Conservatives welcome. Libs & RINOs go away. It's all of you destroying the society and conservatives must no longer appease you!
It has been more than 100 days since former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), and some House Republicans want to know why he hasn’t been held accountable for perjury.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
New York today is part of the movement to choose presidents by popular vote, but 40 years ago a nationally known liberal from the state took to the Senate floor to argue the advantages of the current system.
The Electoral College, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan asserted in his July 1979 speech, forces consensus and allows a president to “govern with the legitimacy that has come of attaining to such diverse majorities.”
The New York Democrat, who died in 2003, had lots of liberal company at the time.
Other Senate Democrats who opposed a constitutional amendment to scrap the Electoral College and elect presidents and vice presidents by direct popular vote included Joe Biden of Delaware, a future vice president, and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a future presidential candidate.
These Democrats were joined by Edmund Muskie of Maine, the party’s vice presidential nominee 11 years earlier; Paul Sarbanes of Maryland; Thomas Eagleton of Missouri (briefly a vice presidential candidate in 1972); and John Durkin of New Hampshire.
Of those states, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey now are part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement in which states that sign on pledge the votes of their electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.
Four decades ago, though, advocates of a popular vote for president didn’t try to end-run the process of amending the Constitution.
Biden, first elected to the Senate in 1972, served there from January 1973 until he successfully ran for vice president as Barack Obama’s running mate in 2008.
Bipartisan Divide
In 1979, Congressional Quarterly reported that senators “crossed party and ideological lines” in the debate over Senate Joint Resolution 28.
The measure was sponsored by Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., an old pro with constitutional amendments who had drafted the 25th Amendment on presidential succession in a crisis as chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution.
With bipartisan support and opposition, Bayh’s resolution passed by a vote of 51-48, far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment. A majority of Republicans opposed the measure.
The Senate breakdown at the time was 61 Democrats, 38 Republicans, and an Independent who caucused with the Democrats.
At the time, Congressional Quarterly reported, “three of the Senate’s most liberal Republicans”—John Heinz of Pennsylvania, Charles Percy of Illinois, and Lowell Weicker Jr. of Connecticut—”voted against direct election of the president.”
Weicker eventually left the Republican Party and won the Connecticut governorship as an Independent. Both Illinois and Connecticut are among states that joined the popular vote compact.
Since the 1979 debate, Republican presidential candidates twice have won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, pushing the debate largely along party and ideological lines.
Under the Bayh amendment, the presidential candidate with the most votes nationally would win. If no candidate got 40%, though, the top two candidates would face each other in a runoff election.
Incidentally, that setup would have imperiled Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who won the 1860 presidential race with 39.8% of the vote against a splintered Democratic Party.
Minority Votes
Strong advocates of protecting the Electoral College four decades ago included the National Urban League, an African-American civil rights group, and the American Jewish Congress, a Jewish civil rights group.
“Take away the Electoral College and the importance of being black melts away,” National Urban League President Vernon Jordan testified during a Senate hearing at the time.
“Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become 10% of the electorate, with reduced impact,” Jordan said.
Jordan later became an ally of President Bill Clinton, and was among the cast of characters in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The National Urban League has changed its mind, stating in a report last month that it backs moving “the U.S. toward the popular election of presidents through states’ participation in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, with the goal of eliminating the Electoral College.”
In an official pronouncement on the 1979 proposal, the American Jewish Congress cited similar reasons for opposing the Bayh amendment, The New York Times reported.
The organization’s statement said blacks and Jews “make up a significant proportion of the electorate in the key states with large electoral votes, and they tend, at least in presidential elections, to vote in a bloc.” It continued:
Hence, the political parties are sensitive to the interests of Jews and blacks both in their selection of candidates and in the adoption of party platforms. In a system of direct election, however, where a vote in one state is equal to a vote in another, that influence will be lost.
In a 2004 report, the Congressional Research Service explained a prevailing view about minority groups during the 1979 debate that helped explain why the presidents of the National Urban League and American Jewish Congress supported the Electoral College:
Another theory advanced during debate on Electoral College reform centers on the asserted advantage enjoyed by ethnic minority voters. According to this argument, minority voters, e.g., blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, tend to be concentrated in populous states with large Electoral College delegations.
By virtue of this concentration, they are presumably able to exert greater influence over the outcomes in such states because they tend to vote overwhelmingly for candidates whose policies they perceive to be favorable to their interests, and thus helping to gain these states and their electoral votes for the favored candidates.
