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.  

The Elitism of Historical Enlightenment

There are those today who would judge every historical event by today’s standards. This is an unfortunate form of elitism.

Societies, including ours, evolve.  As they evolve they gain both scientific and social understanding that may prove that previous beliefs or actions were incorrect.  People once thought the world was flat or that the sun and stars moved around the earth.  Science later proved these beliefs to be wrong.  Yet we do not judge as stupid those who appropriately held those beliefs at the time they were considered to be accurate views of the physical world.

Similarly, as we evolve sociologically we learn that some of the beliefs that we had about the capabilities of women or other cultures or races were incorrect.  As we evolve sociologically we learn to be sensitive to diverse views and cultures.  We learn that behaviors that once were accepted actually were cruel or hurtful to others.  Yet, that behavior was at one time accepted as valid, justifiable, and expected. 

Just as it is not fair to judge the ancestor who believed the earth to be flat, it is not fair to condemn historical social behavior based on today’s sociological and moral understandings. To do so is a form of elitism – the attitude that those doing the condemning are somehow morally superior.  It is a form of snobbery which, in the case of historical enlightenment, is unjust.

With that in mind, let us consider the yearbook photo on Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page that he initially admitted but now claims is not of him.  The photo shows a person in blackface standing with a person dressed as a member of the KKK.  The yearbook is from 1984.  That is 35 years ago.

By today’s standards the photo is at a minimum culturally insensitive, and by most standards is racist and perhaps worse.   By today’s standards the behavior and the photo are unacceptable.  But, what were the standards in 1984?  As I recall that time it was not uncommon to hear comedians recite jokes that made fun of and caricatured races and cultures.  I don’t know what time of year the photo was taken, but I can assure you that if this were perhaps Halloween, few would raise their eyebrows at such costumes.  Indeed, Halloween was a time of all sorts of culturally offensive costuming, most of which has now been banned as we as a culture come to realize how offensive cultural appropriation and cultural humor can be.

I would like to think that Gov. Northam, in either wearing one of the costumes or in simply choosing to put the photo in his yearbook felt some sort of discomfort about his choice.  But I would also not be surprised if he did not, given the different atmosphere and racial understanding or lack thereof that prevailed 35 years ago.  

I cringe when I see this photo.  And if Gov. Northam put it before our eyes today, I would be the first to call for his resignation.  But to condemn him for an act that was in all likelihood not worthy of condemnation 35 years ago and also likely not done with malice in the atmosphere of 1984 seems to me to be unjust and an act of elitist superiority based on some sort of historical enlightenment.

Such elitism can be very dangerous.  If we are only going to live by the values of today, then I expect that we all are candidates for condemnation based on our acts of the past.  And, as history and cultures move forward, those elitist moral police of today may very likely be subjects of condemnation tomorrow.

It would be nice to think that we would all be prescient enough to understand the science and the sociological mores of the future.  The historical enlightenment elitists apparently expect us to have that capability and hence to have every statement and every action of today live up to what we will know and believe years into the future.

That is simply ridiculous.  Let us expect people to acknowledge the things they have done in the past that may have been accepted then but now are unacceptable.  Let us learn from those past actions.  Let people not do those things today, or, if they do, let them suffer the appropriate consequences.  But let us not condemn them for doing or saying things that were not considered unacceptable at the time they were done.

And let us not use this elitism of this moment in time to score political points.  Gov. Northam currently supports policies, including those on abortion, that are strongly opposed by others.  It is easy for the opposition to use this 35 year old event to call for his resignation.  Personally, because of some of his current policies I would be happy to see him gone.  But, I will not call for his resignation because of this 35 year old photo. 

And, on the other side of the aisle, there are those who generally support the Governor’s policies but are now calling for his resignation because of the photo.  I can’t help but wonder if this is simply their own self-promotion – a way to show their supporters that they, by condemning this action regardless of when it occurred, makes them somehow morally superior. 

While the current news story of Gov. Northam’s yearbook photo has been my example here, this is not an attempt to defend the Governor.  Rather, he is simply my example of the way in which many currently judge history by today’s standards, without context or any attempt to understand the context of historical times.  Perhaps this should not be surprising as so many in our society seem to want to live only in the moment, to erase, ignore or deny history. 

