In El Paso, Democrats Show Us How Low They Can Go

“Saying that President Trump has ‘fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation,’ Democratic presidential primary front-runner Joe Biden on Wednesday will directly link the president to the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas.”  ~Fox News, August 7, 2019

Long ago I concluded that the lowest form of criminal is the person who tries to pin his crime on another innocent person.  A lot of people are capable of doing the wrong thing, but it takes a special kind of corruption – a person devoid of conscience – to watch innocent people suffer for your own crimes.  That’s what’s on my mind with respect to the mass killings that took place in El Paso last week, and the Left’s mad rush to try and direct blame onto Donald Trump. 

Democrats say it was Trump’s anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that stirred the El Paso shooter’s anger towards illegal immigrants (actually if democrats were telling this story they would have deceitfully left out the word “illegal,” but for the sake of brevity we’ll have to ignore their duplicity for a moment).  What they’ve argued, in a nutshell, is that anger inspired the shooter’s actions, therefore whoever inspired that anger is to blame for his crimes.  I wonder if the finger-pointers would stand by their self-serving logic after I’ve adeptly explained why it is they, not Trump, who are responsible for the rage that the shooter was feeling.

Frustration:
a deep chronic sense or state of insecurity and dissatisfaction arising from unresolved problems or unfulfilled needs
     ~Merriam-Webster Dictionary

First, let’s understand something about the relationship between anger and frustration.  Frustration, “a deep chronic sense or state of insecurity and dissatisfaction arising from unresolved problems or unfulfilled needs,” leads to anger.  Consider the example of the child who is treated differently from a favored sibling, i.e., held to a higher standard of behavior, punished for behaviors that the favored child is allowed to get away with, deprived of nice things that are offered to the favored child.  Imagine that child’s frustration due to his impotence over his situation.  What kind of feelings do you suppose this engenders in the mistreated child towards the favored sibling?  One would imagine that he must harbor great resentment, especially if the favored child wallows in the favoritism and is indifferent to his sibling’s pain.  Who is ultimately responsible for the child’s frustration and anger?  “The parents” is the logical answer.  They are the ones who have created this sick situation over which the child has no control, and that responsibility doesn’t shift if an outside observer points out to the mistreated child that he has every reason to be angry.

Now let’s look at who is responsible for the sick situation of illegal immigration in this nation that has frustrated most Americans.

The ILLEGAL immigration problem in this country has been continuously worsening since after WWII, when labor shortages (real or perceived) led millions of Mexican workers to come to the U.S., some illegally and some on temporary work permits.  When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed and led to a wave of legal immigration as well as a huge shift in the origins of immigrants, the U.S. put a halt to the temporary worker permits for Mexican laborers, but migrants in search of work continued to come illegally.  We all know that the growing problem of illegal immigration ultimately led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 under which Ronald Reagan, in a deal with the devil (Ted Kennedy) infamously granted amnesty for nearly three million illegal immigrants.  Thus began the age of the Left’s recognition of the value of immigration as a political weapon and as a source of division among Americans that proved helpful to Team Democrat.  The power to frustrate conservatives is an intoxicating drug to the Left; consequently, in the pursuant years they have added fuel to our frustration by heaping one reward after another onto those who trespass here.  We are forced by law to educate the children of those who trespass here illegally, and the doors of our hospitals must be opened to illegals, regardless of how it increases the cost – or the wait – for those of us who pay the bills; if illegals commit crimes or their children become gang members who threaten the safety of Americans, that’s too bad.  

Press one for English…..

Then came the Left’s typical sly strategy of linguistic slight-of-hand.  The illegals have become the “undocumented.”  This is supposed to make us forget that we are talking about criminals - people who disrespect our sovereignty, ignore our laws and take advantage of us.  And because the Left is enjoying our frustration so much, they will show us who’s boss by declaring our cities to be places of “sanctuary” for illegals, reject any attempt to secure our borders, give driver’s licenses to illegals, allow illegals to vote in our elections, denounce the men and women who enforce our borders, and suggest that illegals, too, will get “free” healthcare under their socialist schemes.  Though we have been told for more than a decade that the illegal population here is “11 million,” a joint study last year by researchers at Yale and MIT estimated the actual figure to likely be in excess of 22 million, or almost twice what the MSM has been deceitfully reporting for more than a decade; yet we cannot ascertain what the truth is because leftist groups like the ACLU, using our own courts against us, won’t allow it.

Yet it is Donald Trump, we are told, who is to blame for the anger that ravaged El Paso, because Trump dared to object out loud to what has happened in this country.  If the source of the shooter’s anger is to blame for his heinous act, then I’ll let you be the judge of who has created the conditions for that anger.

~CW

What is “Justice?”

The long awaited Mueller hearings this week revealed Democrats’ strategy for setting up a case to impeach Donald Trump based upon the crime of “obstruction of justice.”  Clearly they put their little heads together and plotted and planned their attack, citing damning details from the Mueller Report in carefully choreographed coordination and projecting their poster boards for the TV cameras so as to make the most powerful imprint upon impressionable Americans who tuned in for the show.  Not surprisingly the obstruction-obsessed Democrats didn’t bother to concern themselves with the second half of the equation:  Justice.  

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “justice” in multiple ways:

“…the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments…the administration of law…the quality of being just, impartial, or fair…the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action…conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS…the quality of conforming to law…conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS.”

Anyone who rooted for Harrison Ford’s character in the great movie, The Fugitive, understands a little something about the true meaning of justice.  Harris’ character was wrongly accused and convicted of murdering his wife.  When he fortuitously gets a chance to escape, he takes it, and then he sets about trying to evade the clutches of “justice” while he embarks on a mission to find the real killer.  And since this is the movies, Harrison does indeed discover and expose the real killer, and to the great satisfaction of the audience his exoneration and freedom are assumed.  But again, this is the movies, where people appreciate and understand justice because there is nothing at stake for them. 