Bayh, who died in March after living to see his son Evan Bayh serve as governor and senator from Indiana, became an advocate of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. For years, the elder Bayh would blame the 1979 defeat on minority advocates.
In 2012, Bayh told BuzzFeed, “I had an interesting experience, one of the few times I’ve been angry enough to throw people out of my office.”
He said African American and Jewish leaders told him “to get off this Electoral College reform kick. … You dump us into the whole mix, and we’ll get lost.”
Bayh, who also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, recalled replying: “You’re talking to somebody who busted his tail for ‘one person, one vote.’”
‘Most Radical Transformation’
A diverse coalition indeed backed a national popular vote in 1979, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Other prominent backers included Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jake Garn, R-Utah.
In reporting on their defeat, Congressional Quarterly summarized: “A few northern liberals aligned July 10 with a majority of Republicans and southern Democrats to thwart passage of the direct election amendment.”
Because the Senate passed the measure by only a bare majority, the House didn’t bother taking it up even though in 1970 it had mustered a supermajority in favor.
The 1970 measure died from a Senate filibuster primarily led by Democrat-turned-Republican Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Interestingly, many segregationists in the South cited voting bloc protections similar to those cited by civil rights advocates in the North in arguing for the Electoral College.
Moynihan led the Democrats’ opposition to the Bayh proposal, calling it the “most radical transformation in our constitutional system that has ever been considered.”
“The Electoral College requires the assembly of consent—again, concurrent majority—in one part of the country and another part of the country, and yet another part, all defined in terms of several states,” Moynihan said. “It has as its extraordinary ability the formation of consensus as between widely differing regions, political purposes and styles, and political agendas.”
The New York Democrat continued:
The fundamental thrust of this measure, however unintended— nonetheless, it seems to be ineluctably clear—would be to abolish that principle of concurrent majority.
If there is once introduced into the Constitution the idea that a president may routinely be elected by 40% of the vote, you have the most ironic of all outcomes, that in the name of majoritarianism we have abolished even that single majority which the Founders so feared.
The post When the Left Defended the Electoral College appeared first on The Daily Signal.
via The Daily Signal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/
A florist who refused to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a Washington state court ruled Thursday that she violated the state’s civil rights law.
The case presents the high court with an opportunity to decide whether conservative religious believers can use the First Amendment as a defense against laws requiring accommodation of LGBT people, a question the justices ducked in the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling.
“I could lose my business and life savings simply because I declined to celebrate and participate in a sacred event that violates my faith,” the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, said following Thursday’s decision. “No artist or creative professional should be forced by the government to create custom work that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. That’s why I will appeal my case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
State prosecutors filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Stutzman, who owns and operates Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, in April 2013 after she refused to sell flowers to a longtime gay patron called Robert Ingersoll for use in his wedding. Stutzman is a Christian who operates her business consistent with her religious views about same-sex marriage.
“Washington state law protects same-sex couples from discrimination based on their sexual orientation,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said. “I will continue to uphold these laws and fight to protect Washingtonians from discrimination.”
The Stutzman case reached the Supreme Court once before. The justices held her case in abeyance while the court considered the Masterpiece Cakeshop dispute, a case with similar facts arising from Colorado where a Christian baker refused to produce a custom wedding cake for a gay couple. The justices found for the baker because a Colorado civil rights commission displayed animus toward his religious beliefs when processing the dispute.
After releasing the Masterpiece decision, the justices lifted a lower court decision against Stutzman and ordered the court to reconsider her case in light of Masterpiece. On remand, the Washington State Supreme Court said it found no evidence of discrimination against Stutzman’s beliefs.
“We have painstakingly review [sic] the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court of the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case,” Thursday’s decision reads. “After this review, we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion. We therefore find no reason to change our original decision in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop.”
Alliance Defending Freedom, a faith-based cause lawyering group that represents Stutzman, counters that the state enforces its civil rights laws unevenly.
While state prosecutors sued Stutzman personally—an aggressive step that makes her personally liable for fines and damages—they did not take action against a coffeehouse owner who profanely expelled a group of Christians from his business. ADF argues this enforcement pattern is the kind of discrimination the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling condemns.
As with the Masterpiece case, which ADF also litigated, Stutzman’s lawyers argue she cannot be compelled to create expression with which she disagrees. They also say requiring her to attend a same-sex wedding violates her constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion.
