or no restrictions.  Essentially there is no border control.  This may be by design, or due to lack of resources.  The borders between the states of the United States are open borders.

A controlled border is one that allows movement across but places some restrictions on that movement.  It may require a visa or a limited period of entry without a visa.  A controlled border will have some method of recording people’s movements across the border and for checking compliance with the restrictions and limitations on crossing.  Controlled borders will usually have some sort of barrier, either natural (e.g. a river) or man made (e.g. a wall) and will usually have designated crossing points for legal crossings of the border.  Most international borders, including the United States, are controlled borders.

A closed border prevents movement of people across the border with few if any exceptions.  Examples include the Berlin Wall and the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. 

Our immigration debate seems to primarily involve the following positions:  arguments for open borders; arguments to keep a controlled border with essentially the same restrictions and criteria for entry as we now have (keep the current immigration laws) and have a controlled border but rework the restrictions and criteria (rewrite the immigration laws).

Most of the open border arguments are humanitarian or idealist in nature.  They argue that migrants coming from developing to developed countries can, by earning higher wages, not only improve their own standard of living, but in the process reduce world poverty.  Additionally, is the argument that it is inherently unfair for people to be treated differently or live differently simply based on which side of a border they were born.

The arguments against open borders are more pragmatic and realistic.  Open borders can create a drain on available resources in the country to with the people are migrating.  And, it can deprive home countries of the people necessary to improve those countries (both laborers and educated professionals), especially when they are developing nations. 

The arguments for open borders can be quite compelling.  But, in my opinion, they are not very realistic, especially when taken to their logical extreme. 

America is a great country.  It has natural resources and it has a form of government beginning with its Constitution that is the envy of people around the world.  It makes sense that anyone would like to come and live here.  But, realistically, this country cannot support the whole world.  Nor should it. 

America has always been very generous with its legal immigration as well as its humanitarian aid to developing nations.  Legal immigrants have brought much to our country and we have given them much.  But one key to past legal immigration is that those who came appreciated not only the resources available here, but also the government and way of life in America.  While keeping their ancestral identity and culture they also have been willing to become Americans, to support the basic values upon which this country was built and which allows it to be both enticing and welcoming.  These legal immigrants truly gave up their home country for ours and became full participants in our society.

There are many today who also seek legal immigration into America as a way to become Americans, who will both take what America offers and give what they can in return.  But there are others who seem to seek this country for what it has to offer them, but who would rather not become Americans; they would simply move their country into our land and reap its benefits.  In many cases these are those who begin their entry by disrespecting our laws and entering illegally. 

It is these illegal border crossers to whom many controlled border advocates object and whom many open border advocates welcome.  But one must ask: if you allow everyone in, what will happen to this country?  There were at least 6000 migrants in the most recent group that arrived at our border.  We likely could in some way absorb that number, but what about the next 6000 and the next?  If most of the world sees America as better, then why shouldn’t everyone come here?  And then what?  Abundant as our resources are, we do not have enough for the entire world.

Those who would allow open borders play on our emotions with pictures of mothers and starving children, try to shame us based on our humanitarian values into opening our borders to all.  Of course we want to help.  Those against opening our borders to everyone show us pictures of gang members who are rapists and murderers.  In reality, those attempting to enter our country include both and more. 

The focus should not be on who exactly is climbing the wall, or storming our border, or even seeking legal entry, but rather on should we or should we not open the border, and if it is not open, then what should be the criteria for legal entry.  In the meantime, we should enforce existing laws equally and against anyone who violates them, regardless of their emotional appeal to us or lack thereof.

We are a country, we are not the keepers of the entire world.  We are indeed fortunate to live in this blessed land.  But we have also given blood and treasure to build and keep this country.  Compassion for those less fortunate does not require us to open our borders to all or to give away that which our people have worked hard to build.  There are many ways to express compassion.

Our immigration laws need to determine the criteria for legal entry.  These criteria should include an understanding of why the applicant wishes to enter and how they will in some way contribute to our country.  Perhaps they have a skill we need; perhaps they will learn here and take what they learn back to their country, sharing our compassion in that way to make a better world. 

Of course we must take in those who seek asylum (though there may also be limits on that number).  But a refugee is not simply someone who thinks it is better here than in their home country.  A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.   If they simply don’t like the economy or policies of their country, it seems a better plan for them to work to change those problems and make their own country a more livable and better place.  We can perhaps give advice or training or monetary assistance.  But we cannot simply open our doors to everyone who sees America as better than where they are now.    

Opening our borders to everyone requires that we be willing to give up our country, for a country without borders is no country at all.   We see many of the illegal immigrants that enter our land still holding the flag of their home country while defacing the flag of the new country they would call home.  They choose not to learn our language or our customs or our values.  It is those things, held in common, that are the basis of a country and not simply a geographic area filled with competing tribes.