But that snobbery, that belief that now we know everything and are justified in condemning everything and everyone who is not us today is a very dangerous approach.  We are our history.  To condemn everything that is not us today is to condemn our very selves and to set the precedent that tomorrow’s selves can condemn, destroy, and deny all that we are today.  We become a people with no past and no future, just a hopeless and fleetingly elitist present.

Social Justice or Actual Justice For All?

Social Justice is not actual Justice.  It should not replace actual justice and the media should not take sides in helping it to do so.

What is social justice?  It is a concept that involves fair relations between various classes of society and usually involves the distribution of wealth, opportunity, property, and privileges within that society.  Social justice causes often fall into sociological categories that easily correlate to those involved in identity politics: race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, nationality. 

Justice is that which allows for fair adjudication between competing claims.  Decisions are based on rules such as the law and the Constitution that provide for fair and equal adjudication between parties without regard to a party’s identity categorization.  Hence, the concept of “blind justice”:  justice will treat all individuals equally.

Justice cares about facts; social justice cares about causes.  Here are some examples of social justice warriors bringing their cause to a case where there are facts not supporting their cause:

• The #MeToo Warriors sought to advance their cause using the allegations of sexual misconduct against then nominee and now Justice Kavanaugh.  The facts did not support their cause.  The warriors chose to deny the facts and/or find them not important.
• The anti-Conservative/anti-Trump Warriors sought to attack and silence a group of high-school boys wearing MAGA hats by claiming that the boys had instigated a racist incident on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  When video tapes and other information did not support their claims, they ignored those facts and continued to fault and attack the boys. 
• The Social Justice Warriors who believe that Trump is the antithesis of all their causes are supportive of any actions against him.  Thus, they support the Mueller investigation in the hopes that it will destroy the President and remove him from office.  Hence, they applaud tactics used by that investigation that at a minimum push the envelope towards denial of 4^th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the repeated use of gestapo-like tactics whenever someone closely related to Trump and his campaign are arrested.
• When a Black child was shot in her car and there was a White man in a pickup known to be nearby, without more the Warriors began demonstrations and claims against the White man whom they claimed was a racist and white supremacist and whom they immediately found guilty of the murder.  When facts proved that the White man was nothing more than a by-stander and that the child had been murdered by a Black man in a case of mistaken identity, the facts were again ignored. 
• The Warriors claim that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, seemingly making one of the qualifications that the president be someone of whom they approve.  Again, they ignore the facts of our Constitution which clearly sets forth the qualifications: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  Clearly, President Trump meets these qualifications, yet the Social Justice Warriors continue to claim he does not.

These are just of few of the more recent incidents that demonstrate that not only is social justice not the equivalent of justice, it is actually often its antithesis.  Social Justice will support lying to further its cause.  It accepts bearing false witness and accepts manufacturing facts that support its narrative and its causes.  It accepts and supports violation of our Constitution and our protected rights if those rights stand in the way of furthering the causes of the Social Justice Warriors.

This approach of the Social Justice Warriors goes hand-in-hand with identity politics that try to pit one identifiable group against another for political gain.  Identity politicians often try to pit a group that is less well-off in some way against another group with more of what the less well-off group lacks.  Socialists and Communists have long pitted the “workers” against the “bosses,” promising a better life to the workers if they will support the Socialist/Communist leaders. 

Identity politicians also pit one group against another; they convince one group that all their problems are due to another group and promise the first group that their life will be better if they support the identity politicians in their fight against the second group.   Look again at the list of social justice causes and see how they compare to identity political hatred:  race – fomenting minority anger against alleged White privilege; sexual orientation – fomenting LGBTQ anger against those whose religious beliefs, while demanding tolerance of diverse orientations do not condone such practices among their believers; nationality – fomenting anger of immigrants and especially illegal immigrants against all those who seek to contain illegal immigration regardless of their views on how broadly or narrowly the legal immigration laws should be drawn. 