A decision as to whether the justices will hear the case will come during the court’s next term, which begins in October. Arguments would most likely follow in 2020, depending on how quickly the justices choose to process the petition.
The high court is also considering a similar petition from Oregon, where a state anti-discrimination panel fined a Christian bakery $135,000 for declining to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding. That court has been sitting on that petition since February, indicating it has piqued the justices’ interest.
The Klein petition also asks the court to revisit the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, a landmark ruling that held laws that interfere with religious exercise are constitutional provided they apply to everyone and are neutrally enforced.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The post Christian Florist Will Appeal to the Supreme Court in Same-Sex Wedding Dispute appeared first on The Daily Signal.
via The Daily Signal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/
An abortion survivor testified before Congress Tuesday about how she was born alive during a botched saline abortion and left to die before a nurse saved her and rushed her to the hospital. Read Full Story
via CNS RSS Feed Navbar
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/
A survey recently released by the Public Policy Institute of California found that President Donald Trump is more popular in the deep blue state than the Democratic legislature.
via CNS RSS Feed Navbar
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/
FBI just released a trove of Hillary Clinton documents. New docs from FBI vault: -FBI concludes Hillary Clinton was in "violation of basic server security" w/ home-brew server.-Discusses possibility that *all* of her emails were stolen.-Review found HRC stripped classification of highest possible level.https://t.co/WjcpcIMyrW pic.twitter.com/t2vsWWBiuF — Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) June 7, 2019 This part is […]
via Weasel Zippers
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us
Now that the President has bent the knee to King Corn yet again, allowing year-round sales of E-15 blended gasoline, it’s probably worth our time to take a moment and figure out what all of this ethanol blending is really doing for us. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was pushed through under the Bush 43 administration at a time when rising gas prices and global warming were both weighing heavily on the minds of the public. Ethanol blending was touted as a way to fight both of those concerns.
So how has it worked out? According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) it hasn’t done much on either score. The net effect on gas prices has been basically a wash and the changes have had only a negligible effect on emissions. (Bloomberg)
A federal program requiring the use of corn-based ethanol and biodiesel in gasoline supplies hasn’t lowered pump prices or significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Gasoline prices outside of the corn-rich Midwest likely rose by a few pennies a gallon at the pump because of the Renewable Fuel Standard, while falling slightly in areas with ethanol plants, the GAO said in a report posted online Monday. The pump price effects likely diminished over time. Refiners benefited from installing equipment for the fuel-blending requirement “that, over time, reduced refining costs for gasoline,” according to the report.
In addition, the GAO found that “most of the experts we interviewed generally agreed that to date the RFS has likely had a limited effect, if any, on greenhouse gas emissions.” That’s due to the continued reliance on corn-based ethanol, instead of more advanced cellulosic biofuels that use agricultural waste but haven’t shown a great deal of commercial viability.
None of this should come as much of a surprise to anyone who’s been following the story of the RFS from the beginning. Ethanol should be slightly cheaper to produce than gasoline (at least in theory), so replacing a percentage of real gasoline with the biofuel might have cut costs. But given the hamhanded way the program was implemented, the blending process drove up costs at the refinery and those increases were passed on to the consumer.
As far as emissions go, that too might have been an area where benefits were realized if we’d focused on the use of agricultural waste products in cellulosic biofuels, but we didn’t. We’re still using almost entirely corn and soybeans. We’re burning our food for fuel and the increased agricultural activity has come at a cost in terms of environmental impact.
In the end, the only people benefitting from the RFS are the ethanol industry and some farmers in the midwest, particularly in Iowa and Illinois. Unfortunately, they punch far above their weight class politically, so we’re stuck with this albatross around our necks until we manage to elect some leaders who aren’t basically prostituting themselves to Iowa politicians. And as for the results? It doesn’t matter if the RFS is actually doing anything productive as long as it’s a political winner.
The post Study: Biofuels aren’t reducing gas prices or emissions appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com
It’s enough to have your opinions shouted down when you’re an adult. When you’re shouting down a 13-year-old at a town meeting because you find his or her defense of unborn babies triggering, that’s something entirely different. And that ugly spectacle, unfortunately, is what played out at a city council meeting Tuesday, June 4, in…
The post Watch: Cop Intervenes Amid Chaos as Courageous 13-Year-Old Defends Unborn Babies appeared first on Conservative Tribune.
via Conservative Tribune
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct
It’s bad enough when it happens once, but when yet another elementary school teacher takes it upon himself to manipulate, intimidate, and confuse children as young as five, it’s time for school board members, principals, teachers, and their union representatives, as well as parents, to sit down and agree upon what exactly is age-appropriate material for discussion in the classroom and what is not.
