Exposing Democrats’ Failures Gets Trump Label of Fear-Monger

The Hillary Clinton campaign had so little substantive criticism they reverted to personality comments after Donald trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention on Thursday night.  Comments  included a charge of fear-mongering and being divisive.  It’s a convenient putdown, but an erroneous one when examining the facts.

 National  Security

Are we safer as a nation compared to eight years ago? Based on increased recent terrorist attacks and assassinations of police, the answer is “no.” There is nothing irresponsible of Trump saying that attacks on police are attacks on all of us.  Unless, of course, President Kennedy was also guilty of the same when he said a Soviet attack on any Western Hemisphere country would be considered an attack on the U.S.  It was not fear, but in both cases, an assertiveness against threats.

Trump does not believe that all of our national problems are caused by foreigners. Rather, he is reminding the nation that it is every country’s prerogative to protect its borders, despite what the Left tries to shame us into abdicating.2,3

In addition, Trump reminded last night, “Syria is engulfed in a civil war and the world faces a refugee crisis.”  Events in Europe over the past year verify that this problem is extended into Europe and to us if we allow it.

In a time when terrorists have promised and have shown the ability to infiltrate themselves among legitimate refugees, the concern for borders is reasonable and prudent.  It is not fear-mongering to require extra vetting mechanisms in place before we increase immigration from nations who have been compromised with increased presence of terrorism. It is basic common sense.

Crime  in  Cities

Trump noted that homicides rose 17% in the largest 50 cities last year — the biggest increase in 25 years.  The implication is that it will be difficult to deal with this problem as long as the police have to be aware of additional threats to their safety, too.  Does this qualify Trump as a fear-monger?

Is it fear-mongering to be opposed to sanctuary cities? As Trump reminded, where was the sanctuary for Kate Steinle and others murdered by the product of these unconstitutional locations?  Fear arising from the lack of law and order enforcement is natural, not divisive or a product of propaganda.

Decline  in  Education

Education has been crumbling in our nation for decades.  Although liberals use the opportunities to send their children to non-public schools2, they rail against school choice. The only fear here is not  created by Trump, but from the teachers’ union establishment fearful of having to be accountable for a change.

The  Iran  Deal

The Iranian deal gave them $150 billion plus a path to nuclear weapons which it was supposed to prevent.  Terrible deal.  The free world, including Israel SHOULD be fearful.  So is this fear-mongering?

National  Debt  and  Infrastructure

 Our national debt has worsened immensely during the Obama, and what do we have to show for it other than deteriorating infrastructure?  Is it fear-mongering to recognize that we have numerous crumbling bridges which are subject to the laws of physics to our severe peril?  The aim of his speech is that we must and we can fix these issues before it’s too late.

Renegotiating bad foreign trade deals is promoting fear? — perhaps for the nations who have used various methods, including currency manipulation, in order to circumvent agreements.  Unfair trade practices require a response.  This doesn’t necessarily mean actions that could lead to trade wars, but there must be consequences.  Democrats are usually opposed to consequences, but it’s time to end the Era of Enabling (this writer’s words, not Trump’s!)

Legal  Double  Standard

Regarding the Hillary Clinton confidential emails on her personal server which endangered our security, but for which she was not held accountable: “I know that corruption has reached a level as never, never before in our country.”  We should be concerned when the powerful received unwarranted free passes as it undermines the public’s faith in the system of justice.  A double standard inevitably leads to a loss of freedom for the less empowered — which is divisive.

In summary, how much longer will the party of Obama and Clinton keep “their rigged system in place?”

THAT is a legitimate source of fear for anyone with reason — but it’s also something we “little people” can fix in November.

 

 

1 – “According to a report by The Heritage Foundation, ‘exactly 52 percent of Congressional Black Caucus members and 38 percent of Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent at least one child to private school.’ Overall, only 6 percent of black students attend private school.”
“According to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study, more than 1 in 5 public school teachers sent their children to private schools. In some cities, the figure is much higher. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, it’s 41 percent, and Chicago (39 percent) and Rochester, N.Y. (38 percent), also have high figures. In the San Francisco-Oakland area, 34 percent of public school teachers enroll their children in private schools, and in New York City, it’s 33 percent.”

“Only 11 percent of all parents enroll their children in private schools. The fact that so many public school teachers enroll their own children in private schools ought to raise questions.”

 From “Racial Trade-offs,” by Walter E. Williams, http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/10/09/racial-tradeoffs-n1718736, 10/9/2013.

2 – “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.  Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”  From paragraph 2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November, 2013.

3 – “Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.”  From the “Catholic Church’s Position On Immigration Reform,”  http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm; August, 2013.

 

 

Advertisements

2012 Election: Surprising Impact of Marital Status

For reasons still unclear to me, I decided to look at the demographics of the rubble left behind by the events of last November 6.  The following chart caught my attention:

Electorate (Marital Status): Barack Obama Mitt Romney

Unmarried Women                           67%               31%
Unmarried Men                                 56%               40%
Married Women                                46%               53%
Married Men                                      38%               60%

Of all of the demographic data, this one1 captured an atypical category and it surprised me at first.  Then, I had this sudden mental image of a former Georgetown student, now attorney, who was pushing for the federal government to provide free contraceptives (and abortifacient drugs).  But, I thought, that conclusion was too simplistic.  After all, many married people voted for the President, including an astonishing number of my (supposedly) fellow Catholics according to the statistics.  The reason had to go deeper than that.

Of course!  Obama is an ideological descendant of the Clinton years which believed in a distorted version of “it takes a village to raise a child.”  The original meaning referred to the benefits of close-community societies.  The President is attempting to implement the second generation Clinton version which achieves “marriage equality” by legitimizing same-sex so-called marriage.   With moral relativism in the White House, it’s “Spring Break” year ’round.

But this is a serious matter.  This is not the first time people have tried to rid themselves of hindrances like the Ten Commandments (or “Natural Law” for the non-believers in the reading audience).  No time to recount the number of societies which fell apart because in their “enlightenment” they forgot that the family unit headed by a husband and wife is the basic building block of civilization.  (I had promised myself to limit this article to 500 words max.)  The ignorance of history which has precipitated most human-caused disasters is at work once again.

A ray of hope appeared earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal.  The author pointed out that a liberal columnist wrote in December, “Children who live with their biological parents perform better in school, have lower rates of suicide…”And, a conservative had written in 2010, “Compared to children raised in an intact family, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically bused;… and drop out of high school.”3

Ms. Schachter exhorted Michelle Obama and her “Let’s Move” campaign, which promotes the well-being of American children, to include a “Let’s Marry” message.  This would be a step in the right direction.

However, the cynic in me sees a potential problem.  Would the First Lady risk alienating many of her husband’s supporters who are thrilled that the White House now stands for the philosophies of the movie “Animal House?”

(P.S.:  With this sentence, this article contains 497 words according to “Word’s” count.)

1 – Jack Watkins, www.addictinginfo.org, 11/8/2012
2 – Abby W. Schachter, Wall Street Journal, 1/15/2013, quoting Clarence Page of the Washington Post
3 – Ibid., quoting Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation