Photo of an "Impeach Trump" billboard

Motive Behind the Left’s Impeachment Attempts

I am not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, generally speaking. However, I find her reaction to the release of the transcript to the call President Trump made to Ukrainian President Zelensky to be spot-on:

“I think when you step outside of the bubble here in Washington and you get to where most folks are … I think most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016.

“And instead what I think most people will see is, ‘Hey, this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump,’ further deepening the already hyperpartisan divides that we have in this country.”

Ms. Gabbard, of course, is an extremely liberal congresswoman who referred to the president in the same interview as “corrupt” and “unfit to serve our country as president” She is also attempting to persuade Democratic voters to allow her to replace President Trump. It is unlikely she is politically motivated to defend Donald Trump.

Nor is Charlie Cook, publisher of [i] The Cook Political Report [/i], who tweeted “I don’t Tweet very much but reading transcript has moved me to comment.  I was totally underwhelmed by the transcript. After the build-up, it was not much more inappropriate said than we hear from him in a typical week.  This will not move malleable voters.”


Yet, Democrats would have one believe that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense by asking President Zelensky for “a favor” by looking into possible corruption involving Hillary Clinton’s server and Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was investigating Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

As Congresswoman Gabbard pointed out, it strains belief to think that most Americans would find anything President Trump has done in this regard as impeachable. Nor, I would add, does it seem credible to believe that every Democrat see anything here or in past impeachment attempts that rise to the level of “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors”, despite what they say to the contrary.

The reason for my speculation is that these attempts to impeach the president have so far been nothing but a steady stream of BS.

There was, for example, an attempt to impeach President Trump for firing James Comey in May of 2017. However, only months earlier both Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer expressed a lack of confidence in Mr. Comey’s ability to continue to lead the FBI.

There was the attempt to impeach President Trump for obstructing the Mueller Report. This effort continued even after Robert Mueller testified before Congress that his investigation was not “curtailed, stopped, or hindered.”  In other words, there was no obstruction.

There is this current attempt to impeach President Trump for pushing President Zelensky into investigating Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden although President Zelensky himself says he was not pushed into anything.

There was even an argument that the president, whose net worth is reportedly about $3B, should be impeached for violating the Emolument Clause and profiting from his office by having Vice-President Pence stayed at a Trump golf resort.

I do not take seriously the notion that so many Democrats — many of whom possess enviable academic and legal credentials, so they can’t all be considered dunces — actually ever believed they had a legitimate case for impeachment against President Trump any more so than they ever thought that Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist.

The reasons given most often for why Democrats continue to put forth charges that they themselves do not believe are that they want to appease their increasingly Stalinistic base who want socialism now at all costs, or that they want to disrupt Trump’s reelection efforts.

Both are true. As Representative Al Green, a Democrat, said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”

But perhaps there is another motivating factor behind these efforts to impeach the president.  It is likely, in my opinion, that these efforts are part of a larger pattern we are witnessing — to an increasingly alarming degree — an effort to intimidate political opposition.

Recently Debra Katz, who represented Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh debacle, stated:

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

We have also seen attempts to blacklist those in the entertainment industry for attending a Trump fundraiser, a conservative student was punched on a Berkley campus for “encouraging violence,’ and Facebook joining forces with Twitter and Pinterest in their campaign against pro-life group Live Action.

Not far from where I live, an 81-year old man was beaten in a supermarket for wearing a MAGA cap. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd declared that those who are “climate change deniers” will not be allowed to express their views on his show “Meet The Press.” And, various college groups are still voting to ban conservative speakers, conservative groups, and Chick-fil-A restaurants from campus.

One final example: Joaquin Castro, brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, recently tweeted the names and business addresses of Trump donors, for no other apparent reason other than to have these donors harassed or otherwise punished for not supporting the Progressive agenda.

I could list enough examples of the left’s assault (often physical assault) on conservatives to fill several more pages, but, hopefully, I’ve provided enough that the reader gets the gist.

There is a pattern to repress conservatism that goes beyond winning debates and winning elections. This pattern includes expelling conservatives from academia, entertainment, and certain social circles. At the very least it is a pattern to make Republican supporters feel wary about expressing their ideology, for this expression could easily lead to negative consequences for them.

This pattern reaches all the way to the top with the harassment of President Trump in the form of impeachment attempts, but it affects our lives as well.

— DK

Photo credit: Mike Fritcher on Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC

Photo of a panel in front of the MSNBC logo

MSDNCNN and the New Racism

In June of 2019 in Portland, a hostile white mob — calling itself Antifa — threateningly surrounded a man who is a person of color.

Unlike another incident allegedly involving a hostile white mob, in which a person of color claimed to be assaulted by the smile of a skinny 15-year old kid near the Lincoln Memorial, the gentleman in Portland (Andy Ngo) was assaulted with kicks, punches, and vegan vanilla milkshakes. So beaten was he that he required hospitalization for his injuries, which included brain bleed.

Yet while the Lincoln Memorial incident dominated social media for days with accusations of racism and white supremacy, the Portland incident barely elicited a whisper of outrage.

It may be a struggle for some to see why the Lincoln Memorial incident was deemed racist while the Portland incident was not. After all, both contained a similar key element: a white mob against a lone person of color.

Yet clearly the reactions to the incidents differed wildly. While a group of Catholic high school teens were so demonized that their school received hundreds of threats, the media sanitized Antifa. Newsweek columnist Tae Phoenix even wrote of Antifa, “I’ve met golden retrievers who scared me more.”

While Ngo’s plight is sickening, it is not unique. Many incidents against people of color occur yet oddly are not generally considered to be racist or racially motivated.

In Washington, D.C., for example, a Hispanic senator was chased out of a restaurant by a hostile white mob. An Asian author who occasionally posts some of the hate mail she receives included one that suggested she commit “hari-kari.”   The one black member of the Supreme Court is regularly singled out by liberals for being  “the absolute worst” and even for being “fat” and “lazy.”

Again, one has to wonder how can these things happen without being called “racist” at a time when MSDNCNN — the name I’ve given to this alliance between the Democratic Party and MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and numerous other media outlets — froths at the mouth for weeks in moral outrage over the “racism” of President Trump calling Representative Elijah Cummings “a bully” or Don Lemon “dumb.”

The conclusion is inescapable.

Columnist Ramesh Ponnuru wrote, “Nearly everyone agrees that racism is evil. But liberals and conservatives have different thresholds for what constitutes it.”

This is not completely accurate. It is not that liberals and conservatives have a different threshold for racism but rather that they define it very differently.

To a conservative, racism is prejudice against or the hatred of another race, or the belief that one’s own race is superior to other races. To a liberal, racism is simply the expression of opposition to a progressive person of color by a white conservative.

Therefore, consistent with this definition, neither the attack against Andy Ngo, nor any of the other examples I listed above, involving Ted Cruz, Ying Ma, and Clarence Thomas, are racist because in each case none of the subjects are progressives.

Imagine a group of white conservatives — a group of Tea Partiers perhaps — chasing Kamala Harris out of a restaurant, or suggesting that Senator Hirono commit hari-kari. Imagine white conservatives assaulting a liberal Asian reporter the way Antifa assaulted Andy Ngo. Had that happened, the reaction would have been extremely different. It would have been loud, constant, and would have been discussed from dusk to dawn on cable television for months. We would have been called upon to reexamine our own soul as a nation. The reaction would have made the Mueller investigation seem like something mentioned in passing.

It is also interesting to note that when an African American conservative is attacked by a white liberal in a way that would outrage if the African American was progressive, the conservative will find no defense forthcoming from their fellow progressive African Americans. Black liberals, in my experience with them, put their party before their people, not just in terms of policy but in practice as well. And, they do it in a very shameful way.

When white congressman Steve Cohen suggested that African American pro-life activist Star Parker’s testimony before Congress ‘showed her ignorance,’ The Root, which claims to be “Black News, Opinions, Politics and Culture,”  did not defend this black woman. Instead, they wrote:

“People were shocked to hear him go after a black woman publicly like this, but here is the thing:

She is kinda ignorant, though.”