Mark Vince Busenbark is employed in the Madison, Wis. school district as a K–5 science teacher. Without the consent, knowledge, or permission of parents, he not only claimed he’s female, but presented a video and read a book about transgenderism in his “science” classes. Understandably, there are frightened and confused children at Frank Allis Elementary school in Madison, there are also outraged parents, and district administrators are unwilling to answer for the unwarranted actions of a school district employee.
Almost three weeks ago, on May 16, Mr. Busenbark began the classroom instruction for the day, re-introducing himself to his students by his new name, “Vica Steel.” He then told his students he’s in the process of changing into a female. He defended the decision to discuss his transition by stating that the purpose of the video was to educate his students about what he is becoming — obviously ignoring the fact that children, some as young as five, are cognitively unable to process “changing” one’s sex. As in a similar case in California, Mr. Busenbark veered far from the approved classroom curriculum and, in fact, frightened some of his students, most of whom aren’t mature or wise enough to fully understand transgenderism or the ramifications. And if his students weren’t confused enough by the end of class, he then asked to be called “Mx” Steel instead of Mr. Busenbark.
Not only are there angry parents, but Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, stated, “It is outrageous that school administrators would allow a male science teacher to expose children to propaganda that promotes confusion about basic biology, and to instruct students to address him by a false name, title and pronouns.” Mr. Staver added, “These impressionable students do not exist to validate Busenbark’s sexual identity. Parents send their children to school trusting that they will be taught academic curriculum, not become participants in a teacher’s play acting.” The general consensus among angry parents is the fact the school failed to notify them in advance and didn’t seek permission, allowing their kids to remain in the class for the teacher’s reveal. Several parents posted their anger on Facebook, one parent of a first-grader writing they are “pissed off, because there was no warning or head’s up given beforehand.” Another parent wrote, “I’ve had to sit down with my kids and explain that what they heard is flat-out wrong and incorrect. We will be kind to others, but we WILL NOT be involved in games of make-believe. Shame on those that support this!” Their anger is entirely justified, and the school district officials apparently don’t want to discuss it.
Parents have reported that Madison School District administrators brushed them off, refusing to meet with them or even discuss the situation. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also alleges that the video presented by the science teacher violates the school district’s policy on wellness, adding, “All instruction should be age-appropriate, medically accurate, non-stigmatizing, and inclusive for all students.”
Just as parents have the ability to opt their children out of classroom instruction in school districts where sex education is part of the approved curriculum, parents should have input as to what is age-appropriate subject matter.
Clearly, the time has come for meaningful discussion about transgenderism in the public school classroom. Guidelines for discussion or instruction must be published, followed, and strictly enforced. Parents must be asked for permission to allow their children to receive such information. Teachers who violate established policy should be disciplined or terminated immediately.
As Mat Staver eloquently noted, parents place their trust in the classroom teacher to present approved school curriculum — not indulge in sexual fantasies. The frequency with which teachers are freely presenting and discussing controversial subject matter is alarming, especially without first seeking the permission of parents. Exploiting schoolchildren to validate one’s own make-believe sexual identity can no longer be ignored or tolerated.
It’s bad enough when it happens once, but when yet another elementary school teacher takes it upon himself to manipulate, intimidate, and confuse children as young as five, it’s time for school board members, principals, teachers, and their union representatives, as well as parents, to sit down and agree upon what exactly is age-appropriate material for discussion in the classroom and what is not.
Mark Vince Busenbark is employed in the Madison, Wis. school district as a K–5 science teacher. Without the consent, knowledge, or permission of parents, he not only claimed he’s female, but presented a video and read a book about transgenderism in his “science” classes. Understandably, there are frightened and confused children at Frank Allis Elementary school in Madison, there are also outraged parents, and district administrators are unwilling to answer for the unwarranted actions of a school district employee.
Almost three weeks ago, on May 16, Mr. Busenbark began the classroom instruction for the day, re-introducing himself to his students by his new name, “Vica Steel.” He then told his students he’s in the process of changing into a female. He defended the decision to discuss his transition by stating that the purpose of the video was to educate his students about what he is becoming — obviously ignoring the fact that children, some as young as five, are cognitively unable to process “changing” one’s sex. As in a similar case in California, Mr. Busenbark veered far from the approved classroom curriculum and, in fact, frightened some of his students, most of whom aren’t mature or wise enough to fully understand transgenderism or the ramifications. And if his students weren’t confused enough by the end of class, he then asked to be called “Mx” Steel instead of Mr. Busenbark.
