Identity Politics - Polarized Beyond Belief

Submerged In A Din Of Identity Politics

7/27/2018 - Suzanne Fields Townhall.com

The human animal seems hard-wired for tribalism, and the ties that bind are shaped by our compelling need to group together, obeying calls for loyalties and exclusions. Some groupings not only contribute to the gratifications of bonding, whether in family, clubs, choirs or loyalty to sports teams, but also provide the glue that holds a community together.

But tribes become the "factions" that former President George Washington warned against in his Farewell Address, heightening differences and rivalries that the Founding Fathers hoped to dilute through checks and balances in the three branches of government. In the age of the internet, tribalism asserts itself in the flood of outrage stories that bombard us hourly, and make us angry and hostile toward those with whom we disagree.

Former President Barack Obama, who had all but vanished from public life, opened a conversation about identity politics in a speech in South Africa the other day during the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nelson Mandela, warning that democracy is served poorly when identity is the organizing principle.

"But democracy demands that we're able also to get inside the reality of people who are different than us," he said, "so we can understand their point of view. Maybe we can change their minds, but maybe they'll change ours."

It's tempting to dismiss an argument offered by a former president and the current one if we don't like things that are said, even when it's reasonable. There's no room for debate, and everyone is quickly labeled as either hateful or stupid for expressing a different point of view. It's us against them, and a mean spirit becomes a contagion, splintering us into subgroups of animosity left and right, culturally and politically.

"A shift in tone, rhetoric, and logic has moved identity politics away from inclusion -- which had always been the left's watchword -- toward exclusion and division," writes Yale Law professor Amy Chua in "Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Face of Nations." Facebook now lists over 50 genders ("sexes," they used to be called) for argument, "from genderqueer to intersex to pangender," as it competes to take equal opportunity offense. The competition for victimization has become a crowded field.

Jonathan Haidt, author of "The Righteous Mind," who has studied political polarization since 2007, observes that both sides of the political spectrum show increasing dislike for the other and think the other a threat to the country. The parties, which once included an uneven mix of conservatives and liberals, contrive now to be so ideologically "pure" that opposing voices within are quickly silenced.

The term "identity politics" is heard often in the news and on social media to animate our own ideas and prejudices, some good, some not so good, in our multicultural country. But what does "identity politics" actually refer to? Whose identity? Whose politics? The questions run through conversations on the beach, at a bar and around the barbecue grill, overheard in the swimming pool or on a picnic blanket, addressed casually between men and women of different ages, and in different locations where people congregate.

Summer brings people together from many walks and places of life, backgrounds and traditions. They once could meet during the happy and laid-back season without the baggage that disrupts and angers debate on politics and current events. But now, not so much. Politics seems to be permanently polarized. After old friends and summer acquaintances move through congenial conversations about family, relationships, work, play, baseball, sometimes soccer, the scorching heat or the dreary rainy day, identity politics emerges as a common theme. It asserts itself like a snake coiling around the base of a tree and becomes a dangerous disruption of neighborly cohesion. Whether black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, gay, straight, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, identity politics forces us to think in terms of differences and not the many good things we cherish and hold in common.

The imperfect melting pot that once united us as unhyphenated Americans has boiled over into an indigestible stew, giving people heartburn and indigestion and no longer providing a way for smoothing over differences. The temperature of social discourse inevitably rises. Identity politics and the revival of a tribal mentality may be the most deleterious affliction with which we as individuals and as a nation must contend.

When Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights struggle, he aimed for a national reconciliation to redeem an inclusive American dream. Former President Abraham Lincoln, who sought healing in the few days he had left after the Civil War, urged us to listen to "the better angels of our nature." But those angels, as he knew, are fragile and easily destroyed in the din of identity.

A Nation Without Borders - Is Not A Nation

Why Everyone Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them

7/19/2018 - Frank Turek Townhall.com

 If you say you’re for open borders, you’re not.  Not completely.  