Allen West, a former congressman and possible candidate for Texas Republican Party Chair, and an African American, recently provided an example of how black liberals slavishly grin in support of white liberals who attack black conservatives on his blog, The Old School Patriot:

“I have shared with y’all my 2012 congressional reelection campaign experience with an ad run by my opponent that depicted me with a gold tooth punching white women. What was the response from the left . . . crickets. The NAACP Director of the Washington Bureau and SVP for Advocacy and Policy, Hillary O. Shelton, laughed on TV and said the ad had me dressed in a nice suit . . . butthole. Who are the “sellouts” again?”

Again, imagine the reaction if a white congressman spoke as rudely to a liberal black woman testifying before the House as Rep. Cohen did to Star Parker, or if a white Republican running against an African American Democrat ran an ad similar to the one that denigrated Allen West.

The left’s re-defining the word “racism” to suit their needs has had a significant impact on our politics.

According to a Quinnipiac poll, 51 percent of voters believe that President Trump is a racist. Quinnipiac also found that only 6 percent of black voters support him.

Trump’s support among African Americans deserves to be much higher for a variety of reasons, including his presiding over record low unemployment in the black community.

However, in an era in which MSDNCNN relentlessly hammers that such things like calling West Baltimore rat-infested, an accurate assessment that echoes the view previously expressed by many Democrats, including Baltimore’s own mayor, is somehow racist, then not only has the word been cheapened and redefined, but now is more clearly than ever a propaganda tool of the progressive left.

–DK

Photo credit: stevebott on VisualHunt / CC BY 2.0

Photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiling her Green New Deal proposal in an article by #dk on African-American Conservatives AACONS.

Green New Deal: Great New Deal for Illegals

In the days following the unveiling of the Green New Deal, Democrats have been scrambling to make their proposal seem less than the socialist manifesto that it clearly is. Rather than admitting that the Green New Deal [GND] is a dictate, the Democrats pretend that the proposal is merely a list of suggestions that  — maybe, if we are in the mood and aren’t too busy; no pressure — we can perhaps achieve.

Despite the most common descriptors from the left to describe the GND, it is neither “affordable” nor “realistic” but rather “aspirational.” To paraphrase Senator Cory Booker, the Green New Deal is “bold . . . like saving the world from the Nazis or flying to the moon.”

It is rather odd how the same Democrats who were “too fiscally responsible” to allow the one-time expenditure of $5.7 billion dollars for “Trump’s border wall dream” would support spending more than $400 billion a year on a program for which “aspirational” is the kindest descriptor.

Perhaps the most prominent current defender of the Green New Deal is Cornell University Law School Professor Robert Hockett, an adviser to the resolution’s co-author Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Professor Hockett has achieved some recent notoriety for “fact-checking” Tucker Carlson on air by falsely saying Congresswoman Osasio-Cortez would “never” propose providing economic security for those unwilling to work, which she clearly did.

According to Professor Hockett, the GND does not issue requirements but rather merely gives the consumers additional options.

He says:

We’re really talking about expanding optionality here. We’re not talking about getting rid of anything. We’re talking about basically making it cost-effective to move into more modern forms of technology, more modern forms of production, which would then enable people to actually cost-effectively to transit to that stuff. We’re not talking about requiring anything or prohibiting anything.  

In other words, according to Professor Hockett, the purpose of the Green New Deal is to merely do what the free market has always done, which is to seek to give the consumer better options. However, under the GND resolution, the government will use its force to make one of the options as undesirable as possible. This is all very reminiscent of the option Senator Obama once promised the coal industry, “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Unfortunately, it appears Professor Hockett may not have not read the actual Green New Deal document, which states that “the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1)  . . . should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization . . . that will require the following goals and projects.“ (Emphasis added.)

One of the listed goals required by the GND is “(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

So clearly the GND both “requires” — not “suggests” or “encourages” — and prohibits the consumer from getting that big, white, gas guzzling Jaguar SUV with the panoramic sunroof he hopes to buy as soon as AACONS pays him enough money to do so. If it did, the Green New Deal would be derelict in meeting its requirement for 100% zero-emissions.