Back to real life and the sad realities of human nature.  While Democrats were rabidly focused on obstruction, none of them seemed the least bit concerned or curious as to whether justice had been properly pursued.  While Republicans commendably pelted Robert Mueller with great questions about the nefarious origins of the investigation and the undeniably biased team that he assembled in pursuit of “justice,” Democrats were true to form in their absence of curiosity about those pesky details.  Nor did they share Republicans’ justified outrage at Mueller’s invention of the “not exonerated” standard that flies in the face of the American system of justice under which people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent as Mueller cunningly implied.  Only one side seemed interested in establishing whether or not the “justice” side of the equation had been satisfied, and it wasn’t the Democrats; yet without justice there can be no obstruction of justice.  I challenge anyone to argue otherwise. 

Democrats around the blogosphere are angrily demanding to know why Trump supporters aren’t outraged by the efforts of Trump et al to impede or stop the Mueller investigation.  I would suggest that they watch one of those great old movies where an innocent person is being railroaded by corrupt people in the system:  the lazy sheriff, the lying witnesses, the prosecutor who just wants another notch on his belt and the judge who’s on the take.  When you find yourself pulling for the innocent person doing whatever he can to fight the “justice” system, maybe then you’ll understand. 

~CW

Joe Biden Has a Very Strange Definition of “Abhorrence”

"I believe history will look back on four years of this president and all he embraces as an abhorrent moment in time," Biden said.

So now it’s “abhorrent” to secure our borders against an ongoing invasion from uninvited people and to restore American prosperity and economic superiority in the world.  This is the pollution being shoveled into Americans’ minds by people like sleazy Joe Biden.

Mind you:

Spitting on the Constitution and unilaterally forcing Obamacare on us against the will of more than half the country – that was not abhorrent.

Scheming to use Obamacare to ultimately socialize healthcare in America and put us further down the road to economic slavery  – that was not abhorrent.

Packing the courts with activist judges so that the Left can pretend to still honor the Constitution while slyly doing everything in its power to circumvent it and force its will upon the population – that was not abhorrent.

Standing on foreign soil and criticizing your own country and the citizens you swore an oath to serve and protect – that was not abhorrent.

Constantly pitting Americans against one another with campaigns of identity politics – that’s not abhorrent.

Setting up a ruse to use the federal government to spy on a political campaign and undermine a legitimately elected president and administration – that was not abhorrent.

Aiding the Russian effort to sow discord in the U.S. by fueling the phony charges of “collusion”  - that was not abhorrent.

American prosperity, patriotism and security – those are abhorrent.

Gotcha, Joe.

~CW

This post can also be viewed at the website, The Pesky Truth.

Trump Would be a Fool to EVER Release His Tax Returns

Democrats: “We demand that Donald Trump to put his foot in this trap!” 

“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.” 

~Sun Tzu 

Democrats are at war with the Republican Party, which means they’re at war with the American people because the GOP, weak and lame as it is, is the only thing standing between the Constitution and Democrats who would like to put the Constitution into the shredding machine.  The sooner all Americans understand this, the better.

It would be a refreshing change if Democrats were ever sincerely looking out for the interests of the American people, but Donald Trump’s enemies are obsessed with his tax returns for one reason only, and that is to find some information that can be used as a weapon with which to cudgel him politically.  Given the scheming nature of Democrats today and their willingness to manipulate the facts for their own benefit, there’s absolutely ZERO chance that this won’t happen.  None.  Nada.  Picture Elmer Fudd, shotgun at the ready, trying to cajole Bugs Bunny to step out of his rabbit hole for the sake of "transparency." To his great credit Trump appears to understand this game for what it is, but alas we have a handful of Republicans (hello, Mitt Romney!) who can only dream of possessing the common sense of the invincible Bugs Bunny.

Democrats – the party of socialist totalitarianism and thievery – cannot defeat Republicans and the American spirit in the arena of genuine political debate, so they are desperate to change the subject and to give their voters some excuse – any excuse – to put them in power in spite of their destructive ways.  (“See!  Trump didn’t give enough to charity!  That’s why I have to vote for a big-government socialist!”).  Whatever helps you sleep at night, my dear Democrats.

The scheme is already in play and the game is fixed so that there’s no way Trump can possibly win.  If he refuses to produce his tax returns then he must be hiding something.  If he produces the returns Democrats are ready to pounce.  Democrats and their leftist cohorts in the “mainstream” media are hoping to paint Trump into a corner, so it’s time to do what only Donald Trump can do and say, “Screw the leftists I’m not forking over my tax returns.  Now, let’s talk about the evils of socialism….”

~CW

This post can also be viewed at the website:  The Pesky Truth.

The McConnell Plan to Fight Democrats' "Resistance"

McConnell:  Time to Stop the Democrats' Obstruction

From Politico Magazine, April 1, 2019

It took six months of partisan delays — and several railroad accidents — before Democrats let the Senate confirm a federal railroad administrator, even though none of them actually voted against the nominee in the end.  It’s been 354 days and counting in Senate purgatory for the president’s nominee to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Two-hundred eighty-seven days and counting for the under secretary of state for management. Noncontroversial lower court nominees have languished for weeks and weeks — for no discernible reason — before they, too, were confirmed unanimously. These are just a few examples of the historic obstruction Senate Democrats have visited upon President Trump’s nominees for two years and counting.

Since January 2017, for the first time in memory, a minority has exploited procedure to systematically obstruct a president from staffing up his administration. This new, across-the-board obstruction is unfair to the president and, more importantly, to the American people. Left unchecked, it is guaranteed to create an unsustainable precedent that would see every future presidency of either party obstructed in the same mindless way.  The Senate needs to restore normalcy. And this week, we will vote to do just that.