Not only are there angry parents, but Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, stated, “It is outrageous that school administrators would allow a male science teacher to expose children to propaganda that promotes confusion about basic biology, and to instruct students to address him by a false name, title and pronouns.” Mr. Staver added, “These impressionable students do not exist to validate Busenbark’s sexual identity. Parents send their children to school trusting that they will be taught academic curriculum, not become participants in a teacher’s play acting.” The general consensus among angry parents is the fact the school failed to notify them in advance and didn’t seek permission, allowing their kids to remain in the class for the teacher’s reveal. Several parents posted their anger on Facebook, one parent of a first-grader writing they are “pissed off, because there was no warning or head’s up given beforehand.” Another parent wrote, “I’ve had to sit down with my kids and explain that what they heard is flat-out wrong and incorrect. We will be kind to others, but we WILL NOT be involved in games of make-believe. Shame on those that support this!” Their anger is entirely justified, and the school district officials apparently don’t want to discuss it.
Parents have reported that Madison School District administrators brushed them off, refusing to meet with them or even discuss the situation. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also alleges that the video presented by the science teacher violates the school district’s policy on wellness, adding, “All instruction should be age-appropriate, medically accurate, non-stigmatizing, and inclusive for all students.”
Just as parents have the ability to opt their children out of classroom instruction in school districts where sex education is part of the approved curriculum, parents should have input as to what is age-appropriate subject matter.
Clearly, the time has come for meaningful discussion about transgenderism in the public school classroom. Guidelines for discussion or instruction must be published, followed, and strictly enforced. Parents must be asked for permission to allow their children to receive such information. Teachers who violate established policy should be disciplined or terminated immediately.
As Mat Staver eloquently noted, parents place their trust in the classroom teacher to present approved school curriculum — not indulge in sexual fantasies. The frequency with which teachers are freely presenting and discussing controversial subject matter is alarming, especially without first seeking the permission of parents. Exploiting schoolchildren to validate one’s own make-believe sexual identity can no longer be ignored or tolerated.
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
Conditioned responses are funny things. One of them, the statement that they’re “probably all nice people” — oft used when discussing illegal migrants — is also a dangerous thing.
That very line was uttered, reflexively, by Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson Monday night while discussing how one percent of Guatemalans have left for our country in just the last year. It’s a qualifier reflecting that one has been put on the defensive — in a losing position.
No, this isn’t an attack on Carlson, who’s the best mainstream cable news and commentary host in the business. Rather, it’s a cautionary tale: that an intrepid culture warrior such as Carlson can be conditioned to behave defensively — when he should be unabashedly taking the offense (the best defense) — speaks volumes about the effectiveness of leftist conditioning.
The quoted statement is illogical. No large group contains member who are “all” nice people. Moreover, as Carlson himself pointed out last year, citing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (video below), illegals do, unsurprisingly, commit an inordinate amount of crime. Nice people?
It follows that those migrating illegally — making a conscious decision to violate another nation’s sovereignty and laws — would include an inordinate number of not so nice people.
That said, let me be clear: I couldn’t care less, and it’s wholly irrelevant, whether those invading our country are or aren’t Nice People™. I’m not God; my job isn’t to judge their souls. (Interestingly, many who’ll scold, “Do not judge lest you be judged” when hearing others judge people as bad will themselves judge the same people as good. But if one can’t judge hearts, that would include positive judgments.) I simply want them to stay the heck out of my country — and be expelled if they’ve already invaded.
If you can’t say this, unabashedly, you’ve already lost the migration debate. Realize that the Left, some in whose vanguard are master manipulators, has conned us into apologizing for doing what’s right, for enforcing just laws. But what other crime do we address so sheepishly, qualifying our opposition to it with notions that the perps are “just seeking a better life” and may be “nice people”? Why, I met counterfeiters who were nice people. What’s niceness got to do with it?
This is no small point. It’s safe to say most of the German soldiers — being average young men conscripted into service — invading Poland in 1939 and the USSR in ’41 were “nice people.” Should they have been given blankets; lawyers; court dates; handouts; and, ultimately, invitations to stay?
Then, a family hosting me in France years ago one day brought me to the home of a friend who was a communist — but a nice person. (He really was. He had an easy smile, and said he realized that the ideology doesn’t work, so perhaps he was a sort of theoretical communist.) I liked him, and I do to this day, but I still wouldn’t want a few million like him in my country.
