Guest contributors run the gamut, but they all pretty much rock.
Guest Contributor @sirvitup
Before we get into the categorization of grievances I have against the 45th President of the United States, I’ll unequivocally state that he is a better option than his opponent. However, for reasons I’ll list below (and many others) I could not bring myself to vote for him. Despite the regulatory rollbacks, talks of corporate tax rate reductions and nomination of an originalist, I still cannot find it within me to offer him even an “’Attaguy!” for a decision or statement with which I agree.
He is boorish and rude. After the 18-month garbage fire of the Republican primary, it was a reasonable assumption that events like last week’s press conference would occur. As a nation, I am sure we thought ourselves ready. We were not. All 78 minutes of implausible denials, half-truths, scapegoating and utter nonsense left the nation and the world believing what it had suspected: The Leader of the Free World was a boor. He was rude. He was not “plain spoken” or “talking the people’s language.” He is good at being a jerk and making people feel incredibly uncomfortable. In an ideal world, that discomfort inspires and uplifts and makes people seek out higher motives and stronger resolve. My fear is it makes many think it is acceptable to act like him in any situation anywhere. It is not.
He does not lead or inspire. The Fake News is full of stories of palace intrigue just 30 days in. Alt-Righters pitted against GOP Elite. Obama holdovers staging a whisper-driven coup d’état with their buddies in the media. No unity, no harmony, no high-minded public service. A time will come in President Trump’s era that history will demand he stand before the American public and bare his soul and be one of us. I may be being too hard on him, but I do not think he has that in him. He is too self-involved and too self-centered to do anything to draw out the best in others. Try to imagine him addressing the nation after a Columbine, a Challenger disaster, a 9-11. Difficult, right? I’m sure if it occurs, he will find a way in that difficult time to remind us about his 306 Electoral College votes or the great things he did at Wollman Rink. I, for one, cannot.
The Russia Stuff. Carter Page, Rex Tillerson, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, Roger Stone. These people all have documented connections to Russia. Far too many for my liking. If there is one person in the inner sanctum who’ve gotten checks cut from Russian interests that is one too many. Do not let my thoughts sway you. Read John Schindler, Louise Mensch and Eric Garland on Twitter. While, as many of us, they are not angels among men, they provide learned, solid research and know from whence they speak. In a glimmer of recent hope, the Vice President has made statements during his trip to Europe this week that show resolve and commitment to opposing Russian hijinks. The recent spy ships off the Eastern coast of the US, Russian jets buzzing US Naval vessels and Sergey Lavrov’s commentary this week about the “post-Western World” seem awfully suspiciously timed. Time will tell but usually where there is smoke…
The people around him are off-putting, ill-prepared and usually not the best choice. Steve Bannon. That name all by itself is enough cause for concern. A hero of the Alt-Right Nationalist movement, Bannon oversaw Breitbart.com’s decline into the sycophantic cesspool that it is today. His fawning commentary on Leninist principles ought to terrify every citizen. Conservatives advocate smaller and limited government. Bannon advocates governance by subtraction and nihilism with no concern for what government, America or conservatism looks like at the end of it all. Pair him with the Cruise Ship full of former conservative icons (Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, D’Souza, et. al.) who’ve lost their ever lovin’ minds with their over-the-top “boot licking lackey” servitude to the President, and you have a Rogues Gallery of…well…Deplorables that can be part of any “movement” they want, as long as it is moving in the opposite direction of me.
His arrogance regarding his involvements and businesses. Trump toadies are quick to now call Mar-A-Lago the “Winter White House” or the “Southern White House.” It is neither. It is a private Country Club that despite his protestations is still owned by the President of the United States. Camp David is a facility that is called the “official weekend retreat of the President.” You had better believe that it is a hardened facility prepared for any eventuality. I’m sure the Secret Service has done a great deal to prepare Mar-A-Lago. A privately owned facility. “Upgraded” by you and me. No “making due.” It is the height of arrogance. If Camp David was good enough for all Presidents since FDR, it is damn well good enough for him. And dear reader, who exactly is getting the dollars for the facility rental, accommodations and upgrades to Mar-A-Lago? Right, the President and his business. And as I am trying to keep this piece to 1000 words or less, I’ll reserve the lack of transparency about the President’s finance and entanglements to another day.
