That illustrates the only real political game being played here, for prior to the election the Democrats assiduously avoided mentioning the caravan; they did not want to have to defend it – for that could harm them with moderate voters; and they did not want to criticize it – for that would harm them with the left; so they ignored it or pretended it did not exist. Now that the election is safely won, they can once again unmask their “open borders” agenda.
BY JOHN SHAFFER Our television screens have been filled with images of hundreds of illegal immigrants being dispersed and repelled with tear gas as they were rushing the border fence at San Ysidro, California. By the way, they came from the caravan that the mainstream media and the progressive left assured us was a “myth” concocted by President Trump to gin up support prior to the election. Interesting that a “caravan” of people whose progress has been visible from its origins in Central America, monitored as it forcibly crossed Mexico’s southern border, traced the length of Mexico, all the way to the California border, was dismissed by the left as an election stunt or a myth, right up to the moment the caravan was tear-gassed, and then it somehow became real. And oh, the shrieking and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left – as they decry the use of gas. “Unprecedented,” they assert. “America’s shame,” they accuse. “Contrary to international law and the US Constitution,” they claim. Elijah Cummings, who will be a Committee Chairman when the newly-elected Democrat majority in the US House of Representatives is sworn in in January, says we should welcome the members of the caravan and let them cross.
That illustrates the only real political game being played here, for prior to the election the Democrats assiduously avoided mentioning the caravan; they did not want to have to defend it – for that could harm them with moderate voters; and they did not want to criticize it – for that would harm them with the left; so they ignored it or pretended it did not exist. Now that the election is safely won, they can once again unmask their “open borders” agenda. BY JOHN SHAFFER While most of the time we all tend to concentrate on the “major” news – recently of course, the election, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the wildfires in California, various antics of various politicians or elected officials, etc., but quite often the “little” stories deserve attention as well. Here’s a couple from recent days that may have been missed but provide insights into our modern value system.
A substitute teacher in Parkway South School District in St. Louis Co. Missouri was either fired, suspended, or reassigned because he thanked the 22 students in his class who stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. He told the students, “Thanks to all of you that participated in that. I’m sure that all of those families who lost loved ones so that we could enjoy the freedoms we have today would appreciate the effort.” However, two students in the class did not stand, and at least one of them told a school official that he was “hurt” by the teacher’s comments. We do not know whether the student considered the possibility that the other 22 students or the teacher might have been “hurt” by his refusal to stand, but we suspect he would be indignant at the thought they might. After all, that would impinge on his rights, would it not? The school says that the teacher was “bullying” the students, and that this was only one in a series of incidents that prompted his punishment. Perhaps there were others and whether the teacher should have been reprimanded we cannot say, but it seems to us that if a high school student has enough awareness of current events and knows even a modicum of American history, and chooses not to stand, he should be capable of understanding why someone might disagree with his decision; after all, the non-standing student, we assume, has a good reason for refusing to stand – and if so, should be capable of explaining why and willing to provide that explanation when confronted. by John Shaffer ~ editor@myweeklysentinel.com The Democrats had a very good Election Day, gaining control of the US House of Representatives with a pickup of about 32 seats; the party also made a gain of 7 governors. The Republicans did win four Senate seats previously held by Democrats, but apparently have lost two they had held, giving the GOP a net gain of two. However, there were plenty of missed opportunities for the Republicans, who nominated some weak challengers or ran poor campaigns in seats that they might have been able to win.
These results are typical of elections held in a president's first midterm, but actually President Trump fared better than his immediate two Democrat predecessors. In 1994, President Clinton's first midterm, the Democrats lost 54 House seats and 8 senate seats, losing control of both houses; and in President Obama's first midterm in 2010, the Democrats lost 69 House seats and six senators. by John Shaffer editor@myweeklysentinel.com Well, the caravans continue to advance, and the President has taken an additional tack to bring them to a halt: he has said he will end "birthright citizenship" by executive order. This has caused no little controversy, but he isn't troubled by that because the same thing could be said about almost everything he has said.
What is birthright citizenship? It derives from the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868. This was three years after the Civil War had ended, and followed the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery. The purpose of the Fourteenth amendment was to prevent the newly-reconstituted governments of the defeated Confederacy from denying citizenship to the Freedmen, the liberated slaves. The amendment referred specifically to "those born under the jurisdiction of the United States," and by that meant those former slaves born in the US. The amendment, and laws such as the 1870 Naturalization Act and others, clearly did not grant citizenship to anyone else - such as those who illegally crossed our borders. The path to citizenship was clearly laid out in those subsequent laws, and in no way were those laws intended to convey citizenship to babies whose mothers had illegally crossed our borders. To repeat: the amendment was to give citizenship to former slaves, and not to anyone else. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|