The Bright Line, and Other Musings

There is a bright line in American political discourse, and sadly, it's increasingly being crossed by the left. I do not recall seeing or hearing it crossed by my friends on the right, but perhaps that's because the people on the right with whom I tend to associate don't lean toward the extremes of partisanship - even the ones who are straight-line party voters.

That bright line is the disparagement of voters on the basis of the candidate for whom they're voting/have voted. I first witnessed this during the Presidency of George W. Bush, when, with every new thing over which the left caught its collective hair on fire*, leftists on social media blasted anyone who voted for Bush. In fact, during Bush's second term, they'd flame away with, "You voted for him TWICE!!"

* My newest buzz-phrase is "hair on fire." Readers will tire of me using it, but I can think of no better way to describe the left's response to anything and everything President Trump does. It's actually quite amusing to watch, and it keeps the left off-guard: once the left catches its hair on fire over, say, Trump's comments in Helsinki regarding whether he believed Russia meddled in the 2016 election, all Trump has to do is threaten to pull the security clearances of liberal former intelligence officials, and Helsinki is but a distant memory, as a new hair-fire is ignited.

During the Obama administration, I saw numerous social media posts (and heard mainstream media commentators) that declared that anyone who disagreed with Obama was a racist. Let me say that I disagreed with virtually all of President Obama's policies, to the extent he had policies, and that I believed him to be a poor President. (Which I don't hold against the man personally; when elected he was far too inexperienced to hold the office. His primary experience to that point in his career was organizing communities and campaigning for office while missing the majority of state and national senate votes.)

Yet anyone who knows me, knows full well that I am no racist. I needn't elaborate; my record speaks for itself. No, I disagreed with President Obama on policy and principle, and my disagreement with him had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Declaring someone a racist has become deserving of its own law, much as Godwin’s Law describes the tendency toward invocations of Hitler as a social media discussion grows in length. As with such invocations, it is nearly always unfounded, but unfortunately has become a favored arrow in the liberal quiver. However, it is an arrow bereft of feathers, destined to fall to the earth long before it reaches its mark.

Now the crossing of the bright line has taken on unprecedented proportion. If you voted for or support President Trump, you are castigated - or worse - by those on the left. A leftist was caught on camera slapping a "Make America Great Again" ball cap off the head of a teenager in a public setting. This was an adult, mind you, essentially assaulting a minor, and not caring that it was caught on camera.

Trump supporters have been asked to leave restaurants and accosted on airplanes. Worse, Trump administration officials have been harassed in restaurants - again, caught on tape - or, in the case of Sarah Sanders, have been asked to leave, simply because of who they work for.

This, friends, is discrimination. What would the left's reaction be if a conservative restaurateur asked someone to leave the restaurant simply because they worked for Planned Parenthood?

You got it - hair on fire.

I have to say that Secretaries Nielsen (who was accosted by shouting protestors while dining with her husband at a Mexican restaurant) and Sanders are far nicer than the Curmudgeon. I love Mexican food, and eat it often. If my wife and I were dining at a Mexican restaurant and were accosted by protestors because we're conservative, I'm afraid the protestors would be paying a visit to their proctologists to have chiles rellenos extracted from their arses.

And if a restaurant owner asked me to leave because of my political leanings, I'd let them know that I was going to sit back down in my chair, and not leave until I'd finished my meal, lest I rain hellfire and discrimination lawsuits down upon them until they were forced to close their doors. (Okay, maybe not - that's an invitation to find boogers in my food.)

But all joking aside, voting is a sacred right in America. Brave men and women have fought and died to secure that right for all of us. Millions of other people in other countries around the world would give anything for that right.

So here's the thing: the left claims to be all about respecting rights. And yet ... they don't respect the right to vote for anyone they didn't vote for.

This is serious business. No matter your political views, I will defend your right to vote for whomever you choose to the bitter end, and I will not disparage you for your choice. I may disagree with your candidate. I may even believe that candidate, if elected, is the worst President in history. But I will not hold you to account for that President's failings. You have the right to vote for whomever you choose, without me judging or criticizing you for it.

And so do I. So hate the President, if you must, but respect those who voted for him or her. If you can't do that, you obviously don't agree with the notion of free and fair elections in a democratic republic, so why not find another country to call home? Your hair will thank you for it.

*************************

Next hair-on-fire moment: the Trump administration announces that it's considering revoking the security clearances of a number of former intelligence officials, including Obama's CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper.

The spark that ignited the left's hair was that this considered action supposedly arose from the fact that Clapper, Brennan et. al. disagree with President Trump, and have spoken publicly against his policies. Thus the left claims that it's a violation of their right to free speech.