Every presidential election since John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson in 1796 has undoubtedly left some senators disappointed. But never before has the unhappy side then built a systematic effort to keep the new president's administration unstaffed.  We aren’t talking about limited opposition to a few high-profile nominees or unusual circumstances. It’s mindless, undiscriminating obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Even uncontroversial lower-level nominees whom literally no senators oppose are not spared.

Across the first two years of each of the six presidents preceding President Trump, the Senate only had to hold 24 total cloture votes on nominations. That’s the once-rare procedural step that unlocks an up-or-down confirmation vote even though a minority has sought to block it.  And in President Trump’s first two years? We had to hold a stunning 128 cloture votes to advance nominations. Our Democratic colleagues made the Senate jump over five times as many hurdles as in the equivalent periods in the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations combined.

Because of this obstruction, the Senate’s progress in filling important executive branch positions has been insufficient. Crucial jobs are still being held empty out of political spite. More nominees whom I suspect would be confirmed without opposition are still being delayed indefinitely because our colleagues cannot finish grieving their loss in 2016.  The all-encompassing, systematic nature of this obstruction is not part of the Senate’s important tradition of minority rights. It is a new departure from that tradition. And this break with tradition is hurting the Senate, hamstringing our duly elected president, and denying citizens the government they elected.  Moreover, if we let this partisan paralysis continue, it will define a new norm for the future. It’s hard to imagine any future presidency of either party would be spared.

We can’t accept this. We need to stop this bizarre, new practice. We need to rebuild a nominations process that resembles the way things worked for more than two centuries.  Fortunately, the recent past provides a path forward.  In January 2013, as President Obama began his second term, I and many other Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to enact bipartisan reform of our nominations rules.  Republicans certainly weren’t thrilled with the election result. But instead of throwing a systematic tantrum, we acknowledged that the president should be able to build a government at a reasonable pace.  The measure, pushed by then-Democratic Leader Harry Reid and the current Democratic Leader Senator Chuck Schumer, sped up consideration of lower-tier nominations without changing the procedure for nominations to the Supreme Court, the circuit courts, or Cabinet-level executive positions. It helped us get lower-tier nominees out of Senate purgatory and into their roles without touching the most consequential vacancies.  It was a big step toward restoring Senate tradition. Even with a Democratic president, many Republicans still thought it was the right thing to do. The resolution got 78 votes.

These modest changes helped. But they only applied for the Congress in which they were enacted. And the need is much more urgent today.  That’s why, this week, the Senate will vote on a proposal to recreate similar, modest steps and make them permanent going forward.  Our proposal would only reduce the time a minority can keep delaying lower-tier nominations after a majority has invoked cloture. This would keep the Senate floor moving, saving time that is currently tied up in inoffensive nominations that senators don’t even really debate. And, at last, it would let President Trump fill important vacancies at a more reasonable pace.

Democrats overwhelmingly supported changes like these in 2013 when they helped President Obama. And privately, many of our Democratic colleagues tell us they’d be happy to support this new proposal, too — as long as we postpone its effective date until January 2021, when they hope there will be a Democrat occupying the White House.  Give me a break. A rules change is either a good idea or it isn’t. The answer cannot depend on whether you like the current occupant of the White House. Simple fairness dictates that there cannot be protections in place for Democratic administrations past and future that magically skip over Republican presidents. And this is especially true under the current extraordinary circumstances Senate Democrats have created.

The status quo is unfair, unhealthy, and unsustainable. This president and all future presidents deserve a more functional process for building their administrations.  Later this week, every senator will have the chance to vote for these common-sense changes. I sincerely hope that, as in 2013, the Senate can make these reforms through bipartisan regular order. Because the current situation cannot stand — and it won’t.

“Heads I win, tails you lose.”

That’s the Democrat motto…..the Left’s version of cooperative government, LOL.  The game must always be rigged in their favor.  Always.  You cannot get more UNAMERICAN than that, but alas the Left is hell-bent on amassing power regardless of the cost. 

Undoubtedly Mitch McConnell is trying to get the truth out there before the Democrats, with the help of the leftwing media, begin their campaign of lies about how the Republicans are attacking democracy.  Regardless of how you feel about McConnell, he’s right on this.  

Good luck, Senator McConnell. 

~CW

This post can also be viewed at the blog site The Pesky Truth.  

Dear President Trump: I Don’t Want to be “the Party of Healthcare.” I Want to be the Party of the Constitution.

A federal judge in Texas recently ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional due to its mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, and the Trump administration has decided not to defend the law, reigniting the “repeal and replace” battle lost by the Republicans following Trump’s election.  Speaking on the decision not to defend the law, Trump has declared that Republicans will become “the party of healthcare,” and while I am shaking my head in dismay, Barack Obama must be smiling to himself, because he knows that even if Democrats lose the battle over Obamacare, they will have won the war to make the federal government (and therefore taxpayers) ultimately responsible for healthcare.    

Obamacare was nothing more than a wealth-transfer scheme in which taxpayers were forced to subsidize health insurance for people who supposedly couldn’t afford it on their own.  I say supposedly because whether or not someone can “afford” something is a complicated question that requires a study of what choices they’ve made in life, and an assessment of whether or not they’re doing anything and everything they should be doing to assume full responsibility for themselves and their families.  Nothing like that happens in Obamacare or in any welfare program run by the geniuses managing our federal government.  The war fought by Obama and Democrats wasn’t over Obamacare, per se.  It was over whether it is the proper role of the federal government to ensure that all Americans have healthcare.  I am not 100% clear on what Trump means when he says Republicans will be “the party of healthcare,” but it’s difficult to see how that label restores the power of the people to be free of the federal government’s interference in our healthcare and in our wallets. 