Identity politics have always been with us to some extent, though I would argue that beginning with the previous administration they became a much more prevalent tactic, especially of the political Left.  But now, we have that Left using those tactics along with their claims of social justice as a way to negate a legitimate election and silence all who do not fully accept their views.  And the real victims in all of this are facts and the rule of law – the two things that are necessary for justice to prevail.

True Justice, true Fairness, requires that all be treated equally and that the rights of all, not just those of this or that favored group, be protected.  For rights to be protected, facts must be heard, verified, and accepted.  Partisans can argue over what the facts mean and what is their significance, but they cannot deny or make up facts to suit their purposes. 

The problem currently is that the partisans, with the help of the 24-hour news cycle and a partisan press, rile up their appropriate identity groups first.  Then, when facts are revealed, those facts no longer matter as the mobs scream for their latest social justice cause.  Worked into a frenzy, rationality is lost.  That is just the state that the Social Justice Warriors need their supporters to be in – a state where feelings can be used and manipulated, a state where specific identity groups can be characterized as enemies not entitled to basic rights, or to fair treatment under law, a state where the chosen identity group will believe the promises that they will have all their wants as well as needs fulfilled if they only support their social justice warriors. 

The problem with social justice and its identity political practices today is that it is by its very nature unfair.  The Social Justice Warriors believe that their chosen groups should have all that they demand while at the same time believing that it is appropriate and acceptable to silence and deny even basic rights to the groups they have designated as enemies and those not in line with their “social justice” positions.  Thus, for example, the Left assert their free speech rights, while seeking to deny free speech to those supporting the opposition – it is acceptable to silence and destroy those wearing MAGA hats, while supporting threats and attacks (both verbal and physical) by those on the Left against those on the Right.

Blacks Law Dictionary, defining law in jurisprudence, states that justice is “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.”  This is very different from rendering every person, or every person on your side only, their every desire.  Justice is fairness – to all, not just to one favored group over another.  It takes into account the actions of the individual as a person, not as a mere identity caricature.  And, it requires a respect for the facts and the law. 

Social Justice may be based on high ideals; it can be simply a partisan political tactic.  In either event, it is not a synonym for Justice.    And while Justice allows for Social Justice to push its causes, Social Justice as currently practiced does not allow Justice for all.

Fighting Words, MAGA Hats, and the First Amendment

             “Wearing MAGA hats provokes and insults people of color.”

“Aligning oneself openly with Trump’s movement sends an aggressive political message.”

“Anyone who wears a MAGA hat is racist.”

These and similar statements can be heard from the Left regularly; they have intensified in the wake of the attacks on the Covington boys.   

These and similar statements are a frightening trend that threatens one of the very cores of our Democracy – the First Amendment right to free speech.

The First Amendment protects speech, including symbolic speech.  The wearing of a MAGA hat or other politically identifying apparel (a campaign pin or T-shirt for example) are symbolic speech which is defined as a non-verbal communication that conveys a message or statement to those viewing it.  

While our free speech rights are not absolute, any restrictions must be as narrow as possible so as not to interfere any more than is absolutely necessary with the fundamental right of free expression.  The government can, in appropriate instances, put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.  “Fighting words,” words intended to incite an immediate breach of the peace, are not protected.  However, the government cannot restrict speech so as to force one to only speak or hold a particular opinion.  Even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of thought, both of which are essential to democracy.  Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in part that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.” 

Yet, the Left, in their repeated attacks on the MAGA hat, come frighteningly close to attempts to deny free speech and the free thought behind it.  Their behavior, not only toward the Covington boys, but to many other wearers of MAGA apparel, has a chilling effect on others who might desire to make a similar symbolic political statement but fear the attacks that doing so would bring.  Laura Ingraham has suggested that this is a form of voter suppression.  I would agree. 

Further, I fear that the Left is on the verge of using their attacks of the symbolic MAGA speech as a way to restrict that speech as some sort of “fighting word” exception to the First Amendment freedoms.  That would be a slippery slope indeed, for to restrict an opposing political view simply because it is upsetting to those who do not hold that view would put us well on the way to a country in which any and all opposing speech and its underlying ideas could be banned.  Such a country is not a democracy but a dictatorship.