A controlled border allows us to have laws that insure that those who seek to enter have a true desire to become a productive and supportive participant in America.  Those laws also allow us to exclude those who attempt to enter illegally or with purposes that are not in the best interests of this country.  With such restrictions we can enjoy the gifts and talents that immigrants bring with them while ensuring that those of us (immigrants and current residents) who choose to be here will continue to have the country that we have chosen.

Of course, we’d all like to believe that if there were open borders everywhere, we would all just get along fine and the world and everything in it would be wonderful.  But the world is inhabited by imperfect humans and it is highly unlikely that would happen.  We can open our borders, but we must be prepared for a loss of our way of life:  a loss of resources, a loss of shared values, a loss of our cultural identity as a nation. 

In the real world, open borders are a bad idea.  Controlling borders means creating clearly defined and protected borders, not allowing illegal immigration (and not rewarding it after the fact), and having clearly defined requirements and procedures for legal immigration and appropriate penalties for violations of those rules.  It is time that people get over the emotional and unrealistic arguments and stop using immigration as a political weapon and simply focus on making America’s controlled borders the best they can be.

A Trigger Warning for Christmas?

I’m thinking that maybe I should put a trigger warning* on the Christmas cards I’m about to send out.  They have a picture of the nativity (a reproduction of a 15^th century painting). 

*Trigger warning for those who are not familiar with the term is “a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).”  Teachers and professors are advised (sometimes required) to give such a warning to students when a subject to be addressed in class might prove upsetting to some.  

While my consideration of a trigger warning for my card is primarily in jest, it is also in response to learning that an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies from Minnesota, posted on his Twitter account that the “virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,” and “There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.” He concluded the tweet by writing “Happy holidays.”

So, those of us who enjoy Christmas, for religious or other reasons, can now consider ourselves complicit with those sexual predators called out by the MeToo movement.  We are also not to listen to a variety of Christmas or Winter season songs – “Baby Its Cold Outside” (date rape); “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas” (racist); “Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer” (bullying), “Deck the Halls” (homophobic). I haven’t heard complaints yet, but I’m sure “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is a symbol of elder abuse.  Of course, we already have learned that Charlie Brown is racist from his Thanksgiving special.   And, the movie “Elf” includes the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” so it too must go.  I’m sure there is a long list of other offensive Christmas activities that we will eventually hear about.

Once upon a time in a Children’s story the Grinch stole Christmas.  There are real grinches who would not only spoil the fun of Christmas but put an end to it altogether.  They remind us that it is really a recycled pagan holiday, that we don’t know when Jesus was born, and that the word “Christmas” is not in the Bible.   We already know we should not be using the word Christmas – if we must give a season greeting it should be the generic “Happy Holidays.”

Debates.org has a debate poll asking the question “Should Christmas be abolished?”  The result:  49% yes, 51% no.  Reasons for yes include that the holiday is racist, sexist, and Christian, that it “gives false hope” to children, and that it is for capitalists.

Once upon a time in this country we were more tolerant.  Even if a holiday were not one that we chose to celebrate, we were tolerant of those who did.   We were not offended by, nor did we look for everything possible by which we could be offended in the holidays, beliefs, and activities of others.  I grew up on a street with Christians and Jews.  They did not celebrate each other’s holidays, but neither did they take offense at them.  They respected the other’s views and were tolerant of them.  They did not try to take the joy out of them or spoil them or end them altogether.

Today we do not have such tolerance.  Those who oppose Christmas are not content to let others enjoy the holiday.  Instead they would impose guilt, doubt, hatred on those who do.

In soviet Russia, the State took charge of what people should believe.  The goal was to establish State atheism.  Religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.  Believers had to worship secretly; public displays of religion were prohibited.

Is that where this over-eager hunt for Christmas offenses leads?  It is certainly in line with the autocratic mind-set of dictatorship.  And with what seems to be more and more the prevalent mind-set of the progressives in this country.  The Democrats (most recently via Sen. Hirono) have told us that they are just too smart for the rest of us.  Perhaps that is why they believe that it is their job to tell us how to think and to act, what to celebrate and what is just too offensive, what we should feel guilty about and why we should just never be able to simply enjoy life without shame and guilt for our many sins and misdeeds.  And, among those, apparently, is the joy and fun of Christmas.

Lenin wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”  Marxism-Leninism advocates the suppression and ultimately the disappearance of religious beliefs, considering them to be "unscientific" and "superstitious”.

That is communism; we live in a country that protects a variety of beliefs and expects others (even those who think they are smarter than our bourgeois working class) to be tolerant of them.  The current war on seemingly every aspect of Christmas joy is simply a part of the war on everything that does not conform to one particular point of view.  It is a war, that if successful, will change this country completely and make it reminiscent of the joyless communism of the USSR.