This unwillingness to be honest and forthcoming about the demands of the Green New Deal by supporters is troublesome. Despite being the one who tweeted a document that contained a promise for “Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.” for example, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez subsequently accused Republicans of “circulating false versions” of the plan. This accusation was then followed by the claim from the Ocasio-Cortez office that the document tweeted by her that contained the “unwilling to work” language was an “unauthorized draft” leaked by a rogue staffer.

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez also said that the Green New Deal requires “massive government intervention” yet only hours later said that “one way the Right does try to mischaracterize what we’re doing as though it is some kind of massive government takeover.”

Clarity is clearly not a priority here. As Vox admits, “The appeal of the Green New Deal is in part how vague it is.”

In all, the phrase “all people of the United States” is repeated seven times in the official Green New Deal resolution. The word “citizen” is not mentioned once. 

Along these lines of deliberate vagueness, it is interesting to note that the Green New Deal lists a series of benefits for “all people of the United States.”

It says, for example, that it will provide “(i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature” to “all people of the United States.”

It adds that it will “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States” and “create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”

It will also require — not “make available” but “require” — “resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.”

In all, the phrase “all people of the United States” is repeated seven times in the official Green New Deal resolution. The word “citizen” is not mentioned once.

It would be foolish to assume that phrase “all people of the United States” is not meant to mean everyone who happens to be in the country — even those who happen to be here in violation of our immigration laws — rather than the people who are actual citizens of this country.

In fact, the Democrats have been subtly arguing that “all people of the United States” includes illegals for some time now; therefore, they conclude, those here illegally are entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

Although President Obama said in a 2009 joint address of Congress that the Obamacare “reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” for example, Obamacare has nonetheless been used to cover healthcare for illegals.

New York’s socialist mayor Bill de Blasio recently declared that “Everyone is guaranteed the right to health care, everyone” while pledging that “New York City will spend at least $100 million to ensure that undocumented immigrants and others who cannot qualify for insurance can receive medical treatment.”

In fact, according to Rep. Ocasio Cortez, anyone who is of Latino heritage is, in effect, an American regardless of their place of birth: “Because we are standing on Native land, and Latino people are descendants of Native people. And we cannot be . . . criminalized simply for our identity or our status.”

If anyone who is Latino is by definition among those considered to be included as “all people of the United States” and entitled to all the great benefits of the Green New Deal, then the approximately 600 million Latinos who currently live outside America in places like Honduras, Mexico, and Brazil are deserving of “high-quality health care; housing; economic security and clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature” courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

If all people of the United States is to mean all legal and illegal residents of the United States, as well perhaps as all Latinos worldwide, who exactly won’t be eligible for Green New Deal goodies?

Democrats should be pressed to answer if their Green New Deal would include an expensive array of new benefits for Americans only, or will anyone who manages to sneak over our border or overstay their visa would be guaranteed housing, health care, and income regardless of their willingness to work.

The Democrats should not be allowed to continue their deliberate vagueness on this issue. The answer may very will determine the long-term survival of this nation, much more so than climate change.

–DK

Photo of a couple holding the feet of their baby in an article about life and the Virgina late-term abortion debacle on African American Conservatives written by DK.

Dems Speak Honestly About Abortion

I shall be long grateful to Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran for her part in exposing “the unfruitful works of darkness” that is abortion.

For decades we have been told a lie about abortion. We were told that those who supported it were not actually in favor of killing babies — no one would ever support such a horrid thing, of course — instead, they merely supported the right of women to remove an unwanted mass of tissue from their bodies.  Rather than killing an unborn child, they say, think of it as “a crappy dentist appointment or something.”

Politifact, a supposedly nonpartisan “fact-checking website,” even labeled the comments of a Texas state representative that abortion “kills as many as 1,000 black children every day” as “mostly false,” largely because of his “characterization of abortions as killing babies is disputed.”
However, most of those who put forth this argument were lying the entire time.