The Left seems to have little regard for the First Amendment and its protection of speech when that speech is something they disagree with or do not want to hear.  They seem to have no problem with shouting down, intimidating, silencing any thought or expression that is not their own.  This says volumes about their respect for democracy itself.  For it is the sharing of diverse ideas in a marketplace of open and free speech that is an absolute necessity for a democracy that is a government of, by, and for the people.  To care about democracy is to defend free speech, even when it says something that you find offensive. 

Only by sharing diverse ideas, by having tolerance for diverse views and openly presenting and discussing varying ways to address an issue can we grow and evolve as a country.  Symbolic speech has been a powerful movant at difficult times in our history; that speech is frequently political and almost always offensive to someone.  Yet, we need that speech if we are to continue to be the free country that stands as a beacon of free thought to the world.  If only the Left would remember that and defend rather than try to extinguish free and diverse speech along with the thought behind it.

Quietly Delete

This morning I read that Democrat Representative Omar had quietly deleted proven lies that she had spewed at the Covington boys even after the full facts from the full video became public. 

How often do we hear this?  After dragging someone, along with their family and others associated with them through the mud, after issuing any number of threats, after bullying and name calling, all designed to silence and destroy both the individual along with anyone else holding views similar to that individual, after all that, when it is proven that there was a jump to judgement without factual support, the attackers silently delete their vitriol.  No apology.  No remorse for the pain, suffering, emotional and sometimes physical harm caused, not concern for a life and reputation damaged and destroyed.  Just quietly delete and then move on to the next victim.

And what does this do for those who are not yet victims of the hate?  It silences them.  The Covington boys were wearing MAGA hats.  That was their crime in the eyes of the hateful Left, and for that the Left made sure they were punished.  How many parents will let their children wear MAGA hats to a rally next time (or even allow them to attend a rally).  The hat is a form of protected symbolic speech under our Constitution.  The intolerant Left would deny such speech; indeed, they would deny any speech that holds a view contrary to their own.  That is not the America laid out in our Constitution.  That is not the America that not only allows but encourages diverse viewpoints.

The Left’s pattern of intimidation is becoming worse as it tries to capture everyone in its net.  It may be one thing to try to silence an opponent who has chosen to take on the ugliness of political office.  But bullying children to prove a political point is simply not OK.  The Covington boys, their families and their school have been put through an undeserved hell that will affect the rest of their lives.  Quietly deleting proof of the attacks is not a sufficient response.

The Left seems to believe that lying about facts or ignoring them completely is acceptable if those facts are in any way contrary to the narrative that the Left would have everyone believe.  They have even made statements to the effect that facts don’t matter if they hold the “correct” moral view.  Yet, who are they to set themselves up as the moral authority in this land that believes in tolerance of diverse views and values? 

Hating Trump because he beat your candidate does not make your views morally superior.  Those who applaud Trump’s policies such as those that improve the economy and bring unemployment of minorities to the lowest rates ever are not morally inferior.  And, attempting to silence any and all who hold a view that differs from yours is completely un-American.

The Left’s quiet deletion without apology or remorse after wrongfully destroying lives of those holding differing views should not be tolerated.  I would look to the once objective media to call them out, but that is pointless since the media for the most part serves as partner in this behavior and then finds ways to justify it. 

The Left tells us they care about everyone, yet their actions demonstrate a level of hatred I have not seen before in my nearly three quarters of a century on this earth.   They seem driven and blinded by that one ugly passion and it is getting worse.  They seemingly will not be content until they have subjected the entire populace to their views and then have been returned to a position where they can officially exert their tyranny over us all.

I, for one, will not be silenced and I will speak out for all whom the Left attacks and tries to destroy.  I will not let their hate filled actions intimidate me and I will hope that those who have been brainwashed by the lies of the Left will awake and stand strong for the values that have always made America great, beginning with a tolerance for diversity, including diversity of thought.  We simply cannot let our great country be quietly deleted.

The Bloodthirsty Left

Two years and counting since the blind hatred of the Left began to boil.  One would think it would be cooling, but its temperature continues rising daily.