The above notwithstanding, I do not wish failure for this President and his administration. If he outkicks his coverage and becomes the greatest thing since Calvin Coolidge, he will deserve the laurels. I see no “Road to Damascus” reason for his supposed conversion, however. Lord knows it is not exhibited in anything close to rational behavior or leadership. And for that reason and 10,000 others, I simply do not believe him. I think an experiment to enlarge his brand has turned into the long con of his, and unfortunately our, lifetimes. I pray our Republic can survive it.
Challenging assertions normalized by the left is the first line of battle in any culture war. No longer would we permit the normalization of things that are only deemed normal simply because the left says it is. Beginning in 2008, the left began the drumbeat of making normal what is clearly not, and by granting female and minority status only to those whom the left deemed worthy of them.
Beginning in 2008, the Democrat Party decided it had no further use for rural voters, especially rural white voters, and began an extended campaign to lure immigrants and immigrant-friendly voters. That was the future of America, they reasoned, and they bet much political capital upon it. A member of their very own fringe, radical wing had just been elected president, after all, so that must be an effective strategy. And so the voices of the radical left grabbed hold of an entire political party that just ten years ago was controlled by a political family that campaigned with the Confederate flag in their campaign literature. It was in those days that the splintering and radicalization of the Democrat voter base began.
Assertion one: All women are pro-abortion. This is not, and never has been true, no matter how many people you get to attend a Planned Parenthood rally under the guise of “women’s rights.” Any politician or Facebook user quickly understood that to be pro-life was to be anti-woman, and any woman who dared to be pro-life was a traitor to her gender. Any man who held a belief that abortion was wrong was promptly advised that his status as a penis-bearer denied him any input into the matter at all. As this narrative begins to dissolve, the Democratic Party’s affiliation of loosely-bound fringe movements starts to unravel, and that, under any circumstances, cannot be allowed to happen. Their party made that decision in 2008.
Assertion two: Young people are inherently liberal and are thus going to vote Democrat no matter what. But wait, is it? Do young people automatically buy into the belief that abortion must be available “on demand, free, and without apology?” Not so much it seems. From Gallup:
This survey, conducted in 2010, indicates that the left’s prized angels, Millennials, are more in favor of restrictions on abortion than they might have hoped for. Remember of course, that any position short of “on demand, free, and without apology” falls well short of any definition that entitles a female to the leftist’s title of “Woman.” Americans outside of liberal strongholds on the coasts appear largely against this narrative simply parroted by the media as truth.
Assertion three: Americans are in favor of gender-identity normalization. An interesting example of leftist overreach here. By 2010, it was abundantly clear that the majority of Americans either supported gay marriage or were merely indifferent to it. (Some of us wonder why government has a say in marriage at all). This victory was not enough for the Lunatic Left™. I’ll give the Democrat Party one thing, they know how to pounce on a narrative and advance it to the point where it becomes accepted terminology (when the heck did taxes become “investments” or “revenue?”), but I digress. In this case, their assumption that America was at the very least tolerant of same-sex marriage turned into an all-out assault on what defines a man or a woman. Famously, several companies were put on the spot and were expected to allow someone who simply “identified” as a woman to be allowed into public restrooms and dressing rooms, even going so far as to demand this behavior be permitted in public schools. One company, Target, joined this wave and announced a “trans friendly” bathroom policy. I suppose that in New York City or Seattle, Washington, this normalization was but mere common sense.
The rest of the country disagreed.
We can get into the weeds about North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, but that’s not the point here. The point here is that to 90% or more of the country, men who are pretending to be women should not be granted access to facilities designed for use by women. Women across this country looked at their daughters, and suddenly the trans-friendly narrative became markedly clear to them. No matter how many celebrities or media types told them this was normal, they know that it is not.
Assertion four: Americans are pro-immigration. (With the additional addendum that all Latinos are pro-immigration.) Simply put, conservatives are not anti-immigrant, we are pro-process. Come here within the process and with a sincere desire to assimilate into American culture and succeed. The left’s narrative, of course, is the good old standby that being pro-process is merely racist.