How can they pretend to believe that the baby isn’t a baby when they are introducing “legislation [that] would allow a woman to receive an abortion even while she was going into labor”?

Are we to believe that even when a mother is dilating and the baby is crowning in the vaginal opening that the child still isn’t a living being?

It was a lie all along, and not one held by all of those in favor of abortion. For example, Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed a bill that would have essentially criminalized the killing of children who have been delivered and who are living independently of their mother’s body.

As FactCheck put it:

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term ‘born-alive infant’ as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Barack Obama was able to successfully lie about his opposition to protections for born alive children.  However, few can lie as frequently and as successfully as the future 44th President.

Some even see no need to lie. Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams is such a  person. In her infamous essay “So what if abortion ends life?”   she admits that life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of that life, but those admissions do not matter to her:

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late-term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb? 

Yet most on the left are as hesitant (albeit increasingly less so) to admit they favor infanticide as they are to admit that they favor open borders or socialism.

Take Governor Northam of Virginia remarkably callus recent remarks. As described by ABC News:

The Democratic governor and pediatric neurologist was defending efforts to loosen abortion restrictions during a radio interview on WTOP-FM Wednesday when described a hypothetical situation where a severely deformed newborn infant could be left to die.

Northam said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue” between doctors and the mother. 

Yet the next day Governor Northam claimed, incredibly, that “Republicans were mischaracterizing his statement for political gain.”

Perhaps it is science that is forcing abortion supporters to increasingly abandon the premise that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child.  It becomes harder to dismiss the notion that life exists inside of a pregnant womb as the fantasy of a bunch of MAGA-hat wearing Bible-clingers who prefer watching football to MSNBC.

According to Emma Green of The Atlantic:

New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause.

They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives.

New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” [pro-life activist Ashley] McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.” 

However, regardless of the reason, it is important to be grateful to Ms. Tran for introducing legislation that would, by her own admission, allow abortion to occur even as the woman is in labor, even as she almost simultaneously introduced a bill to protect the “fall cankerworm.”

It is important because many of the proponents of abortion — even of what I call “fourth-trimester abortions” —  tend to be the same who want to be part of the federal government as it grabs control of our healthcare.

Not all of us will ever be pregnant, but we are all getting older. Many of us are or will become senior citizens, requiring a great deal of healthcare. We must ask ourselves: how comfortable should we be in allowing those who would defend cankerworms, but call for allowing the killing of a child — even as this child is emerging from the birth canal — to care for us?

–DK

Photo of sign saying "Finish the Wall" at a Trump rally in this article on border security by African American Conservatives. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Border Wall: GOP Must Stand with Trump

On January 24, 2019, the U.S. Senate voted on two competing bills — one from each party —  introduced to end the partial government shutdown.

While both bills roughly received the same number of votes, far short of the 60 votes required for the measure to pass, it is the Democrat bill that I would argue came dangerously close to passing. This is because the Senate Republicans are in the majority, so for the Democrat bill to get as many votes as the Republican bill indicates that Republicans are wavering on border security more so than the other side of the aisle.

This is distressing, for had the Democrat bill passed it would very likely have resulted in the end of hope for security at our borders.

As unfortunate as the shutdown is for the workers who are temporarily without pay, without it the Democrats would have no incentive to provide for any funds — not one dollar, as Speaker Pelosi says — for a border wall; and without such a physical barrier border security is impossible.

The Democrats’ argument, to the contrary, is transparently farcical. They claim that they are border security hawks; that the first thing they do when they wake up in the morning and the last thing they do before they go to sleep at night, is think about how they can best secure the border. But they argue that the best way to do so is with what they call a “Smart Wall” —  drones, x-ray machines, cameras, and so forth — that would provide such great border security that a physical border wall would be a waste of money (and far be it for Congressmen to waste money).

As Representative Hakeem Jeffries — along with many other Democrats who were apparently told to recite from the same script — recently said, “What Donald Trump and the Republicans want to do is waste $5 billion in taxpayer money on an ineffective, medieval border wall that is a 5th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.”