The Left wants to destroy everyone that does not bow down to them and all their views.  Now it is a group of high school boys who were attacked, accused of being attackers, and, though that has been proven untrue, continue to be the subjects of hatred and violent threats.  What did they do wrong?  Well, for starters some wore MAGA hats – an unpardonable sin in the Left’s view.  They go to a Catholic school and assert their Christian faith and values in the face of vitriolic hatred.  Those values are another unpardonable sin.  So, the Left calls for doxing of their names (publication of their names and addresses for malicious intent).  They and their families are receiving hate and death threats.  Their school is closed due to security concerns.  All this for simply peacefully wearing a hat and holding true to their faith. 

This is the Left.  This is their normal behavior.  Silence in any way possible those who do not hold their views.   Destroy anyone who is not them.  We saw this with their attempted destruction of Justice Kavanaugh and his family.  They failed – or did they? They now call for perjury charges against him – for what?  For telling the truth in the face of their lies and false charges against him.

The Left believes that their views are the only ones that should be allowed.  Regardless of their factual truth.  Notwithstanding that in this country we protect diverse views – or at least that used to be one of our ideals.  The Left would silence if not destroy all who disagree.

I understand this tactic of their leaders who, as any examination of the actual facts of their behavior reveals, seek a world in which they hold absolute power and control every thought and act of their subjects, keeping those subjects fully dependent on their every whim.  But, what I do not understand is that their followers accept, indeed follow them.

I do not understand how anyone with even half a brain or half a heart or any understanding of American values can accept the behavior of the Left.  Their continued calls for violence against anyone not holding their views.  Their many ways, both subtle and blatant, of intimidating those who are not one of them.  It is as if so many of their followers are in some sort of a drugged state as they follow blindly behind this destructive leadership of the Left.

The Left loves to throw feel good promises to their followers.  I have been listening to their candidates throwing their hats into the 2020 ring.  They all use the word “fight” in their speeches.  I will fight for this or that group.  They continue to stoke the hatred of identity politics.  I have yet to hear any of them assert that they will fight for the tolerance and respect for diverse views that is a cornerstone of our democracy.  Their promises that their government will give every group everything they want is a true “opiate of the masses.”  Yet, that opiate will destroy America.

The bloodthirsty Left cares only about itself.  Promises to this or that group are ways to gain that group’s support, but as soon as they are not useful, the Left will be happy to destroy them as well.  The Left’s thirst is for their own power and to keep that power they will destroy anything and anyone; they will keep necessary supporters not by empowering them, but by keeping them dependent and by feeding them lies.

This is a very scary time to be anything but a lock-step Leftist.  The hatred being stoked by the Left grows daily.  They want their way and only their way and they are happy to destroy any and all who stand between them and the ultimate power that they seek.  Their calls for killing (yes, killing!) of the young boys who they wrongfully accused and attacked, should shock us all, but sadly, it is the sort of thing we hear daily from the Left.  Yet, we must not let ourselves become immune to this.

The behavior of the Left is irrational and bloodthirsty hatred.  It is destructive, both to the specific individuals whom are attacked and also to the people of this country as a whole. Those who are lulled by their promises of a glorious future must see those promises for what they are – useful hooks to lure in support for the Left’s own power.  This is a frightening time for America – a time where we could lose the dignity and diversity of the individual that is a key to this and any democracy.  We must not let the hatred of the Left succeed.

The Bottom Line

It really doesn’t matter how one looks at the arguments, the bottom line is that the Democrats support illegal immigration.  What this ultimately means is that Democrats support violating the Laws that they have sworn to uphold.

The Democrats oppose the wall.  The wall is a barrier to stop migrants from entering our country illegally.  Walls, both those that do exist on our southern border and those of other countries, have been shown to be effective and to significantly reduce the influx of illegal aliens into a country. 

The wall will not change the ability of those seeking to enter the country legally to do so.  Our immigration laws will still be in place, and while there are many problems with those laws, the wall will not fix those problems.  Revision or complete writing of the immigration laws is a complex task that must be addressed by congress, but that is a separate question from the wall.

The wall simply helps to stem the flood of illegal migrants into this country.  The Democrats pre-Trump have acknowledged this; they have supported a barrier.  Now they do not.

