“How the Right Was Created” by Ernest Enax

Guest Post by My Friend Earnest Enax
Frequent Flyer in FB exile (repeatedly for the same post now over a year ago)

How the Right Was Created

Some of you are apparently “triggered” because you are posting how “sick” you feel about the results. How did this happen you ask? Well here is how it happened!
You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created “us” when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created “us” when you attacked our flag.
You created “us” when you took God out of our schools.
You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.
You created “us” when you began to emasculate men.
You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.
You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.
You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created “us” the silent majority.
You created “us” when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
You created “us” when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created “us” when you took a knee, or stayed seated or did not remove your hat during our National Anthem.
You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
In addition, we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of “us”
“YOU” created “US”.
It really is just that simple.

America, Psychiatrist for the World

GreenCardUp until recently, say the 20th of January, there was no questions about who set and who enacted the immigration laws.

NONE ZIP NADA ZERO

Congress passed the law, and the executive upheld it.
Over the last eight years, there’s been remarkably little of the upholding, of course. Illegal aliens, caught at the border, are given a ticket (for a federal felony?) and told to show up at a court. Imagine how many show? There is a reason it is called “Catch and Release.”
“Pro Bono” legal firms know that if they keep pushing, “the alien always wins.” They seem to have bottomless pockets. I wonder why?

Yet, it cannot be that the USA is legally obligated to take and support all foreigners who wish to come here, surely.
Historically, it never was. There have always been limits on immigration; it is actually in the constitution. Opening up a big and unpopulated country in the 19th century with that labor intensive level of technology DID require manpower. So men (i.e., male humans) were encouraged to come. Eventually, families did come after the man had established a home. (examples: Chinese and Irish for Union Pacific RR, Germans, Scots, and Swedes to farm the hinterlands. (Generally missing from the list are Muslims, btw, no matter what BHO contends).

It is an axiom of medicine that any cell that has no rigid control of its cell membrane is dead. If stuff flows in and out, infectious agents invade, poisons pervade, you may soon be unable to tell the inside from the outside. Go too far down that road and you are dead, honey.

Now, every jumped up media personality (there are no longer and newspeople) rail against the passing of any law that discomforts, disenchants, discommodes or displeases any foreigner who might wish to enter the USA, legally or otherwise

National Public Radio, supported by taxpayer dollars, this morning 3 March, had a commentator bemoan the supposed fact that some unnamed immigrants from the infamous (and Democratically designated) mostly Muslim countries after SUCCESSFULLY arriving in the USA did not feel welcome. Welcome? WELCOME? 

Apparently, America in accepting the Statue of Liberty from France over a century ago has a contractual agreement to admit anyone who wants to come here legally or not and we are obliged to make them feel welcome!

Immigrants, such as my mother, were admitted to this country on the basis of their ability to advance the benefit of America, NOT the good that America could do for her.

Now we are burdened with the additional task of adjusting the mental and emotional condition of people who make no attempt to benefit this country (the so-called family exemption for green-card holders).

Moreover, NPR last week has reported that since the election, visits to mental health counselors have increased, suggesting darkly that “Anything that happens now is due to Donald Trump.”

Really?

Since when is any individual contractually obligated to eviscerate their country for the emotional health of an alien, a condition I myself am neither able to measure nor alter.

It is just this sort of creepy, new-age, muddy thinking, acted out large in the country as a whole over the last eight years, which prompted a revolt by people who work their own jobs, pay their taxes, give to charity (voluntarily), and take care of their own emotions without demanding federal assistance.

 

 

THE CHILD AS POLITICAL TOOL

stop-deport-protest-main
I saw on the news today at a hearing where a Florida city revoked its “sanctuary” status.
Noting one’s error and correcting the problem is one of the few reasonable and mature things I have seen on the political landscape in the last ten years. The idea that a transient political ideology  of the several states, municipalities or even commercial concerns can supersede the Federal government on national policy was decided some 150 years ago. Six hundred thousand American dead established the supremacy of the Federal government in national policy.
One of the witnesses against the move was a well-spoken girl of about 10 who read from a prepared script.
A part of what she said was “I am citizen. I am an orphan. My father was deported.”
Interesting
Her parents chose to violate our laws to enter the USA illegally. She was born in this country and by our historic (not legal) benevolence now count her among our citizens.
Her presumptions are several:
1) To be deported is equivalent to death. America is the only place in the world where life is possible.
2) Residence in America is more important than family. As a citizen, she could come and go at will. As a child of a legal resident alien, I have done so.
3) The poor decisions of every individual whether USA citizen or not, must be corrected by American society. From the highest to the lowest level of society, non-citizens command alteration in this one country to accommodate the results of their poor judgments.
It is sad that the child should be used in this way. She may even be sincere. She may even believe that her inability to see her father means he is now dead.
But it shows that we are living now in a country where injustice is the most telling argument against justice.
Do not censure a senator for breaking the rules if I can find a senator who I think should also be censured and wasn’t.
Do not legally deport a man for violating our laws because he might choose to leave his daughter in America.
 Rather, I submit, in substantial amazement, that justice ought to be the goal of the justice system. We should become a country of laws and not one of men, transient political whims, or self-flagellatory posturings.
The argument for justice should not have to be waged.
It is a sad commentary of the liberal spasming of the last ten years when it is necessary.