This was a critical strategic move for Democrats, and it was based on the assumptions that ALL Latinos are Democrats, and that their fragile base would stand together on this all-in bet on Latinos being the largest ethnic group in America. In 2012, Barack Obama won 71% of the Latino vote, who ran against a man, Mitt Romney, who did not promise much in the way of clamping down on illegal immigration. Curiously enough, in 2016, Latino voters, while still siding with the Democrats, did so in much smaller numbers, 65%. What happened? The assumption that all Latinos want complete, and unfettered access to our country because they share a Latin heritage was shattered. Large numbers of Latinos waited in line and jumped through the immigration hoops because they wanted to be here, and the prospect of criminal aliens being allowed to stay was insulting to them. Remember that when a political party goes all-in to draw in one group of voters, it has to do better than 65%.
But something else happened, and really this happened around 2010. Black turnout for the Democratic Party candidate dropped. Now, dropping from 93% to 88% isn’t exactly seismic, but it does tell you that African-American voters saw what the Democrat Party decided to do, which was to continue to take them for granted as Democrat voters in exchange for increased votes from Latino voters. The strategic decisions were simply based on an electorate that won’t exist in America for at least another two generations. And the Democrat Party, which is wholly controlled now by angered fringe movements picking at it like vultures on a dying carcass, will respond with the old belief system that Marxism is so dependent upon: “We just didn’t do it right the last time.”
And so as old assertions about women and abortion and Latino voters become new again, so will the tactics of the left, resorting to acts made famous in the 60s. Riots. Protests. Resistance. An era which gave birth to, eventually, the “New Democrats.” In the meantime, their efforts to primary Joe Manchin are building.
Long live The Republic.
I was asked this morning what my thoughts were on the nomination and confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Admittedly, I knew nothing about her or her ideas when she was first nominated, so I began doing some research, and I saw the words “pro school vouchers” and “charter schools advocate,” and I was hooked.
Sure, there were going to be impactful nominations at every department, and people were understandably interested in who would lead the departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Defense, and the like. But this nomination is different, and it’s different for a number of reasons, two of which I will expand upon today.
First, this confirmation strikes at the heart of one of the Democrat party’s significant fundraising arms: teachers’ unions. I am strongly in the camp of those who believe we, being the Republican party, or conservatives, or whatever it is we are now, should seize upon this historic level of government from the tops to the bottoms of our government. (In my view, of course, governors are at the top with the president being at the bottom, but that is a worthy discussion for another day.)
The second very real component of giving parents of children in inner-city schools the opportunity to take the money normally given directly to schools (after a quick union tax), and give it to these parents in the form of vouchers.
I’m a band parent, you see. And I store YouTube videos of my children’s various marching and orchestral performances. Then one evening, after perhaps one glass of Knob Creek too many, I came upon this video titled “The World’s Worst Marching Band.”
I watched the video and read the comments, and it broke my heart. These kids’ experiences are no doubt repeated in inner-city schools, largely attended by African-American and Latino children. There are young, minority children literally trapped in places where achievement is made nearly impossible by gangs, drugs, violence and even worse, negative peer pressure. Harsh words to be sure, but to say that young African-American children who desire to succeed are not called “house ni***rs” or even worse, is naïve at best.
Can that behavior be controlled? Can it be stopped? Perhaps, but only if led by local people elected by local parents, which is largely what Betsy DeVos is after.
If in the meantime, however, if we can extend hope and opportunity to those parents trapped within the Democrat circle of life by way of school choice, then we will have found perhaps the most life-changing reform that child will have ever known.
Long live The Republic.
Regular Contributor Brad Slager
As the Trump Era has officially begun, leftist outrage firebrands are in full throat,ironically as they are losing their minds. I think it is a safe bet that every single day since the election there has been an organized protest. And these gatherings are starting to have an effect: We have reached the point that images of hordes marching leads to abject apathy. (That “effect” is necessarily positive.)
Full disclosure: I never have the first clue what is going on at any organized protest rally. This is because I would never be caught dead in the same zip code of any such rally. My tolerance for congregated manhood maxes out at the capacity of your average hockey arena.