Do you have locks on your doors?  How about on your car?  Got a fence so your kids can play safely?  Do you have passwords on your computers?  How about your bank accounts? Do you protect your credit card numbers?   Your social security number?  How about your medical records?  Do you think curbs, guardrails and traffic lines are a good idea, or should people be able to drive any where and any way they want?   How about security borders at the airport—necessary or optional?

The truth is everyone believes in secure borders.  In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.  The only question is “Where am I going to draw the borders for my own security?”

You may not want to secure the border of the United States, but you certainly want to secure the border of your home.  The problem is the security of your home is affected by the security on your street, which is affected by the security in your town, which is affected by the security in your state and your country.  

And I’m not just talking about your physical security, but also your economic security.

People want to come here for the freedoms and prosperity we have in America. This has become the land of opportunity and the most prosperous nation on earth, which would have been impossible without secure borders. Open borders would destroy the very reasons people want to come here in the first place.

Why?  Because prosperity can only be achieved when people feel secure enough economically and personally to take risks to innovate, invest, and extend themselves into the market.  That security requires safe streets, reliable and adequate infrastructure, environmental protection, and a welfare base kept to a sustainable limit.   Such security also requires the rule of law which helps create a predictable and level playing field.   Without the rule of law, you don’t get the security and prosperity of America—you get the corruption and poverty of, say, Venezuela (where annual inflation is now 43,378%!).  

People flee countries that don’t have this unique combination of security and freedom.   That’s why communist countries build walls to keep people in.  We need walls to keep people out!  

While it would be great to give everyone the same opportunities we have in America, it’s impossible to do by bringing everyone here. If we opened our borders, millions of people would flood this country and overwhelm the very things necessary to keep it prosperous, including our strained safety net.  And even extremely high immigration levels would do virtually nothing to ease world poverty as this video graphically demonstrates.

Then there’s the fact that some illegal immigrants would harm Americans.  Don't get me wrong: I’m not saying all illegal immigrants would be terrorists or criminals (although some surely would be).  What I’m saying is that controlled immigration and secured borders are as necessary to a country as they are to your home.  You don’t let just anyone and everyone into your home. If you did, your home would be destroyed, possibly by a criminal element, but most definitely by the fact that your home couldn’t physically handle a large influx of people. In a similar way, open borders would kill the golden goose called America—it would destroy the very environment which entices people to come here in the first place.

So while an open borders policy may sound compassionate, it actually leads to disastrous results.  That is because—like so many other utopian leftist ideas—it ignores reality and misdiagnoses human nature.

Finally, contrary to the media narrative, Scripture doesn’t mandate open borders or prohibit walls.  As Dr. Wayne Grudem upacks here, the Bible actually affirms that borders are legitimate and walls are good things. God Himself scattered people by language (Gen. 11), and the promised land of Israel had definite borders as did its surrounding nations.  In fact, Moses respected the border of Edom by asking permission of the King of Edom to pass through that country (Moses was denied as you’ll read in Num. 20:17-21).  Jesus acknowledged that nations need to be reached (Matt. 28:17-20), and Paul declared that God intends nations to have legitimate rulers (Rom. 13:1).  Paul even used his status as a Roman citizen to protect himself from harm (Acts 22:25-26).  And the scriptural commands not to steal presuppose borders and the right to private property.

(Remarkably, there will even be a border in the afterlife between Heaven and Hell because God can’t force free creatures to love Him or one another.  Forced love is impossible.  Love requires freedom and freedom requires the security that your choices will be respected, even if it means that you want an eternal border between you and God.)

We are blessed to live in America.  But we need to recognize that it’s impossible to have everyone live here.  The best way to protect America and help people outside of our country is to control immigration at a sustainable level while exporting our ideas of economic and political liberty to other nations.  

We can't bring everyone to America, but we should try to bring America to everyone. 

Democrat Socialists - Our Nation's Greatest Menace

Election 2018: Open Border Socialist Delusions—and Reasons for Hope

7/23/2018 - Arthur Schaper Townhall.com

The Democratic Party has become the new socialist party. What does that say for our nation’s future? House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy could not hold back his outrage at how self-destructive and left-wing the Democratic Party has become. Their rising stars seem more like falling meteors, or like the arrogant Icarus with wax wings rushing toward heights of glory. These younger, brainless socialists didn’t learn much in high school, and they certainly never found out how the myth of Icarus ended. They haven’t lived through the hard times and privations brought on by government mismanagement. A field trip to Venezuela would change their minds about the soul (and stomach) of man under socialism.