I’ve written on this subject so many times that I feel like a broken record.  The only role the federal government legitimately has with respect to health insurance and healthcare is to ensure a free and fair marketplace.  To that end we should be pursuing tort reform, reducing the regulatory burden and paperwork mandates associated with healthcare, getting rid of barriers to competition and legislating transparency in healthcare pricing.  The federal government made sure that we know how many calories are in that cheeseburger we just ordered, but good luck finding out how many thousands of dollars that surgery is going to cost you.  A friend of mine was recently injured when her car was rear-ended.  Her medical bills are now close to $300,000 and she’s not done with her treatment.  Everyone, myself included, has a story about the outrageous medical bill they received for something.  Democrats and Obamacare did NOTHING to address the immoral scam that has become our health industry.  Instead they just found a way to pass the bill to someone else – hard-working, tax-paying strangers who have zero control over the health habits of the people they’ve been forced to subsidize.  That’s not only wrong, it continues our slide towards economic suicide.  If we could only have the good sense to take the steps that would restore rational, competitive pricing to healthcare, then it wouldn’t seem so crazy to make every capable citizen responsible for paying his own bills.  What a novel idea, eh? 

We MUST have the fight in this country to restore the Constitution and the limits of the federal government to use its citizens as a credit card.  Only when that happens is there any hope of Making America Great Again.  Good luck to us.

~CW

The post can also be viewed at the blog site The Pesky Truth.

The Left’s Faux Reality

 

“Trump is a fascist!”

“Trump is a white supremacist!”

“Trump is colluding with the Russians!”

What do you do when the realities of the world don’t conform to your pre-formed prejudices and desires for shaping the world around you?  Well if you’re an honest and reasonable person, you re-adjust your prejudices and desires according to reality.  But if you’re a leftist bent on an agenda that isn’t served by reality, it’s the other way around;  you simply invent your own reality to conform to your prejudices, or as Cory ‘Spartacus’ Booker and other leftists like to put it nowadays, you define your own truth.  When you have the luxury of your own truth you’re spared from engaging in thoughtful debate or justifying your actions, and the real world is no longer an obstacle to your schemes and ignoble ambitions.  Anything is possible if you conjure up an alternate universe, and if you can persuade others to pretend along with you.

Alternate Reality has long been one prong of the Left’s many strategies for forcing its agenda on this nation, but since the election of Barack Obama, who showed the Left the art of how it is done, it has been elevated to center stage.  Obama campaigned on the myth that the economic recession that started in 2008 was entirely the fault of George W. Bush and Republicans.  I can’t recall anyone ever asking Obama to defend his reasoning for such a claim.  Instead, the media talked about thrills up their legs and laughed along with him when he adopted his phony, folksy accent and pushed his pretend broom around the stage to “clean up the messes” supposedly left just by the Republicans.  And so the myth was born and it became the Left’s alt-reality that Bush and the Republicans destroyed the economy and Obama rode in on his white horse and rescued us.  That constitutes “their truth” in the Left’s make-believe universe.

Obama was central to advancing the faux reality that man-made “climate change” is a proven fact, because the clever leftists know that the more you evade debate and speak as though something is a fact, the more some people will accept it as fact and ignore any evidence to the contrary.  Obama unilaterally declared the debate to be over, citing the falsehood that 97% of climate scientists agree, and any dissent by people far more educated on climate science than Obama has no place in the faux reality.  And now, of course, the world is doomed in twelve short years (according to the truth of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) which is why we must put our fates and our money into the hands of….wait for it…leftist politicians.  Funny how that works, eh? 

The Obama years also gave us the faux worlds of Black Lives Matter and Colin Kaepernick in which, in a country of 330 million people, a handful of incidents of overly aggressive policing were parlayed into a phony narrative of widespread, systematic racism and oppression running rampant in our police forces and all through American society.  The reality, according to an article written by Larry Elder and featured on the website RealClearPolitics.com, happens to be just a tad different:

No one doubts the existence of bad cops or of cops who make poor decisions or who use poor judgement. But where's the evidence of "systemic" racism? When black Harvard economist Roland Fryer conducted a 2016 study of police use of force, he expected to find widespread evidence of police officers disproportionately using deadly force against blacks. Instead, he found the opposite. Police, he concluded, were more hesitant to use deadly force against blacks than against whites. "It is," he admitted, "the most surprising result of my career." This tracks another study published in 2014 by researchers at Washington State University, who reached the same conclusion, finding "there was significant bias favoring [emphasis added] blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned."

According to the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald: "In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to The Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as 'unarmed.' That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest. Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. ... Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population."

The stats don’t lie and Mr. Elder’s information is easy to verify for anyone interested in the truth, but this of course excludes leftists and race hustlers with their own agenda, along with the sheep who so desperately want to believe the hustlers.

A false narrative was used to justify the Left’s shameful partisan rejection of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh as his accuser was deemed to be entitled to her own truth according to Democrat Senator Corey Booker and his fellow posers, which meant they could simply ignore the abundance of evidence that disproved her story along with the reality of Justice Kavanaugh’s life history that ought to have put a question mark in the mind of anyone who is objective. …Anyone who is objective…..  We the People weren’t supposed to notice the convenient, self-serving connection between Democrats’ faux reality and their political ambitions for that SCOTUS seat; but alas the leftists can’t seem to perfect the art of making everyone bow to their faux realities, though there is no shortage of bullying and demands to observe their rules of political correctness to try and force it to be so. 

The Covington Catholic farce only enjoyed brief success as a faux reality thanks to the marvel of cell phone cameras and the existence of fact-based news outlets to counter the MSM, but the leftists certainly gave it the old college try.