So, either the Democrats have decided that they support illegal migration into this country, or they are simply opposing the wall for political gains.  Either way they are violating their oath of office in which they “do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Democrats like to cloud the issue and change the focus by attacking those who support the wall.  They claim they are racist, etc., or that they are immoral.  First, morality is not something that the government dictates in this country, so, even if they see behavior as immoral they must tolerate those who have differing moral standards. 

But, I would ask, using their apparent standard of morality, how moral is it to encourage families to take the arduous trek across many countries to get to our border where they face being caught for illegally crossing and then sent back?  How moral is it to encourage those who fund and organize caravans to use the migrants for their own political gain?  It encourages people to turn themselves and their children over to smugglers who are known to put the migrants into the most horrible and inhumane conditions both during the journey and once they arrive at the destination. 

Human beings are crammed into trucks in conditions worse than cattle; those who are walking in caravans are subject to the less than humane behaviors of ill-intentioned members of the caravan including sexual and other assaults; upon arrival at the border, human beings are placed  for days by their smugglers into holding pens of one sort or another that have little if any food or water and inadequate (if any) plumbing.  These things are all documented, although specific numbers of instances or individuals involved remain estimates.  But actively allowing this to happen to even one human being is, in my opinion, inhumane. 

That the Democrats' actions encouraging illegal immigration essentially encourages and tolerates this behavior is indeed inhumane.  It is the heighth of hypocrisy for these Democrats to claim that those who seek to stem this tide of illegality and its resultant treatment of humanity are the ones who are inhumane.  Their claims are nothing more than a distraction; a distraction aimed at having us ignore that they are encouraging such behavior while at the same time violating their oath of office.

The big question that we need to ask is why do the Democrats support illegal immigration, not why do they not support the wall.  Their act of opposing the wall is a statement that they do support illegal entry into our country; that they do not support our laws, enacted under our Constitutional form of government – the very same Constitution that they swore to uphold.

Let me underscore:  We are not talking about legal immigration when we talk about the wall.   The wall will stem the tide of illegal entries.  Those entries, in addition to promoting many inhumane situations for the entrants, also create problems as well as unthinkable tragedies for those legally in this country. Those impacts include such things as: loss of jobs; higher taxes to cover funds needed to deal with illegals on a number of levels; shortages of resources; strains on communities and social services; rises in homelessness; drug problems related to illegal drug smuggling; victims of various criminal acts perpetrated by illegals; and many others. Certainly, some aliens who enter illegally will not be the source of such problems beyond whatever resources are initially expended to address their act of illegal entry (border agent resources; legal resources; etc.), but the more negative impacts listed above are all also documented.  To encourage the negative impacts on our citizenry, whether that impact is economic or criminal or other, is to fail the promises of the oath of office.

Those who are seeking to enter illegally, who subject themselves and their families to the horrendous conditions associated with illegal migration and who then subject our country to the consequences, sometimes minimal but also sometimes severe, of migrants whose very first act upon entering our border  is to break our laws, all of those people have the opportunity to seek legal entry under our immigration laws which include temporary and permanent visas, pathways to citizenship, and provisions for asylum seekers.  The illegal migrants are simply choosing to break rather than follow our laws.

The Democrats are supporting this illegality.  Perhaps because they support law-breaking, but more likely they are supporting law-breaking as one more weapon in their arsenal in their war against President Trump.   That war seems to be born of an irrational hatred and intolerance of anyone who disagrees with their positions or who keeps them from power.  They are still refusing to accept Donald Trump as the President.  And, opposing him on the wall is another way of opposing him now and in his likely bit for reelection in 2020.  The people should stop falling for these tactics which place Democrat power above the very oath that such power requires.

To summarize:  A barrier such as the wall stops migrants seeking to enter the country illegally.  It does not stop legal migration.  Those who oppose a barrier must admit to the fact that they are supporting illegal migration into our country and all of the consequences that illegal act entails.  The Democrats only took this stance when Donald Trump sought to do his job and stop illegal migration. 

Do not fall for the Democrats' distractions.  At this time their position is to support illegal migration.  That would seem to be the bottom line.  Ask them why they support and encourage the breaking of our laws.  If they are honest, they will tell you it is simply because they hate Donald Trump.  And that is the bottom line.