Yet this penchant of redistribution of wealth seems to afflict the young—and the rich, mostly because they want the levers of power. Some young idealists have all the money, and they don’t plan on losing any of it. Another part of their grand, secular utopian fantasies rests on the erasure of borders and the promotion of a global, one-world government. Think of John Lennon’s “Imagine”, and the key verse that haunts the rest of the song: 

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

Ignoring the bad grammar, let’s look at the bad political philosophy. Nations are not just God’s idea, but they remain a good idea for individuals of common interests (language, culture, legacy) to assimilate and assign themselves within the grand scheme of things. Borders reduce conflict, just as good fences make good neighbors. Speaking of fences, Colombia has a big beautiful wall keeping out the starving Venezuelans. So does Mexico, Israel, and China. Sorry, sorry socialists: walls work.

The rearing head of the socialist left has no interest in these petty verities, however. They want one world, no borders, no wall, and sanctuary for all. Of course, they chant for these demands while safely nestled in their safe spaces. They have their doors, their walls, and their gated communities bought and paid for by their well-connected moms and dads. They don’t worry about private security, since they have hired guards, too. Then they find out about the rest of us little people, the uneducated masses.

We don’t know what’s in our best interests, so all those rich, well-endowed socialists want to make the world a better place for us—and they will do it by force, even if it means a boot in our faces forever. Does this stark hypocrisy surprise you? Bernie Sanders owns three homes. Millennial Socialist superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grew up in uber-preppy Westchester County, New York then carpetbagged to the Bronx to take Joe Crowley’s House Seat.  Such is the socialist mindset. Men, women, and society will thrive where equality of results and diffusion of differences becomes the attainable goal—and that means open borders and “Abolish ICE!”.

Of course, these anti-social dreams have wax wings, and they are waxing more precarious by the day. Social media has made it all too easy for the same despised masses young and old to behold what socialist policies do to a country. Open border policies have ruined Europe, and they have destroyed the European Union experiment. That’s one piece of good news—the end of the border-wary European Union. 

There’s more good news despite this open borders-mass migration upheaval, but let’s dispense with the bad news first.

In California, voters will have the choice between wannabe leftist fossil Democratic incumbent Dianne Feinstein (who couldn’t get a water bill passed in Congress), and the uber-leftist state senator Kevin De Leon for United States Senate. The California Democratic Party has embraced every left-wing, open-border, pro-illegal platform imaginable, including the abolition of ICE. And they endorsed De Leon instead of the incumbent: unusual, unprecedented, and unsettling. California has served as a vanguard for left-wing lunacy, in large part because of the massive university systems indoctrinating professional graduates, but also the unimpeded influx of illegal aliens: call it the “porous border to graduate school pipeline." This is America’s future if we don’t take a stand.

Now for the good news.

In Tennessee, the state legislature banned sanctuary cities, which includes state requirements for local jurisdictions to work with ICE. This reform became law without the governor’s signature. It’s a red state, though, so that victory is kind of expected.

It gets better.

In long-time blue state Oregon, concerned citizens collected enough signatures for a statewide initiative to repeal their Sanctuary State law. In spite of the determined left-wing tilt of the state (Oregon hasn’t elected a Republican governor in over three decades), residents are fed up with the illegal immigration lawlessness. They repealed drivers licenses for illegal aliens by initiative in 2014. They will strike down sanctuary state this year, too. 

In Massachusetts, another uber-liberal Commonwealth (or Commie-wealth according to outraged critics), the state legislature passed the annual budget, minus a key talking point among the ravaging left-wing activist base: no sanctuary state provisions. Governor Charlie Baker may have torn down the wall between men and women when it comes to accommodating gender dysphoria, but the lively primary challenge on his right for re-election has forced him to see right on immigration. No sanctuary for illegal aliens in Massachusetts—at least for the time being. This is huge, especially considering that Democrats have a supermajority in Beacon Hill and could have easily overridden a veto.