First, it's nothing of the sort; no one has suggested that Clapper and Brennan should be banned from making statements against Trump and his policies, public or otherwise. They're free to say what they want, but words have consequences. Just as they did for Roseanne Barr, and many others who've said stupid, over-the-top things about people they didn't like. Losing one's security clearance does nothing to curb one's First Amendment rights.

Second, revoking their clearances has nothing to do with their mere disagreement with the President's policies. It has to do in part with the fact that they're engaging in the kind of irrational, over-the-top talk that indeed bears consequences. To wit: Brennan, after the Helsinki joint presser with Trump and Putin, accused Trump of treason.

This clearly indicates one (or both) of two things:

a) Brennan is ignorant of the threshold for treason, in which case he has no business having a security clearance at all, much less being director of the CIA.
b) Brennan is such an extreme partisan liberal that he is incapable of controlling his vitriol, and will go to any lengths to defame any President not of his own party.

Either way, he doesn't need - or deserve - a security clearance today.

Revoking these former officials clearances also has to do with the fact that they are now paid contributors to left-leaning cable "news" outlets, and are likely leaking information gained through their clearances to those outlets.

Talk about treason.

Look, there's no reason to grant open security clearances to former intelligence officials, regardless of their party affiliation or the administration(s) under which they served. If their successors need to consult them on matters they may have faced during their careers, they can be read in on a case-by-case basis. Thus, I'd be in favor of requiring that security clearances be relinquished by former intelligence officers as soon as they leave their positions, or maybe within a short period (like a month) thereafter.

Sure, Clapper and Brennan insist they haven't sought intel briefings since they left their posts.

But they could. And they could either leak them or use them for political (or financial) gain. Therein lies the problem.

*************************

Next up on the flaming-hair hit parade: the leaked tape of a conversation between Trump and his former attorney, Michael Cohen, regarding a payment to be made to a former Playboy model with whom Trump purportedly had an affair - long before he was even a candidate for office.

There's no evidence that such an affair happened; it's been alleged by the former model, but she hasn't pressed the issue to the extent a certain porn star (looking to revive her failing career) did. Nor is there evidence the payment was ever made.

But even if the affair happened, and even if the payment was made, so what?

According to renowned political expert Whoopi Goldberg, here's what: Trump lied about it, by denying that the affair ever took place or that he had knowledge of any proposed payment, which was refuted by the tape.

So let's see, Whoopi: one, you're outraged over the idea of a man being unfaithful to his wife. And you work in Hollywood?

And second, you take issue with a President not only having an affair, but lying about it.

Two words for you: Bill Clinton.

Now, lest the Curmudgeon be labeled a hypocrite, let me say that I do indeed have an issue with infidelity. I do not, however, believe that it's an automatic disqualifier for the highest office in the land.

If it were, not only would Clinton have not been President, but nor would JFK, Eisenhower, or probably most of our Commanders in Chief (not to mention other politicians).

I did have a problem with what Clinton did, but here's the distinction:

1. His affair took place while in office. (Big deal, you say - so did JFK's numerous dalliances.)
2. His affair took place IN the office - specifically, in the Oval Office. (Again, big deal - JFK's indiscretions took place in the White House as well.)
3. But - and here's the key difference - Clinton's infidelity was with a White House intern. As such, she reported up through the chain of command to her ultimate boss, the CEO of America.
4. Since Clinton's affair was with a subordinate, and took place in the workplace, it constitutes sexual harassment, which is a fireable offense for any executive, and is illegal.

Virtually every private-sector CEO's employment contract includes a moral turpitude clause. It states that if said CEO does anything immoral that would bring embarrassment to the firm (like the Lewinsky affair did to the U.S.), or breaks the law (such as sexual harassment laws), not only is the CEO subject to termination, but he or she forfeits any and all post-termination benefits: severance pay, deferred compensation, stock options, insurance ...

Oh yeah, and Secret Service detail.

Clinton committed a crime, while in office, on government property, against a subordinate. He was impeached (for lying under oath about it, another crime) but not removed from office.

Trump allegedly cheated on his wife while a private citizen, and allegedly agreed to have his lawyer pay her hush money.

Despicable? Yes. Impeachable? Absolutely not.

Whoopi Goldberg, you are a comedienne (and you used to be a funny one). If we want your political opinions, we'll ask for them. Until then, try being funny again. America could use a good laugh.

As for Cohen, he either directly or indirectly leaked information subject to the attorney-client privilege. He should be disbarred.

And he should be happy about it - if he'd been a Clinton lawyer, he'd be dead by now.

*************************

Regarding Goldberg and her idiotic TV show, "The View," who watches this drivel, anyway? (Okay, so I did, but just enough to catch the snippet where she said that Trump being caught in a lie about any knowledge of this alleged affair and payment "makes me happy.")