Then you have the rally participants. Milling around with tens of thousands of beaming self-important activists is high punishment. Who can tolerate chanting like they did when we were four years old and learning phonics while carrying placards with stunted witticisms and sporting artwork that would be shamed by Koko the Gorilla – all while “effecting change.” This does not inspire me to like humanity. It inspires me to shop for time shares in the Azores.
If you ever want to chase me away from a place, don’t resort to an EVICTION notice; just stage a Human Rights rally out at the pool deck one day. And as if this intolerable concept is not horrid enough to picture, every rally involves packing in close to people you normally build fences to avoid, in order to stand for the speeches. An endless stream of “famous” busy-bodies then take to the microphone to tell it like it is.
I have looked over the guest lists on a number of recent rallies, and they always strike me as similar to film credits. You may recognize a frontline star, or two, but the rest may as well be part of the avalanche of names from the production crew. Who spoke at the Amnesty International rally last night? “Oh, it was Marc Ruffalo, the girl from craft-services, and the second assistant CGI wire-frame character designer.”
I was recently surprised to find myself looking into the details of Donna Hylton. She was one of those speakers, from one of these rallies, held in one of our cities, on one of the endless string of days that a rally has been held since the election. Doing so manages to shed some light on the curious machinations behind what it takes to become one of these “important” public speakers.
The unsurprising part is that there is a surprising lack of credentials or actual accomplishment needed to be hailed as “an important voice” within the activist set. Hylton spoke at the DC Women’s March. Why? Got me. She has no viable credentials anyone offers to illustrate why she is a “voice to listen to.” Of course, she having a grievous and disturbing history only seems to make her more important in the mind of activists.
Hylton served a 27-year sentence when convicted of the kidnapping, torture, and murder of a gay New York businessman. So, of course, she is now held up as the voice of the feminist agenda. Here is where you get the bifurcated standards of the activist left: they are marching to oppose the unforgivable sexist words of Donald Trump, and are led by a woman, they forgive for murder, sodomy, and homicide.
I’m not risking the inducement of seizures by announcing unfathomable realities exist in activism circles. The Women’s March rallies were filled with them, as they rose up to protest Donald Trump’s campaign promise to make females illegal. (I’m guessing, based on some speeches.). My favorite item may be how March organizers chased the female Pro-Life groups from joining them, while at the same time co-sponsoring with numerous Islamic groups.
Look, I know my testosterone-poisoning means my opinion is worthless on these subjects, but how does a women’s rights agenda square with groups that force hijabs, and prevent women from driving?!
Now here is the overarching problem with the Women’s March: What was the point? There is much talk following these rallies of them being a “success.” This is, of course, a qualified assessment, given you will never read what was actually accomplished.
“Millions showed up!” “Look how many states staged rallies!” “This was a global movement!”
Uh-huh . . . and . . .?
They arrived, they marched, but did anything – happen?! Part of the reason this was an opaque mission statement is the wide array of causes that were attached to the WOMEN’s March. In just one example from HuffPo, a career activist lists items such as “diversity of races, genders, sexual orientations, national origins, religions and humanist values.” Also mentioned; “overcoming the entrenched privilege of whiteness, of heterosexuality, of Christianity, and myths of Anglo-Saxon origins.” Man, these ladies have it hard!
Added to this paella of protests were hundreds of partner groups, many with perplexing connections to the feminist agenda. Just a sampling:
● National Resources Defense Council
● United Auto Workers
● New Yorkers Against Gun Violence
● SEIU - United Healthcare Workers
● Occupy Wall Street
● National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development
● Climate First!
● Network of Arab-American Professionals
● Swamp Revolt
This is clear evidence that “women” were not the focus here, but opposing Trump. And with hundreds of interest groups compelling their membership to turn out the numbers seem far less impressive, organically. With such a varied focus may I ask how you could possibly declare any type of a victory?
Easy – just insist upon it.
In case you feel you may have missed out on something, allow me to give you a pull quote from Donna Hylton’s nothing-burger of a speech:
● “I stand before you today to say that we are human; that we are women; and we are you, and you are we – and we count!”