Even in California, there’s hope. Don Rosenberg, a parent whose son was killed by an illegal alien, is sponsoring another initiative to repeal the sanctuary state law passed by Kevin De Leon, and also repeal drivers licenses for illegal aliens, end the automatic voter-motor law (which has enabled illegals to vote!), and compel cities to comply with ICE detainers. 

Even though open border socialist lunacy has become the rage, it's facing a steady defeat across the country. The Democrats are going hard left but will endure devastating losses on Election Day.

Preservation of America's Values - Utmost Priority!

Immigrants Change Cultures -- Whether New Yorkers in Florida or Latinos in America

7/17/2018 - Dennis Prager Townhall.com

The most frequently used description of America by those who advocate for large numbers of immigrants -- those here legally or illegally -- is "America is a nation of immigrants."

The statement sounds meaningful. But in reality, it's meaningless. What else could America be? If no one had come to America from elsewhere, the North American continent would have remained populated only by its indigenous people -- which is what many on the left wish had happened. As the late Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States," the most widely used American history text in high schools and universities, said to me, the world was not better off thanks to the founding of America.

So, the statement "America is a nation of immigrants" tells us nothing about the only questions that matter: Should be there any limits to immigration? And what should we do about illegal immigration?

Regarding the first question, an increasing number of Americans on the left do not believe in any limits: We should allow all those escaping poverty or violence into the United States. As Hillary Clinton was caught on tape saying, she doesn't believe in borders. She speaks for the American left: In the past few weeks, leftists have marched in American streets demanding the abolition of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Therefore, for the left, the second question, "What should we do about immigration?" is essentially irrelevant. Their answer is "Nothing. All migrants are welcome."

However, for those of us -- liberals, conservatives and independents -- who do believe in borders, the second question is critical.

And the reason has nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to with race or ethnicity. The reason we worry so much about vast numbers of immigrants is that too many immigrants in too short a period of time will change American culture and values. Our concern is not rooted in xenophobia; it is rooted in values-phobia.

Why is this an issue now? Because the vast majority of past immigrants changed their values, not America's, when they came to this country. They came here to become American, not only in terms of language, citizenship and national identity but also in terms of values.

But while some immigrants still do, the majority does not. They want to become American citizens in order to better their lives -- a completely understandable motivation -- not to embrace American values and identity. The majority of today's immigrants from Latin America, for example, wishes to become wealthier ... Latin Americans.

Tens of millions of people have been coming to America with non-American values -- essentially, values of the left such as big government and a welfare state. And thanks to the Democratic Party and the left, they don't jettison these non-American values at the border and are encouraged to hold on to them.

Again, the concern many have over the issue of immigration has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Pope Francis is a good example. He looks like a white European, but he has brought the left-wing Latin American values of his native Argentina into the papacy.

One more proof that opposition to vast numbers of immigrants has nothing to with xenophobia, racism or nativism and everything to do with values is the effect of American immigrants going from northern states to southern states. The large number of (white) American internal "immigrants" from northeastern states has changed Florida's values. Once a rock-solid conservative state, Florida has become more and more liberal and leftist because of the influx of people from New York and the Northeast.

Is noting the values effect of New Yorkers immigrating to Florida -- or Californians to Arizona and Oregon -- xenophobic, racist or nativist? Of course not.

That's why opposition to large-scale Muslim immigration into Europe (or America) also has little or nothing to do with xenophobia, racism (Muslim is not a race anyway) or nativism. It has to do with changing European values. Large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe will do to Europe's values what large-scale northern-state immigration has done to Florida and what large-scale European immigration did to the native culture of North America.

So, while the issue appears to be whether one is for or against large-scale immigration into America, the real issue is whether one wants to preserve American values or see them changed.

The left wants them changed. Conservatives don't.