“Nice” is irrelevant. Nice doesn’t save civilization. Nice never won a war, hot or cold, actual or cultural. Theological correctness informs that man is good by nature — though that nature is fallen — because he was made by God and for God. Reflecting this, most people want to do good, though often don’t know what good is. ”Nice” is not unique.
And it’s neither good nor nice to invite into our midst people who, well intentioned or not, will irrevocably alter our culture for the worse, transforming our land into something more closely resembling what they left. Relevant here is that 70 to 90-plus percent of these illegals, not to mention the same percentage of (legal) immigrants, vote for leftists upon being naturalized (and sometimes before). Why do you think the Democrats want them here? Because they’re “nice”?
So let’s stop with the nice-illegals qualifier. It doesn’t matter if they’re nice — only that they’re here and not where they’re supposed to be: at home, building up their own darn countries.
After all, if they can’t make their own lands better, why should we think they wouldn’t make ours worse?
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
Image: Fox News via YouTube.
Conditioned responses are funny things. One of them, the statement that they’re “probably all nice people” — oft used when discussing illegal migrants — is also a dangerous thing.
That very line was uttered, reflexively, by Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson Monday night while discussing how one percent of Guatemalans have left for our country in just the last year. It’s a qualifier reflecting that one has been put on the defensive — in a losing position.
No, this isn’t an attack on Carlson, who’s the best mainstream cable news and commentary host in the business. Rather, it’s a cautionary tale: that an intrepid culture warrior such as Carlson can be conditioned to behave defensively — when he should be unabashedly taking the offense (the best defense) — speaks volumes about the effectiveness of leftist conditioning.
The quoted statement is illogical. No large group contains member who are “all” nice people. Moreover, as Carlson himself pointed out last year, citing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (video below), illegals do, unsurprisingly, commit an inordinate amount of crime. Nice people?
It follows that those migrating illegally — making a conscious decision to violate another nation’s sovereignty and laws — would include an inordinate number of not so nice people.
That said, let me be clear: I couldn’t care less, and it’s wholly irrelevant, whether those invading our country are or aren’t Nice People™. I’m not God; my job isn’t to judge their souls. (Interestingly, many who’ll scold, “Do not judge lest you be judged” when hearing others judge people as bad will themselves judge the same people as good. But if one can’t judge hearts, that would include positive judgments.) I simply want them to stay the heck out of my country — and be expelled if they’ve already invaded.
If you can’t say this, unabashedly, you’ve already lost the migration debate. Realize that the Left, some in whose vanguard are master manipulators, has conned us into apologizing for doing what’s right, for enforcing just laws. But what other crime do we address so sheepishly, qualifying our opposition to it with notions that the perps are “just seeking a better life” and may be “nice people”? Why, I met counterfeiters who were nice people. What’s niceness got to do with it?
This is no small point. It’s safe to say most of the German soldiers — being average young men conscripted into service — invading Poland in 1939 and the USSR in ’41 were “nice people.” Should they have been given blankets; lawyers; court dates; handouts; and, ultimately, invitations to stay?
Then, a family hosting me in France years ago one day brought me to the home of a friend who was a communist — but a nice person. (He really was. He had an easy smile, and said he realized that the ideology doesn’t work, so perhaps he was a sort of theoretical communist.) I liked him, and I do to this day, but I still wouldn’t want a few million like him in my country.
“Nice” is irrelevant. Nice doesn’t save civilization. Nice never won a war, hot or cold, actual or cultural. Theological correctness informs that man is good by nature — though that nature is fallen — because he was made by God and for God. Reflecting this, most people want to do good, though often don’t know what good is. ”Nice” is not unique.
And it’s neither good nor nice to invite into our midst people who, well intentioned or not, will irrevocably alter our culture for the worse, transforming our land into something more closely resembling what they left. Relevant here is that 70 to 90-plus percent of these illegals, not to mention the same percentage of (legal) immigrants, vote for leftists upon being naturalized (and sometimes before). Why do you think the Democrats want them here? Because they’re “nice”?
So let’s stop with the nice-illegals qualifier. It doesn’t matter if they’re nice — only that they’re here and not where they’re supposed to be: at home, building up their own darn countries.
After all, if they can’t make their own lands better, why should we think they wouldn’t make ours worse?
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
Image: Fox News via YouTube.
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/