“Send Her Back”

For the liberal media, the chant at a North Carolina Trump rally was racism on full display.

Why?  The target was Ilhan Omar, a native of Somalia and a naturalized U.S. citizen, who is a left-wing Minnesota Congresswoman.

So?  Was it her race, national origin or radical ideology which prompted the verbal shot?

President Trump was in the process of excoriating the first-termer’s agenda when most of the crowd joined in.  Wouldn’t that suggest that her views – not her race – was the subject?

But Trump was quickly blamed by the liberal media for not reprimanding his audience.

“Send her back” as an expression was termed racist by itself.  Leave aside the context – it occurred at a campaign style event – not at a policy forum – where one expects the crowd to be boisterous.  The site would suggest that race had nothing to do with the expressed disapproval.  The Congresswoman had made clear on numerous occasions her unhappiness with America as it is.  For those who are patriots, doesn’t her being a refugee from a terrorist haven who was welcomed to America come across as ingratitude?  Of course she doesn’t have to leave.  But the expression is in the same vein as “love it or leave it”.  Is that racist, too?

The terms “racism or racist” have become divorced from  their original meaning – hostility to a member of a race because of his race.   

Now days their use reminds one of the playground taunt “your mother wears combat boots”.  It was a silly, meaningless slur then; the charge of racism today is not yet silly but it has largely lost any meaning as a result of its indiscriminate use.

In a political sense, race is itself is used as a cudgel – its employment is not merely irresponsible, it’s malicious.  Some of those who are sincere in their name-calling are undoubtedly projecting.  That’s psychological terminology for people ascribing views or motivations to others which they, themselves, harbor.  They view what others do in racist terms since that’s what motivates them!

 

 

Why the Public is So “Forgiving” of the President’s Possible Personal Misdeeds

Every few months (or so it seems) a woman comes forward and accuses Donald Trump of past sexual misconduct.

Predictably, the accuser will be given prime-time exposure on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

And each revelation raises the hope on the Left that “this time” the President’s broad support from Republicans and conservatives will come crashing down… and their wishes are thwarted once more.

Why?

It’s not unreasonable to conclude, based upon the multitude of allegations against him (are none of them true?) that President Donald Trump has a reprobate history.

Yet the response of the Trump “base” – and that of the general public, too -has been a collective shrug.

Some of the apparent indifference is simply rooted in a belief that any criticism of the President is politically motivated and is not credible for that reason alone.  For those so inclined, more objective observers might note, loyalty is blinding.

For others, the President’s perceived moral defects are acknowledged but are considered to be out-weighed by his accomplishments (conservative judges appointed, booming economy, etc.).  In that group are many who relish Trump’s disdain for “conventional”, acceptable behavior because it angers their common foe, the arrogant, elitist liberal media.

For the Left mainstream media, this lack of vocal moral outrage is proof of the hypocrisy of a large portion of the American public (Hillary’s “deplorables”).  The charge is largely unmerited.  Educated conservatives do not approve of the alleged conduct nor the President’s coarse language and manner.  It demeans the office and the leader of the “Free World”.  But we are not going to give the Left any satisfaction by acknowledging that.  Thoughtful conservatives, and others, are less fans of Trump and more foes of the Left.

Liberals continue to be baffled as to why Donald Trump won.  It had more to do with why Hillary Clinton lost.  She symbolized the Democrats’ infatuation (now grown into adoration) of leftwing ideology, oddly termed “progressivism” when in fact it’s an historical anachronism.

The hostility to Hillary Clinton was also generated by the obvious contempt for middle American values she had shared with her media fans.  The hatred was reciprocated at the polling booth.

 

 

 

Empathy as Justification for Open Borders

Last week the picture of a young father and his daughter who drowned while trying illegally to cross the Rio Grande River into the U.S. was front page, featured news across the media.

Pundits – and newscasters – jumped on the story as “Exhibit One” in the charge that America’s immigration policy is inhumane.

Other exhibits cited were the claims that detention facilities for “undocumented” immigrants [they left their papers at home?] were over-crowded, unhealthy and consisted of cages.

Of course, no one wishes death or horrible living conditions for foreigners seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.   These are sad and tragic endings.

But take a deep breath and think for a moment.  What are America’s responsibilities to people who are, from a policy perspective, unwelcome trespassers?

Present U.S. law provides that those entering the United States who claim political asylum are entitled to a hearing on their claim.  In the meantime, they are housed in the detention facilities in the U.S. or released into the general community based upon their promise to appear for the hearings which may be scheduled many months, even years, away.  They are not deported back to their home countries until then.

The simple fact is that illegal border crossings have skyrocketed in recent years, overwhelming the capacity of immigration centers.

This is a cruel irony in the protests and criticisms of those who favor, in effect, open borders and oppose improved security.  They have encouraged the illegal activities which has resulted in such hardships.

And their irresponsible conduct continues despite the obvious consequences.   Did you see the Democratic presidential candidates raise their hands in unison during last week’s first debate when asked if they supported  health care benefits for illegal aliens?

Leave aside the obvious answer to the question of who is supposed to pay for that.  How can compassionate, empathetic people (and, of course, they claim to be such) extend such an invitation for further illegal migration?  They know the supposedly awful conditions and mortal dangers which await asylum seekers.

Last week I pointed to examples of political imbecility.  Add most of the 20 plus Democratic presidential candidates to the list.  For those who are insincere, their demagoguery puts them in a worse category.  They are dangerous because of the harm to others they are willing to cause.