Wise Words During Difficult Times

Preserving a Constitutional Republic

7/9/2018 - Terry Paulson Townhall.com

Elections matter. With a presidential victory comes the right and the responsibility to appoint Supreme Court justices to the court. Today, President Donald Trump will announce his next appointment. His promise to appoint originalist judges helped bring him to office. Instead of allowing the Constitution to become a “living document” drifting on the winds of opinions, an originalist judge is committed to keeping the Constitution an anchor that provides a true north for our country’s laws.

Changing our Constitution is difficult for a reason. To change it easily leaves our freedoms susceptible to the whims of context and emotion.  The Constitution is not there to protect government from the people, but the people from an overreaching government.

Why appoint an originalist judge? It can be argued that there have been many questionable decisions by the Supreme Court over the years, but it was a majority of liberal Supreme Court justices that made two decisions seriously putting our freedoms at risk.

In 1944, the Supreme Court, in Korematsu v. United States, upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. They found that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of certain American citizens. One can understand the emotion behind such a decision in times of war, but letting context negate key rights is a dangerous precedent. Thankfully, we have apologized to our citizens of Japanese descent, but making the Constitution a “living document” subject to contextual interpretation puts all our rights at risk to the prevailing emotions and needs of the time.

In 1927, in Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court by an 8-1 decision, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." This degrading decision was allowed to stand as “good law.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, in a speech at Chapman Law School in 2005, said, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

In a 2006 Federalist Society lecture, Scalia warned about the “Flexibility” of a “living” Constitution: “That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.”

Even with the right temperament and sound intellect, it must be difficult for any judge to keep their own biases from impacting decisions. But any judge convinced that the Constitution is a “living document” would have a far easier time justifying a new interpretation to fit their views and the times. Take into account precedent but keep the Constitution your north star.

May our new Supreme Court Justice embrace a humility that every judge should possess. Justice Scalia, in his 1996 dissent in United States v. Virginia, warned judges and politicians: “It is one of the unhappy incidents of the federal system that a self-righteous Supreme Court, acting on its members’ personal view of what would make a ‘more perfect union’ (a criterion only slightly more restrictive than a ‘more perfect world’) can impose its own favored social and economic dispositions nationwide.”

May every Supreme Court justice appointed by any president bring a sense of humility and respect for the Constitution they are called to uphold.

The Hypocricy of "Projection"

The Distortions of Our Unelected Officials

3/29/2018 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

On March 17, ex-CIA Director John Brennan tweeted about the current president of the United States: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. ... America will triumph over you."

That outburst from the former head of the world's premier spy agency seemed a near threat to a sitting president, and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that it probably was: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."

If there is such a thing as a dangerous "deep state" of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy.

Immediately after the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the careerist Brennan quickly reinvented himself as a critic of the very methodologies that he once, as a George W. Bush administration official, had insisted were effective. Brennan was initially appointed Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, and then took over the CIA after the abrupt and mysterious resignation of Gen. David Petraeus following the 2012 election.

Brennan claimed that intelligence agencies had not missed clear indications in 2009 that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called "underwear bomber," would try to take down a U.S. airliner. Just days later when his denials were ridiculed, Brennan flipped and blasted intelligence agencies for their laxity.

In 2011, Brennan falsely alleged that the Obama administration's drone program had not caused a single civilian death in Pakistan over the previous year. In truth, around 50 civilians had been killed by drones since the 9/11 attacks.

The same year, Brennan offered various versions of the American killing of Osama bin Laden. His misleading narratives required White House revisions.

In March 2014, Brennan denied accusations that CIA analysts had hacked the computers of U.S. Senate staffers to find out what they knew about possible CIA roles in enhanced interrogations. After he was caught in a lie, Brennan was forced to apologize to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Most recently, in May 2017, Brennan testified under oath before Congress that he had no knowledge during the 2016 presidential campaign of the origins of the Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele dossier. Nor, Brennan claimed, was he aware that the FBI and the Department of Justice had used the infamous file to obtain surveillance warrants from the FISA court before and after the election.