If that wisdom sounds at all to you like trenchant wisdom, I have a puffy magenta-colored hat to sell you.
When all was said and done the gals cleared town and returned to their lives of petulant tantrum-throwing. In their wake they left a massive pile of trash, the discarded craft projects they tossed aside once the cameras were turned off. At least they could take comfort that their garbage was cleaned up by those earning $0.23 more per hour than they would have earned if they had been gainfully employed.
Guest Contributor Schultzie
Face it, we guys tend to fail at Valentine’s Day.
Maybe in high school you forgot to make the sappy mix tape. Or in college, you played past midnight in a Mario Kart tournament. Perhaps a few years after your wedding you thought it was Groundhog Day and told your wife you were sad there would be six more weeks of bad weather.
Fact is, Valentine’s Day, from the ladies’ perspective, is one of those very special “celebrate our love properly or I will cut you” days. Then life gets in the way, and Cupid sneaks up on us like a Central Park stalker. When men fail on this, they fail pretty hard.
The risks are high because demand for the essentials is off the charts. Any man who got sidetracked and didn’t make plans is forced to make some hard choices:
This doesn’t cut it.
There’s also the easy-way-out gifts that are given on that day, like PajamaGrams.
A PajamaGram is the worst because it tells your lady that you are stupid enough to believe the TV commercials where lady actors are paid to say they like pajamagrams. Even the words - straight from your loved one’s mouth - “I would love a PajamaGram,” aren’t true. It’s the same as when you hear, “This is fine,” which means “This is not fine, will never be fine, and you’re too stupid to even realize I am going to punish you for this when you least expect it in ways you can’t even imagine.”
Vermont Teddy Bear? Please. You are just asking for it. Teddy bears are for small children and for smuggling prosciutto through customs.
A sparkly diamond? Go for it if you have the cash.
Otherwise, avoid cupid’s cliches, like trashy lingerie - women know you are buying this for your enjoyment. (Save it for Father’s Day.) Thinking about spicing things up with a Wonder Woman costume from Amazon? Instant death is now included with your Prime membership.
This is where the chocolate comes in.
At this point, women should stop reading this article because it’s full of secret Man stuff that will spoil your surprise. Go ahead - click over to “57 Ways to Punish A Man Who Fails on Valentine’s Day - You’ll Never Believe Article 3, Subsection B, Part 4,”
Gentlemen: the first thing to remember about Valentine’s day is that women don’t like chocolate.
It’s the same with puppies, babies, and shirtless Sting from the 80’s. Women don’t like that stuff at all.
They LOVE that stuff. They love it with the burning passion of pyromaniac standing outside a Zippo factory. They love it more than New England loves Tom Brady. When you watch Lord of the Rings and Gollum says, “My Precious…” just think of your lady saying the same phrase, right before she bites the corner off a square of Belgian dark chocolate.
Chocolate is special for women, because chocolate has magical powers.
Car trouble? Fix it with chocolate.
Happy? Time for a chocolate celebration.
Feeling down, tired or bloated - chocolate, chocolate, chocolate.
Marooned on a desert island with a lifetime supply of chocolate? No problem.
Not even hungry? Managed to put on pants today? Bedtime and you haven’t brushed your teeth yet? These are all valid reasons for chocolate.
Chocolate can win on Valentines, which is why I’m giving you this small piece of advice.
Bake this cake. Do it at least a day before the 14th. Serve it on Valentine’s day with a little vanilla ice cream or whipped cream. With four ingredients, even if you’ve never done anything besides microwave pizza rolls, you can probably manage this cake.
Your love object gets the dopamine-rush of a flourless chocolate cake that you made with your own hands. In the 90 minutes it takes to make it, you will go from fail whale to sex panther - “60% of the time, it works all of the time!” She’ll think you’re precious.
Regular Contributor Raymond
A word I read a lot on liberal social media and hear from television shows with liberal slants is “normalize.” There is a huge concern that Republicans and conservatives are “normalizing” hatred and discrimination among groups of people based on the thoughts of a few or the misconstruing of the views of others. Liberals in the Democratic Party feel the need to use these words (and others) to address the outrageous behavior of Trump and his supporters.