Nowhere is the Left’s faux reality better displayed than in their rabid, delusional hatred of Donald Trump.  The billionaire real estate developer entered politics at the age of 70, when his disgust for what he perceived to be this nation’s misguided and inept leadership finally reached a boiling point.  Despite America’s familiarity with Trump, it was only when he became president that the Left suddenly discovered that this well-known celebrity of 30 years who hob-knobbed with Republicans and Democrats alike was actually a “fascist,” a “white supremacist,” and a “Russian agent.”  Furthermore the wall isn’t a necessary component of border security, it’s purely a “vanity project” to gratify Trump’s ego (in contrast to the walls constructed during the Obama administration which were necessary for our security, apparently).

I take particular umbrage with the Left’s duplicitous faux narrative that Donald Trump is the “world’s biggest liar” or that he is somehow uniquely immoral among American presidents.  Democrats have used Trump’s sloppiness with the truth to double down on their strategy to manipulate young minds so that liberals and the young are completely incapable of distinguishing between lies of careless speech and exaggeration versus far more destructive lies that are meant to trick them into giving up more and more of their Constitutional rights and their liberty.  Historian Lee Edwards did a great job of putting the reality of Trump’s lies in perspective with those of past presidents in his essay for The Heritage Foundation:  “The Massive Lies Of Past Presidents Make Trump Look Honest;” and esteemed historian Victor Davis Hansen gives perspective on claims about Trump’s “immorality” in his piece, “Democratic presidents behaved a lot worse than Trump in the White House,” wherein he asks us to ponder this salient question: 

“The paradox again raises the question: When any one man can change the lives of 330 million, what exactly is presidential morality after all — private and personal sins, or the transgressions that affect millions of lives for the worse?” 

And finally, yours truly rebutted the laughable myth that Barack Obama was an honest broker when compared to Trump. 

Democrat Senator Tom Udall, in announcing his decision not to seek re-election, cited his ability to concentrate the remainder of his term on “…[getting] so much more done to help reverse the damage done to our planet, end the scourge of war, and to stop this president’s assault on our democracy and our communities.”  In the aftermath of the two-year Mueller investigation during which we learned about corrupt individuals within our FBI, Justice Department and State Department and their efforts to undermine a constitutionally elected president and hinder his administration it is nothing short of surreal to hear Udall’s galling and delusional claim that Trump is the one assaulting our democracy.  Good riddance, Senator Udall.  Be sure to take your faux reality with you when you leave.

Leftwing commenters on Fox News articles, especially those relating to Trump, love to call Fox “faux news” and hurl other insults denoting their low opinion of Fox’s credibility; but with the Mueller report now released and no evidence of collusion found, it turns out that Fox’s coverage was far more in keeping with the truth than their beloved “mainstream” news outlets which fed the Left’s need for validation of what they wanted the truth to be.  Will that change their opinion of Fox?  I doubt it, because – for its own selfish purposes - the Left has spawned a culture that no longer cares what is real and what isn’t.  To understand the destructiveness of this mindset, consider how the refusal to face reality would impact someone’s personal life.  If you refuse to face the truth about poor financial decisions, a bad spouse, a child in need of help or behaviors that destroy one’s health, how does denying reality serve your life in the long run?  It NEVER ends well, and it won’t end well for this nation, but the Left’s elites who mastermind alternate realities don’t care about the future of the country or about their fellow citizens.  They care only about their own grasp on power. 

~CW

This essay is also posted at the blog site The Pesky Truth.  

Why Rand Paul Got It Wrong

"I 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."

            ~Oath of office for members of congress

An op-ed by Rand Paul was posted on Fox News today:

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'  Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)  I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.  However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.  I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.  I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.  I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.  Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?  As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.  But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.  Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.  Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready.  That was wrong.  Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama.  They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.  In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.  I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.

~Senator Rand Paul

Rand Paul makes some very valid points, but the flaw in his argument is this:  we are dealing with a rogue majority in congress that has made no secret of the fact that their actions are solely motivated by “resistance” to Donald Trump.  The definitive proof of this is that the very same members of congress who refuse to give this president the requested money for the border wall were fine and dandy with giving Barack Obama money for erecting walls at the border when Obama was POTUS.  The facts belie Democrats’ phony claims about walls being “immoral” or that “walls don’t work;” their blatant, spite-based use of our tax dollars as political weaponry is absolutely not how our government was intended to work, and it’s precisely why we have a crises at our border that’s led to a frustrated president’s declaration of emergency.

I’ve often written with outrage about Obama’s unconstitutional “pen and phone” actions that were a not-so-cleverly-veiled means of bypassing the legitimate will of congress, just as Senator Paul suggests; however, there’s no question that the Republican majority’s objections to DACA were consistent with their long-standing platform against illegal immigration.  At no time could anyone have ever made the case that Republicans had done an about-face on prior positions and misused their legislative powers for the simple purpose of spiting a president they disliked or for cynical political gain.

For the sake of “resistance” to Donald Trump, Democrats are selling our country out to people of other nations who disrespect our sovereignty and our inalienable rights to decide who enters our country and who does not.  What form will “resistance” take next?  Will they refuse to let Trump defend us militarily if we come under attack by hostile nations so as to deprive him of a “win,” the fate of the American people be damned?  Will they reject well-qualified, Trump-appointed patriots to posts within our government and compromise our protection and prosperity all in the name of childish “resistance?”  In fact, they already have.

Let me suggest, Senator Paul, that the fight over border wall money is just a symptom of the real emergency:  Democrats who are all-in on “resistance” at the expense of this nation and their fellow citizens.  Democrats have forsaken their oaths of office, and become enemies of the Constitution and all Americans who still embrace it.  This is just one more instance in which their side demands that we abide by the rule of law while giving themselves a pass to ignore it.  If it requires a declaration of emergency to fight back against such an enemy, then so be it.  This nation is truly in crisis.