Several sources, however, have said that Brennan was not only aware of the Steele dossier, but wanted the FBI to use it to pursue rumors about Trump. Brennan reportedly briefed Democratic Sen. Harry Reid on the dossier. Armed with those rumors, Reid then became insistent that they be leaked before the 2016 the election, according to reports.

Brennan is typical of the careerist deep state.

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice lied about the Benghazi tragedy, the nature of the Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo detainee exchange, the presence of chemical weapons in Syria, and her role in unmasking the identities of surveilled Americans.

Andrew McCabe, recently fired from his job as FBI deputy director, openly admitted to lying to investigators, claiming he was "confused and distracted." McCabe had said that he was not a source for background leaks about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. He wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that "some of my answers were not fully accurate ..."

Former FBI Director James Comey likely lied about not drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in her email scandal before interviewing her.

Comey misled a FISA court by not providing the entire truth about the Steele dossier. He falsely assured the president that he was not under investigation while likely leaking to others that Trump was, in fact, under investigation.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he said that the National Security Agency did not collect data on American citizens. When caught in the lie, Clapper claimed that he had given the "least untruthful" answer to the committee that he could publicly provide.

In the past, Clapper had also misled the country about the "secular" nature of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Note that Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe and Rice so far have not been held to account for their distortions. We cynically expect our politicians and even presidents to fabricate, but we idealistically (and naively) assume that career government servants do not.

A common strategy of the deep state careerist is the psychological tactic known as "projection." To square their own circles of lying, our so-called best and brightest loudly accuse others of precisely the sins that they themselves commit as a matter of habit.

In the ensuing chaos and uproar, careerists such as Brennan, Clapper and Comey usually escape scrutiny -- to proceed to their next political reincarnation, Beltway billet, book deal or television gig.

Democrats Out of Touch - As Usual!

The Left’s Hail Mary on Immigration

7/2/2018 - John Dempsey Townhall.com

The last week has been a humdrum of perpetual immigration cries from the left. In a stunning decision of morality, they decided since President Obama was no longer in office that they didn’t like children separated from their parents after entering the United States illegally. Democrats and the mainstream media have tried to move immigration back to the front of the discussion. However, it was President Trump that did this first. Now, the left is addressing immigration like Trump, but in a different way.

In June 2015, Trump brought forth the problem of our porous borders to the national discussion. He pointed out the issues of crime, and lack of jobs for American citizens held by illegals. He brought lack of immigration law enforcement to light. Before Trump, the left and establishment right didn’t care. Democrats got their watering down of the electorate, and longtime Republicans got their cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce donors. Trump was bound to shake things up if elected.

Both parties hoped that Trump would settle into the Beltway, and go with the flow like all of the presidents before him (except The Gipper, of course). However, that wasn’t the case. Trump ordered Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, to enforce the law, and do their jobs. The left and RINOs don't want the laws enforced.

Leftists have attacked Trump in just about every way possible. It started with tax returns but failed. There have been attacks in his personal life from alleged events over a decade old, and still nothing. The Russia hoax has been the fall back narrative when new assaults miserably, and embarrassingly fail. 

It appears the left has decided to attack Trump on his marquee issue that propelled him into the White House, immigration. The president made strides with his simple plan to enforce border laws, consistent use of e-verify, and deportation. For some reason, Democrats don’t think American citizens care about these issues, even though his approval rates are up in these particular topics. 

Trump outfoxes democrats on a weekly basis. They looked like fools over the Dreamers. The onus was put back on the left-wing politicians to come forth with a fair DACA bill that would also favor American citizens, including legal immigrants who went through the correct process to become citizens. Schumer couldn’t produce any hay. Democrats let the entire issue expire, placing it squarely on their shoulders. 

The Democratic politicians are throwing a Hail Mary now. They thought Mueller would have Trump gone in six months. They thought the new face of their party, Stormy Daniels, was going to cause the president to leave the White House. They have been wrong every time. Now, the last trick in the bag is immigration, but not in a way that favors Americans, only the illegals. And this move is incredibly flawed as well. 