I agree that we have a New Normal on our hands in this country.
-We used to preach about respect for women and their bodies. Where was that respect (and support) for the Female Trump Supporter at UC Berkeley who was pepper sprayed on video?
-We used to preach consistently about tolerance, love, and unity regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. But where is that message when people attack black conservatives, gay conservatives, or Christians?
-We used to preach about supporting and defending the First Amendment. Where was that support and defense when actors who supported Trump or would-be performers at Trump’s Inauguration were brutally trolled? For the folks that wanted to hear Milo Yiannopoulos speak?
The events at UC Berkeley this week weren’t the tipping point. It was a further demonstration of the “New Normal” some in the media (and the party) want to desperately attribute to Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters after an embarrassing election cycle. Folks are finding new (and stupid) reasons to destroy their neighborhoods and college campuses for instant gratification and the need to create their own history. And instead of preaching the nonviolence on the campaign trail when we need it the most (Love Trumps Hate, Stronger Together, Low/High, etc.) many Democrats (including elected officials) refuse to address it or even condone the behavior.
I want to caution my fellow Democrats that this New Normal is not without consequence. In the “Hashtag de Resistance,” we fail to see that losing businesses, school enrollment, and other economic impacts could potentially hit these areas. It makes it difficult for anyone to find allies or simple solidarity because they are too busy calling someone a Nazi for merely asking why violence is necessary to protest. It makes the few moderates and conservatives we have left in the party want to jump ship, vote against party until we get it right, or sit out yet another election cycle. And it also gives validity to every single proposal the Trump Administration pitches to either curtail your freedom through Executive Order or defund your public primary/secondary schools and institutions of higher education. By condoning and participating in such behavior, you’re basically writing it for them.
When we look at all of this, it makes for an interesting argument. We are indeed normalizing awful behavior under President Trump. And all signs on the map point to the far left.
Guest Contributor @schultzenfreude
The debate on refugee policy boiled over this week, so we're seeing lots of pictures of suffering and dead children. Senators Booker and Murphy posted the photo of the infamous dead boy on the Mediterranean seashore. America magazine is featuring the shell-shocked five-year-old Omran Daqneesh, covered in blood and dust, "pulled from the rubble... stunned and silent on an orange rescue chair."
These pictures are frightening and disturbing for everyone.
They're also useful for immigration supporters because they’re visual proof that we should help people from war-torn areas of the Middle East, and we should help them now.
Their homes are piles of rubble. As they flee, bombs are dropping around them, and bullets are flying over their heads. There is no end in sight. The refugees will do anything to escape, including risking their children's lives.
Here in the land of plenty, where the average trip to Costco costs $136, we could certainly take them in, feed them, clothe them, give them medical care, job training and a place to live.
We have to do it for the children. And we have to do it now.
Never mind that the details of the drowned boy don't quite match this narrative, or that little Omran is stunned and silent partially because the camera flash of a priceless photo op happened before he got washed and bandaged.
The left is telling us we have to help by welcoming tens of thousands of refugees into our country. If we don't, we're some horrible combination of Hitler, Cruella deVille, and Mr. Monopoly - greedy, selfish, cruel and terribly unchristian.
The rationale went from mere humanitarianism to something that’s supposed to cut to our core: "Jesus was a refugee." So if we aren't accepting these refugees, we aren't accepting Jesus. And for God-fearing Christians, that means risking the eternal damnation of our immortal souls; the separation from those we love and eternal happiness; the burning hell-fire of those lost forever to their greed and selfishness.
In other words, "It just got real."
Who is telling us Jesus was a refugee? It's not just the usual suspects like Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi. Prominent Catholics like New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond voiced concerns. Anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean and other Christian pastors are all beating the drum: Jesus was a refugee, and if you don't support open borders for refugees, you're guilty as hell of being a horrible Christian.
Do they think that every time someone tweets “Jesus was a refugee,” an angel gets its wings?
It's true Joseph took Jesus and Mary to Egypt to escape the execution of the male infants in Bethlehem. King Herod wanted to preserve his position and his prerogatives - he thought he could destroy this mysterious baby king before he became a threat. Jesus was taken to Egypt to avoid execution, so, technically, Jesus was a refugee.