~CW

This post can also be viewed that the conservative website, The Pesky Truth.

The Left’s Sick, Scorched-Earth Mindset

“It was a sickness of the mind, and where sickness thrives, bad things will follow.”       

            ~ From the movie The Hobbit 

Every so often I’ll read a news story about a parent who, estranged or divorced from the other parent, wittingly or unwittingly takes out their unhappiness, their anger or their frustration on their innocent children.  It is not uncommon for feuding ex-s to withhold visitation or to unfairly poison a child’s mind against the other parent without regard to how this hurts their child.  In extreme cases parents have been known to torture, injure or kill their own children in their blind quest for vengeance or power over their ex, or sometimes they kill the ex and make orphans of their children.  I am always dumbstruck when I hear about acts of such incomprehensible selfishness.  Who could possibly argue that something hasn’t gone wrong in the minds of these so-called parents?

It is this mentality that I am so often reminded of as I watch the increasingly selfish actions of the American Left (AL), who for decades now have demonstrated that there is nothing sacred belonging to this country that they will not allow to be sacrificed in their pursuit of the power and attention that they are hopelessly addicted to.  Our Constitution, our unity, our sovereignty, our security, or economy, our financial stability, our justice system, our patriotism, our trust in American institutions, our future…. even our unborn.  Nothing is off the table in the cold civil war being waged by AL, and I mean nothing.  

The fight over illegal immigration and border security is merely one example of AL’s scorched-earth mindset.  Like the divorced parent who spoils the child – ultimately harming the child and the rest of society – to win the child’s affection away from the other parent, Democrats see the issue of illegal immigration not as an affront to our laws and sovereignty and a problem that must be solved but as an opportunity to be exploited.  By coddling and rewarding the illegals, Democrats can portray themselves as philanthropic and generous (at no real cost to them, naturally) in contrast to the “mean, stingy” Republicans to win favor with American Hispanics, immigrants and in the pliable minds of America’s youth who are easily manipulated when complicated issues are reduced to “nice” vs. “mean.”  What does this cost Americans?  In addition to the hundreds of billions we’re forced to spend on education, healthcare, welfare, lost tax revenue, and costs  (both financial and human) related to crime, Americans are losing faith in our government and our laws.  The resentment this naturally creates towards those who are here illegally is then cynically used by AL to condemn their fellow citizens as “racists.”  This traitorous attitude with respect to illegal immigration has long been AL’s unspoken policy, but with the election of Donald Trump they’ve crossed the line into scorched-earth territory whereby no stance is too outrageous.  You want your laws upheld?  AL will show you whose boss.  They’ll use your own mayors and judges and other elected officials – paid for with your tax dollars – to protect and give sanctuary to the illegals at your expense.  Take that.  You want your sovereignty respected?  AL will show you.  They’ll propose making it legal for the illegals to vote, and they’ll drown out your voice.  That’s scorched-earth politics.

This is what the cold civil war looks like.  It looks like the surrender of U.S. autonomy in the name of “climate change” and sanctimonious declarations that “the debate is over!” whenever we dare to disagree.  It looks like applauding a movement started by a spoiled football player to disparage the American flag and all that it stands for.  It looks like the shameful Kavanaugh farce and the attempts to delegitimize conservative appointees to the Supreme Court.  It looks like blind “resistance” to a legally elected president.  It looks like threats of impeachment without basis under the Constitution.  It looks like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer lying to the cameras that they came to the White House “in good faith” to discuss funding the border wall when clearly their mission all along was to plant the seeds of a Trump government shutdown for their own political gain.  Scorched earth.  

AL blames Donald Trump.  They claim that they’ve been pushed to the edge by Trump’s lack of civility, his unacceptable behavior, his fascism, his collusion with Russia…maybe even his bad haircut.  But the hypocrisy inevitably proves the lie, right?  These are the very same people who have applauded incivility from their own kind for decades, the same people who circled the wagons around Bill Clinton and ridiculed his accusers, the same people who want the government to be all-powerful, and the same people who yawned at news reports of Barack Obama whispering sweet nothings into the ear of the Russian president and who dismissed reports of good old Hillary approving the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia in exchange for cash to her foundation.  

The fact of the matter is that AL treated George W. Bush almost as badly as they do Trump (“Bush lied, people died” – remember that neat little ditty?).  They relentlessly ridiculed Bush, viciously suggested that he orchestrated 9-11 and the murder of thousands of Americans, sabotaged the White House before he took office, maliciously doctored documents to make it look like he lied about his military service, and more.  AL deemed Bush “unfit” long before bestowing that mantle on Trump, but Trump has been an especially vexing adversary because of his refusal to play by AL’s one-sided rules of “civility (i.e. censorship of the Right),” not to mention his surprise victory over their expected ticket to power, Hillary Clinton.  

The bottom line is this:  What we’re seeing is merely the American Left as it really is, not some temporary tantrum triggered by Donald Trump.  Trump has only helped to fully expose what was there all along.  AL is determined to control this country, even if that means they must destroy it first, that much should be clear to everyone by now.  This is their “sickness of the mind,” as so brilliantly analogized for us by J. R. Tolkien and the “precious” ring that was the object of scorched-earth battles in his books.  It’s just a tragedy that people won’t know what they had until it’s gone.

~CW

To leave a comment on this post please follow this link to the site, The Pesky Truth, where it is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Will Democrats Cut Off Their Noses to Spite Donald Trump?

Have you ever seen a more self-destructive force than today’s Democrat Party?  We’re talking about people who look at the horrific mess and suffering that’s going on in the socialist experiment known as Venezuela and say, “Let’s do some of that!”  Or do CNN, Huffington Post, Mother Jones and The Guardian even cover Venezuela and the predictable destruction brought on by people who were sold on the notion of getting something for nothing?  My guess is that story gets very little play where it would do the most good.