There have been several polls taken about immigration lately. Recently, Harvard-Harris, a liberal organization, took some samples. Obviously, Democrats didn’t read it. 80% of respondents say they want the borders closed down. 70% want to end chain migration. And 68% want to stop the visa lottery program, making admission based on merit. However, the left wants to abolish ICE. Only Trump deranged liberals would be so dense as to campaign on open border and amnesty when a left-wing poll has such hard numbers. 

The left goes the complete opposite of Trump in everything. To their demise, immigration is no different, despite how citizens feel. Democrats are entirely out of touch with the national opinion on illegal immigration, and this proves it. 

When this fails, Democrats will need a platform for the November midterms. We can only hope it’s too late for that now. 

John Dempsey is a political and current event junkie with strong conservative leanings. He has also been published in BearingArms.com. He can be followed on Twitter @John_Demp83.

Perfect Reasons For National Division

The Left Can't Come To Grips With Loss Of Power

7/5/2018 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Key Trump administration officials have been confronted at restaurants. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) urged protestors to hound Trump officials at restaurants, gas stations or department stores.

Progressive pundits and the liberal media almost daily think up new ways of characterizing President Trump as a Nazi, fascist, tyrant or buffoon. Celebrities openly fantasize about doing harm to Trump.

What is behind the unprecedented furor?

Just as Barack Obama was not a centrist, neither is Trump. Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States. Trump pledged to do the same and more -- but in the exact opposite direction.

The Trump agenda enrages the left in much the same manner that Obamacare, the Obama tax hikes, Obama's liberal Supreme Court picks and the Iran nuclear deal goaded the right.

Yet the current progressive meltdown is about more than just political differences. The outrage is mostly about power -- or rather, the utter and unexpected loss of it.

In 2009, Obama seemed to usher in a progressive revolution for a generation.

Democrats controlled the House. They had a supermajority in the Senate. Obama had a chance to ensure a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for years.

Democrats had gained on Republicans at the state and local levels. The media, universities, professional sports, Hollywood and popular culture were all solidly left-wing.

A Republican had not won 51 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election since George H.W. Bush's 1988 defeat of Democrat Michael Dukakis. Before 2016, Republicans had lost the popular vote in five of the previous six presidential elections.

And then visions of a generation of progressive grandeur abruptly vanished.

Obama left behind a polarized nation. Democrats lost both the House and the Senate. During Obama's tenure, Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the state level.

Presumptive winner Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 presidential election.

Foolishly, Clinton tried to ensure a landslide victory by wasting precious campaign time in unwinnable red states such as Arizona and Georgia. Meanwhile, she too often neglected winnable purple states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all of which Obama had won in 2008 and 2012. Clinton apparently forgot that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, elects a president.

After his election, President Trump did not implode as predicted. By following the Obama precedent of relying on executive orders, Trump began recalibrating everything from immigration enforcement to energy development.

Abroad, Trump did what no other Republican president would have dared, bombing ISIS into submission, canceling the Iran deal, seeking to denuclearize North Korea, pulling out of the Paris climate accord, and moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The U.S. economy took off with new tax cuts and deregulation. Radical improvement in unemployment, economic growth, and oil and natural gas production created new consumer and business confidence.

Despite his frequent crudeness, Trump is inching toward a 50 percent approval rating in a few polls. That has only made an impotent opposition grow even more furious -- both at the other half of the country for supporting Trump, and at a buoyant Trump himself for baiting and ridiculing progressives in the fashion of no prior president.

Worse still, much of the loss of progressive power was at least partly self-inflicted. Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid foolishly dropped the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster for executive appointments and most judicial nominations in 2013. That blunder ensured Republicans the chance to remake the Supreme Court when they took over the Senate in 2014.

Obama chose not to try to win over his opposition, but to alienate it by veering hard left in his second term. Hillary Clinton foolishly got herself into a number of personal scandals that embarrassed her party and helped lead to her defeat.

In reaction to the sudden loss of political power, Democrats would have been wise to run to the center, as did Bill Clinton, who all but ended the era of the Reagan Republicans.