So it's not productive to argue that Jesus wasn't a refugee. What can be argued is that an open borders policy has problems and complications that go far beyond the simple admonitions of the gospel to take care of the poor and the homeless.
This is what you can argue:
The Left Only Says “Jesus” to Advance Their Agenda
Always remember that the partisans who want you to feel guilty about refugees are the same people who support government actions like suing The Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to violate their religious beliefs. The kindly order of nuns who care for old people who are destitute and dying have been in federal court for years thanks to the Obama administration’s ham-fisted policy enforcement. This is just one example of the double standard of the left: Jesus was a refugee, but pay no mind to how we’re treating the people who care for the dying poor. Jesus was a refugee, but don’t put up a Christmas tree on public property. Jesus was a refugee, but don’t question abortion on demand.
These are the people who think Planned Parenthood is a charity, and Jesus would approve. The next time a leftist tells you Jesus was a refugee, remind them he fled to Egypt because Herod killed innocent baby boys to try to keep his throne. Fast forward 2,000 years, and Herod’s infanticide, performed in the womb, would win him Planned Parenthood’s “Top Producer” award at black tie dinners.
The bottom line: scratch the surface of leftist Jesus-talk, and you get a callous attempt at manipulating the actions and emotions of people of goodwill. It’s laughable, groundless, and tragic. But that’s not enough of an argument because we have to deal with religious leaders who favor open borders.
What About our Pastors and Bishops?
This presents the biggest challenge: how do you tell your parish priest or random Jesuit you meet on Twitter that supporting open borders for refugees is not necessarily the only position that aligns with Christian morality? The answer is more complicated:
Nations have a right to safeguard their culture, borders and people
The murders, injuries, and sexual assaults from recent migrants both in the U.S. and Europe prove that an open borders policy is making our countries less safe. One can argue that exposing our mothers and daughters to more violence and sexual assaults is uncharitable and therefore unchristian. Further, you can’t play the numbers game with this policy, which is that a relatively small amount of bad apples are acceptable in the name of charity. I doubt the families of the 14 people killed in San Bernardino would tell you that they'd like to see it happen all over again for the sake of Christian charity.
Governments will need to find better ways to review and process applicants for asylum. We have to be able to sort out Islamists and their sympathizers bent on destroying Western governments and culture. We don’t need to close the borders, but we need to be more serious about how we ensure the safety of our people.
We can’t pay for everything
Refugee policy, and the left’s obsession with social programs as a cure-all, are symptoms of a bigger problem: the idea that if we just throw more money at something we can fix it. For example, billions of dollars spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs haven’t gotten us beyond unacceptable wait times and staff performance. Vets are still dying before they can get medical care. It’s a good example when set against refugee policy: how much more is the US going to spend on aiding people outside our country when we don’t have our own programs in order?
That argument might seem hollow because of how rich our country is, but the fact is with U.S. federal government debt approaching $20 trillion, we can’t keep writing blank checks for a lifetime of social benefits. We can’t even afford the levels of spending we have today.
Want to Help? Do Something.
There’s a simple way to get past feeling guilty. The poor need help. They need hands, hearts, time, and love. If you’ve never volunteered to work with your own hands to help the poor, you will find it quickly gets you past the idea that you aren’t doing enough. Preparing meals, visiting people in jail, or being a foster parent - you’ll never feel like you aren’t helping. You’ll feel better than writing a check to a charity.
A few years back, I was buying groceries at Whole Foods, and the cashier asked if I wanted to donate to a children’s charity. I politely said no, and she smiled and asked, “Don’t you want to help the children?”
I almost lost it. But I pulled myself together said a few words about my foster baby turned adopted daughter. I don’t think she asked anyone else that question ever again.
Frankly, that question was close to what we’re hearing today: “Don't you want to help the refugees? Jesus was a refugee.”
It's a question that's hollow, false, and meant to manipulate.
If you do something, even something small and local, the left can’t guilt you into bad policy. We can’t let the left own charity or goodwill when we have it in our power to make a difference with our own hands.