It seems reasonable to include these high tech measures as part of a border security package, since such tech would allow us to x-ray trucks going through legal points of entry, thereby slowing the flow of drugs into our communities. But this does not explain why Democrats demand that we fund a technological Smart Wall instead of — rather than along with — a physical wall.

The reason isn’t financial. Even if the final cost of a physical wall was, say, $100 billion dollars, after all the various expenses such as buying private property from landowners and so on, are factored in, this cost pales in comparison to what illegal immigration costs us.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

“At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend.”

So, as much as one may be appreciative of the Democrats sudden desire to squeeze every taxpayer penny until George Washington turns blue in the face, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that if the physical wall were to only partially reduce the cost of illegal immigration it would pay for itself very shortly.

The reason the Democrats have taken this position is simple: the Democrats demand a Smart Wall rather than a physical wall, or a Smart Wall and a physical wall, because a Smart Wall would not impede the flow of illegals across our southern border.

As columnist Byron York points out:

“. . . the problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall — in past debates, it was often referred to as a virtual fence — is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country. ‘

Republicans should quickly abandon the vain hope that there is some sort of compromise to be made with the Democrats. The open borders credo has become an intricate part of their platform; as essential to their DNA as abortion, climate alarmism, or the government takeover of our healthcare system.

This is evident by how Democrats at the state and local levels are responding to illegal immigration.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently demanded that the citizens of his state, already one of the highest taxed states in the nation, as well as a state that pays more than $5 billion a year on expenses related to its high number of Illegal alien residents, now pay for financial aid and scholarships for illegals who wish to go to college.

The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, wants New Yorkers to provide free healthcare for illegals.

New York’s most famous congresswoman, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, has become a leading voice in the Democrat for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to be abolished.

Phil Murphy, governor of another overtaxed state overflowing with illegals, wants millions set aside to fight illegal immigrant deportations.

On the other coast, Oakland mayor, Libby Schaaf, made headlines recently by warning illegals of ICE raids.

There are approximately 500 sanctuary cities in the U.S., all of which are likely to be governed by Democrats, and at least one state, California, has officially declared itself to be a sanctuary state.

The examples that could be provided to illustrate their philosophy are numerous, but here is the bottom line: those who invite illegals into their communities with promises of free education, free healthcare, and freedom from deportation are not going to support the sort of border security necessary to prevent illegals into the country.

Democrats are, therefore, not likely to be steered away from their support for open borders with bargaining or concessions. President Trump has announced a three-week deal (until February 15th) to reopen the government while a border wall deal is being negotiated. At best, this will be a mere stutter step until President Trump declares a national emergency to essentially see if the courts will allow him to build the wall without Congressional approval. It will not be a pathway to a border wall. It does not matter how long the government stayed shut or how long President Trump negotiates with them, today’s Democrat Party will not bend on open borders. It is part of their DNA now.

Only one year ago, for example, Minority Leader Schumer was offered a sweetheart deal that would have given full legal status to millions of DACA dreamers (illegals who were brought to the U.S. as children). One would think Senator Schumer would have agreed to that deal as quickly as I would agree to a date with Halle Berry, given how long and often they promise to protect the DACA dreamers. Yet the most Senator Schumer would concede in return to secure immediate guaranteed amnesty of millions of illegals was a promise that he would talk about border wall funding at some later, unspecified, date.

If President Trump had agreed to this deal, the promised discussion about border wall funding would have gone as follows, “Thanks for helping so many get permanent legal residence here. So now let’s talk about your request for border wall funding. Our answer is ‘no.’ Not one dollar. Nice chat.”

As mentioned, it is worrisome that some Republicans do not seem to fully understand the Democrat position on immigration. Yet some — including the six Senate Republicans who voted for the Democrat funding bill — evidently do not.

If they did, and do not share the Democrats’ open border philosophy, then they would be as unwavering in their support of the president as the Democrats are in opposition to him.

–dk

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore on VisualHunt.com / CC BY-SA