The Hollowness of Show

We seem to live in a world where appearance is everything and there is an emptiness behind the superficial.

I watched a time lapse photo on Facebook of an artificial tree being erected in a family living room.  The video is cute and the “tree” is lovely, but I couldn’t help but feel that something was missing.  The point of the video was (I think) to show the world the “tree”  and that the family had gotten that job done. The time lapse encapsulated removing the "tree" from its box, stacking its tiers, turning on its pre-strung lights and adding the coordinated decorations.  When it was over you imagined the family simply returning to their everyday lives.

But isn’t Christmas and the holiday season not really about the tree or other decorations, but something deeper and far more meaningful?  We can all admire a perfectly erected artificial tree, but I would rather have a less than perfect tree and focus on the time together selecting (perhaps even cutting) it and decorating it (perhaps with homemade decorations or ones that are otherwise individually meaningful).  And, if it is only about the photo op of the “tree” or checking off the box that one put up a “tree” then we have lost any deeper understanding of what that tree might signify to us as an individual, to our family, to our faith, to our culture.

In contrast I recently watched some videos of holiday celebrations in Eastern Europe.  Families laid beautiful tables using special dishes, but the decorations in the homes were sparse.  One family had their celebration around a kitchen table with stove and sink as the backdrop.  Yet, in these videos, the families were focused on one another as they enjoyed the meanings and memories of the holiday.

I can remember birthday parties at our family’s kitchen table.  The table was well set and decorated, but the stove, sink, and cluttered kitchen counter were the backdrop.  I hope my children were not ashamed or embarrassed by this, especially when the typical child’s birthday (including those of their peers) was celebrated at some sort of entertainment center where the parents can demonstrate that they keep up with (or perhaps surpass) the Jones.

Appearances.  They seem to have become important ends in themselves.  Not just noteworthy celebrations, but daily life as well.  New homeowners feel compelled to completely furnish and decorate their new home immediately; no waiting and saving and buying piece by piece.  Slower acquisition results in a décor scheme that includes unmatched but complimentary pieces.  Perhaps not the perfection of a décor right out of a magazine photo, but a décor that one can feel is their own – that has meaning to the one who created it.

Yet, in all of the above, what will people drool over and compliment?  In most instances it will be the perfect artificial tree, holiday celebrations not in kitchens but in elaborately decorated homes, birthdays planned and carried out at some impersonal venue, homes that indeed look like a magazine photo.  The point is not the underlying meaning, but what it looks like to the rest of the world.  It is superficial beauty with a hollow core.

And it is not just our environments; it is ourselves as well.  The first questions asked upon meeting or hearing about someone are usually aimed at identifying where the person works and what their social status is.  Not who they are but what label we can slap on them.   Do we even care if there is anything beyond the surface that we label and then judge?

There is a hollowness in all of this.  An emptiness that reminds one of those philosophies that assert the emptiness and meaninglessness of life itself.  Perhaps that is why there is now so little interest in history or so much focus on making things better and feeling good in the moment with no thought to or concern for how it might affect the future. 

Let’s think about where this attitude leads.  If everything is nothing more than a “tree” to get out of a box, put up and move on, wondering “OK, that’s done, what’s next?”  then we are well on the way to not just denying but destroying our culture and with it our very souls.

There was a time when this country tried to make the many Native American Tribes give up their cultures, their languages, their ceremonies, their very way of life.  When this country came to realize the mistake that was, the Native cultures were only able to restore themselves and survive because the elders had preserved traditions and understood their deeper meanings and were able to pass this on to younger generations. 

Yet, as today’s PC police chip away at anything that is offensive to anyone, they are in effect doing what we tried to do to the Native cultures.  The progressive “inclusive” movement tries to make everyone think, act, and be alike.  That requires individuals and families to give up their personal traditions and beliefs – the things that tie them to both their past and their future.  It requires them to give up their very souls.

As we lose what is individually meaningful, we are losing the understanding that is necessary to preserve individual families and the culture that is their soul.  Some may think this is the way to a better world, to the utopia that is (and by its very nature must always be) a dream.  It is not.  Rather, it is the way to a loss of individuality, of one’s very being.  It is the way to a hollow and superficial world, a world that has no meaning and therefore no respect.  No respect for culture or for the families and individuals from which a culture derives. 

When there is no respect, no understanding, no meaning to something, then there is no need to sustain it; it can acceptably be destroyed and forgotten.  And hollow people can go about behaving as they are told, with no understanding of why and no individuality or meaning to their lives.  And that, at least in my opinion, is not a utopia.  It is instead a hollow world that can very easily collapse upon itself and cease to be.  When appearance – the show – is everything, then we must wonder what happens when the show ends and the curtains close.