What also gets little play, no doubt, are the economic and foreign policy successes of the Trump Administration.  Instead liberals and leftists are no doubt bombarded with a continuous stream of absurd scaremongering about “fascism” and “racism” as they are led down the path towards a bleak future for themselves and their children.  I might have given up caring by now, given how long this tiring struggle between liberty and tyranny has been going on, except that we are all tethered to the liberals and leftists by virtue of our shared citizenship, and when they foolishly jump into the ocean with the expectation that the strong swimmers will keep them afloat they threaten to drown us all.

The elections today are a proxy fight between Left and Right – between people who believe what they are told vs. people who believe what they can see with their own eyes.  “Fascism, racism, white supremacy, the threat to your healthcare…..”  None of that is real, despite what some would wish you to believe.  None of it passes the smell test.  But your jobs are real.  The want ads are real.  Your 401K’s are real.  And the threat of socialism and all its destruction is very real.

They say this election is a referendum on Trump – a judgment, if you will.  That’s only partly true, because judgment implies reason.  Judgment implies rationality and objectivity.  All of these things have been driven out of the Democrat Party and they’ve been supplanted by mindless rage, and thus we have not a referendum but a tantrum of monstrous proportions.

Will you be a child on election day?  Will you march to the polls and defiantly hack off your own nose to spite Donald Trump?  Will you “resist” the restoration of prosperity and strength for all Americans – yourself and your children included – for such empty and foolish satisfaction?  I have a better idea.  Why don’t you switch sides so we can all be winners?

Please restore the sanity.  Vote RED today.

~CW

To leave a comment on this post please follow this link to The Pesky Truth where it is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  

Dear Joel Mathis: Liberalism, Not Nationalism, Killed Compassion in America

         Here is a photo of what the “free” press allows me to freely share when I search for images of the illegal immigrant caravan/invasion heading to America.

In his essay published in The Week magazine, self-described “liberal” Joel Mathis ponders the question, “Has nationalism killed compassion in America?”  The piece is an unintentional tribute to Ronald Reagan’s famous quip, “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”  Follow along, and you’ll see what I mean.  My remarks are in red.

There's been some heavy lifting lately, in the non-Trumpist precincts of our politics, to rescue the idea of "nationalism" from the clutches of President Trump and his alt-right followers. Lest liberals and progressives be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we're reminded in books and essays that nationalism has its uses — forming the glue that provides us with social cohesion and a welfare state, among other goods.  These "nice-guy nationalists" make good points. There's just one problem: America's best-known nationalist is the president. And he's not much interested in social cohesion.

In the interest of time I’ll leave aside the bizarre claim that “a welfare state” is one of the benefits of nationalism in order to focus on the even stranger claim that it is Trump who isn’t interested in social cohesion.  Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene the Left has perfected the devious art of projecting their own sins on the opposition and then attacking them for it, and this notion that it is Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, who divide us is one of their most cynical projections.  Statistics show that race relations began their steep decline under Obama, the predictable consequence of Obama intentionally stoking racial tensions (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”)  Moreover, who could plausibly deny that the entirety of the Left’s political strategy is vested in the politics of division when Democrats are continually pitting minorities against whites, women against men, poor against rich, and when it’s become the Left’s norm to openly disparage “old, white men?”  While the Right promotes the melting pot, the Left promotes multiculturalism, yet  history proves that social cohesion fails when immigrants reject assimilation or embrace the Left’s tales of perpetual victimhood. 

"You know what I am? I'm a nationalist," Trump declared Monday night in Texas. "Okay? I'm a nationalist."

To get a sense of what this means in Trump's hands, it's good to take a look at the so-called "migrant caravan" currently marching north from Guatemala to the United States border. From the accounts of people on the ground, it appears this caravan is composed largely of people fleeing deprivation and violence in their home countries. It's the sort of thing you or I would do if our families were similarly endangered; ardent nationalists have decided to treat these fleeing families like an invading military.

"An assault!" Trump told told the Texas rally.

"Migrant hordes," writer Rod Dreher blogged at The American Conservative.

Even The Associated Press got in the act, calling the caravan a "ragtag army of the poor" in a tweet that was later deleted.

But the people forming the caravan are not an army. They aren't seeking collectively to capture land or dislodge governments. They are merely individuals seeking a better life and traveling in the direction they think most likely to help them find it.

"Treating this as an 'invasion' is a bad idea, and it's going to end horribly if it is treated such as that way," an independent voter said Monday on Fox News, and that's perhaps the most sensible statement made on any cable news network this year. 

Parents sometimes refer to medicine as “candy” to entice their children to take it, and this psychology is not lost on the sly Left when they try to manipulate their way past our natural defenses by insisting that we not call things what they really are.  Illegal aliens are “undocumented,” insists the liberals in the Orwellian speak that we’ve become accustomed to.  And now an invasion is not an invasion.  It’s just an innocent, happy parade of people wanting a better life.  I might prefer to live on the French Riviera but I don’t gather 13,999 of my friends and march on France.  The U.S. has a process for considering applications for asylum.  Purposefully ignoring that process in a calculated effort to take advantage of loopholes in our immigration system and create chaos at our border is what makes this an invasion, and Democrats – always the useful idiots - are cheering it on. 

Nationalism may provide us with social cohesion — and that's good — but it is also a garment best worn lightly. That's a tricky, perhaps impossible, expectation: In many cases, nationalism asks us to disregard our own moral sense in favor of group loyalty.

Morality tells us that when people are hungry, we offer them food.

Morality tells us that when people flee violence, we offer them protection.

Morality tells us that all humans are worthy of moral consideration, no matter their origins or circumstances.