They could have dropped their obsession with identity politics and instead attempted to win over blue-collar voters with more inclusive class appeals rather than racial appeals. Instead, Democrats have endlessly replayed the 2016 election. In Groundhog Day fashion, Hillary Clinton repeatedly offered tired excuses for her loss.

To progressives, Trump became not an opponent to beaten with a better agenda, but an evil to be destroyed. Moderate Democrats were written off as dense; left-wing fringe elements were praised as clever.

Voters in 2016 bristled at redistribution, open borders, bigger government and higher taxes, but progressives are now promising those voters even more of what they didn't want.

Furious over the sudden and unexpected loss of power, enraged progressives have so far done almost everything to lose even more of it. And that paradox only leads to more furor.

Credible Fear a Self-imposed Amnesty

The Asylum Phenomenon on the Southern Border

7/4/2018 - Betsy McCaughey Townhall.com

People hoping to settle in the United States wait years for a green card to be legal residents. They play by the rules. These law-abiding newcomers must feel like idiots, watching what's happening on the southern border.

Hundreds of thousands of Central American migrants are walking right in. They're not waiting in line. They're using "asylum" requests as their E-ZPass. Just 12 percent of requests from El Salvadorans, 11 percent from Guatemalans and 7.5 percent from Hondurans are actually granted, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Never mind, the request gets them in.

It's a shameful distortion of a program intended to provide a haven for true victims of state-sponsored religious, ethnic and political persecution. The U.S. offered asylum to Hungarian anti-communists after their uprising was crushed by the Soviets in 1956; to Cubans fleeing Castro's prisons; to Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon to the Communists in 1975; to Chinese political dissidents escaping the crackdown after Tiananmen Square in 1989; and more recently, to Chinese Christians and Muslims threatened for practicing their religion.

Not to be confused with what's happening on the southern border. Migrants walk up to a border agent with a familiar story. Women typically plead they're victims of an abusive boyfriend or husband, and men claim they're escaping gang violence. They're detained briefly, but many are then released into the United States and given a date for an asylum hearing.

Being granted asylum means hitting the jackpot. Asylees get the Refugee Cash Assistance program, including medical care, a housing allowance and hundreds of dollars a month in cash. All inclusive, as the Sandals getaway ads say. In contrast, immigrants who go the green card route are ineligible for most benefits for years.

Half who use asylum as their excuse for crossing the border never even file a claim or show up at a hearing. They're also winners. After all, they made it inside the U.S., unlike the East Asian waiting 12 years to enter as a legal worker.

Last weekend, open borders advocates held 700 marches across the country, protesting the Trump administration's policies. One target was Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent clarification that domestic abuse is not sufficient grounds for seeking asylum. A few immigration judges have granted asylum on those grounds, but it's not how asylum is defined.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accused Sessions of "staggering cruelty." But Sessions is right. The asylum law "is not a general hardship statute," he says. If every hardship qualifies for asylum, it will mean everyone can come in.

That's the marchers' objective. And increasingly the goal of the progressive flank of the Democratic Party. Their rhetoric suggests any limit on immigration is a crime against humanity. New Yorkers like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who toppled Congressman Joe Crowley last week, and Cynthia Nixon, running to unseat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, are calling for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

A similar battle is raging inside the European Union, which is overwhelmed by mostly bogus asylum claims from North African migrants. More than 70 percent of their claims are rejected, according to special envoy of the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, Vincent Cochetel. But the migrants who are turned down for asylum stay anyway, eluding deportation. They're straining public schools and government benefits and provoking a backlash against German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government. Last weekend, EU leaders tentatively devised a plan to screen asylum seekers in disembarkation centers along the North African coast, before they make their way across the Mediterranean to Europe. Trump is proposing something similar to vet asylum applicants on the Mexican side of our southern border, before they enter the U.S.

In America and Europe, demagogues tell us to have a heart and let everybody in. But the public understands that immigration affects public schools, wages, taxes, even cultural identity. That's why we have immigration laws.

The aspiring Americans who obey those laws and wait their turn deserve our respect. Allowing other immigrants to jump in front of them using flimsy asylum claims is a slap in the face.