First, morality tells us that when you are hungry or need protection you don’t break down the door and help yourself to what others have worked hard for.  You knock on the door and politely ask for help, at which time it is the homeowner’s right to determine whether your need is genuine and whether you are an innocent victim or just looking for an easier way at someone else’s expense.  In America we call that respecting the rights of others, and that is the moral thing to do.  Another moral tradition we once had in America was to reject the evil temptation to falsely impugn – for political gain -  peoples’ motives by coyly suggesting that ethnicity or financial status is the reason for their objection to thousands of people marching on our border.  Never mind that this charge is rich coming from people who’ve popularized the denouncement of “old, white men;” it is the rejection of U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law that’s inspired Trump and conservatives to condemn the “caravan,” and it is Mathis himself who stoops to immorality by using the group’s shared ethnicity as an excuse to pull the tired, old race card.  By the way, wouldn’t you love to know how many poor, uneducated, non-English-speaking immigrants are included among Mr. Mathis’ close circle of friends? 

Nationalism often — not always, but often — asks us to disregard those moral considerations, or at least to quiet them a little bit, to place a higher importance on defending the integrity of arbitrarily drawn borders than we do the lives of people trying to escape inhumane situations. Nationalism tends to divide humans into "us" and "them" and tells us "they" are worth less. Frequently — and Trump has based his entire political persona on this idea — it tells us that "they" are probably bad people. Why? Mostly because they're not us. How do you get to be us? Well, it's all kind of an accident of birth, really. At best, it's absurd. In many cases, nationalism is simply racist.

There it is again of course – the race card.  The truth is, Trump has based his political persona on the concept of putting America first.  Not white America.  Not black America.  Not male or female America.  Just America.  You can see it.  You can feel it.  It’s palpable, and his focus on treating the country as a whole, rather than dividing us into subgroups as the Left always does, flies in the face of these trite accusations of racism.  Is he nationalistic according to its real definition?  Yes, in the sense that he wants to promote our interests and our culture.  There’s nothing wrong with that unless you’re a leftist mired in the standard creed of loathing America.  As for “arbitrarily drawn borders,” one could say that the borders of Mr. Mathis’ property are just as arbitrarily drawn, yet that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t fight for them if necessary. 

The nice-guy nationalists advocate a rather bloodless view of nationalism's benefits, but the history of the last century, with its wars and genocides, provides plenty of evidence that nationalism can turn very bloody, indeed. Still, it probably is utopian to think we poor humans can get very far without organizing along national lines. And "Morality Is Complex and Transcends National Lines!" is a poor riposte, politically, to the pithiness of "America First!" This column isn't going to win any elections.

The caravan keeps advancing north. So what to do? How do we balance the benefits of nationalism — and the legitimate obligation to protect our citizens and their well-being — against the need to look out for our neighbors beyond our borders?

In the short term, you can treat the caravan like what it is — a collection of needy, dispossessed humans fleeing dire circumstances — instead of as an invading army to be met with force. Instead of cutting off aid to the caravaners' countries of origin, let's figure out how to help them, now, where they are, before they get to our border. Difficult? Sure. Worth it? Probably.

In the long term, the United States can consider how its policies may actually create the refugees it so desperately wants to reject. U.S. policies, for example, helped create the circumstances that allowed the MS-13 street gang to flourish in Central America. Maybe we should do less of that kind of thing?

In the same vein, perhaps Trump — who needs to serve American interests — might come to understand he does not best serve an "America First" vision with his preferred "we-win-you-lose" deals with our allies and rivals. America's security and prosperity can best be enhanced by assisting the security and prosperity of people around the world. It's that vision, not some utopian altruism, that has guided much of the postwar world order that Trump seems ready to undo.

The migrant caravan is still hundreds of miles from the American border, but it's not too late to seek constructive solutions. Right now, though, it's the regular nationalists — not the nice-guy kind — who are running the show.

What intrigued me most about this piece was the headline asking if nationalism has killed compassion in America because I see things quite differently.  I think it is liberalism, not nationalism, that’s killing compassion in this country.  Liberals tell us that instead of teaching a man to fish so that he becomes self-sufficient that we must fish for him whether we want to or not.  We get no say in determining whether the man is capable of fishing for himself.  If he has no fish, that alone, we are told, is proof that he is entitled to our fish.  And if we have the nerve to point out that perhaps the man was napping rather than fishing or that he refuses to learn to fish, well then we are racists who should not be allowed to speak. We are told that our borders are “arbitrary,” that the people who come here by the millions to use our schools, our hospitals, our roads, our police, our courts and who – by virtue of evading the system – sometimes bring crime and disease, just want a better life.  Our own desires for a better life are of no consequence.  Conservatives’ accounting for the hundreds of billions of dollars illegal immigration costs us as Americans are rejected as “lies” by the Left, while they refuse to engage in any truthful accounting themselves.  The actions of the Left with respect to illegal immigration engender feelings of powerlessness in those of us who believe that we are entitled to have a say in the immigration policies of our nation, and who believe all our laws should be enforced, not just those that are convenient to the Left.  To whatever extent compassion is dead in this nation, THIS – this political game-playing with our laws and immigration policy – THIS is what has killed it.  Turn the mirror around, Mr. Mathis, and take a good, long look.  This is what you and your leftist friends have wrought.

One last question for Mr. Mathis and any liberals who happen to read this: 

Have you considered the moral implications of what happens now to the people truly in need of asylum after you’ve made such a mockery of our generosity?  No?  I thought not.

~CW

P.S. 

Links in Mr. Mathis' original piece did not come through when pasted here.  Follow the link in the first paragraph to see those, if you want to be extra bored.

If you want to leave a comment on this post please visit  The Pesky Truth, where it is re-posted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.