Really, these women opine on political matters they clearly don't understand (and it's not because they're women, so in the name of all that is holy do not accuse me of sexism; I can name many, many women who are extremely well-qualified to discuss and dissect political matters, but Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar aren't among them), then deftly jump over to dishing on the latest celebrity gossip, which seems better suited to their knowledge base. They should stick to opining about celebrities, and leave the weightier matters to those better versed in them.

Another example came on a similar show, "The Talk" (really, there's sufficient viewership to keep two of these inane wastes of advertising dollars on the air?). The "panel" was discussing Serena Williams' claims that she is subjected to more drug tests by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency than any other athlete. Ms. Williams claims that this is evidence of discrimination.

Really? Lance Armstrong complained of the same thing during his pro cycling career. He claimed he was subject to more tests than any other pro cyclist, and that he was unfairly subjected to tests that fell outside the times scheduled by the USADA, the same claims Williams is now making.

Armstrong is male. Armstrong is white.

And Armstrong was doping. Hey, where there's smoke ...

Sarah Gilbert, of "Roseanne" fame, who is one of the hosts of "The Talk," agreed that Williams was the target of discrimination. Referring to the testing protocols, she went on to say, "Look, I don't know how these things are set up ..."

Then stop right there. You just admitted you don't know what you're talking about, so shut up already, and stick to stuff you know about.

(Maybe of greater concern is how the Curmudgeon found himself watching bits of both "The View" and "The Talk" on the same day. My only defense is that my vacation rental house has a very limited selection of satellite TV channels.)

*************************

A final word about the hair-on-fire rhetoric of the left. Whether it's spewed forth by John Brennan, Whoopi Goldberg, Chuck Schumer, or just some random poster on social media, here's the plain truth:

When you lead with over-the-top rhetoric like, "Hitler," "racist," "treason," etc., you've lost the argument before it even had a chance to get started.

A Rocky Summit

In his younger days, the Curmudgeon climbed several 14ers - 14,000-foot peaks - in Colorado. And in those pursuits, I learned two things:

1. All challenging summits are rocky. Sure, you can stroll up to the highest point in Kansas and wave to the cows along the way, and your biggest obstacle will be dodging their pies. But the challenging summits are all rocky. The footing is unsure.
2. The view from those summits will reveal things you'll never see if you don't pursue the summit.

President Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin was challenging, no doubt, and it was a no-win proposition in terms of the reception from Dems, thanks to Sore Loser Syndrome. Had he canceled, they'd have criticized him for that. Had he gotten Putin to give up his nukes, get out of Crimea, and give us back the uranium that Hillary gave him, the left would find something wrong with that: "He ripped Crimea from the arms of Mother Russia!"

As one pundit put it, Donald Trump could walk across the Potomac, and Nancy Pelosi would say, "Trump can't swim."

I don't know all that transpired in the summit. All we have to go on is the brief presser that followed. Beyond that, the left (if they even watched the presser, and they weren't in the room where the meeting took place either) has formed its opinions based on what Anderson Cooper, John King, Rachel Maddow and Christiane Amanpour have told them to think. They think that everything that comes out of the mouths of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is manna from heaven. (Of course, Pelosi has so much trouble forming a coherent sentence that her words come out scrambled, which begs the question: can you scramble manna, like eggs?)

Even John McCain called Trump's press conference "One of the most disgraceful performances by an American President." Not that McCain, a failed Presidential candidate, would have much expertise in that regard. Look, John McCain is a war hero. But he's also a member of the Keating Five (google it - we had a financial crisis back in the 1980s as well, kiddos, and at the time it was as hard on our economy and banking system as the more recent one that was architected by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters).

But more to the point today, McCain's deep hatred of Trump over Trump's comments about McCain's military service - an admittedly loathsome comment that Trump should never have made - has led to the "R" behind McCain's name looking like a double-amputee "R," that now resembles a "D."

The left has its collective hair on fire over Trump having downplayed Russia's meddling in the 2016 election, based on Putin's denial.

Well, he made those statements while he was appearing with Putin. What's he going to say, "He denies it, but I think he's full of borscht?"

Look, we've heard what Trump said. We haven't yet seen what he'll do. Will he lift sanctions? Doubtful. Will he impose more? Maybe, but we need Russia's oil interests to help us neutralize Iran, which is a greater threat to us at this point.

(I know the left now disagrees with that, calling Russia our greatest threat, but it wasn't so long ago that President Obama was dismissive when that was suggested by Mitt Romney: "The 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back." Obama certainly never treated Russia as though it were a threat, and he was equally dismissive in the days before the 2016 election of the notion that our elections could be tampered with by anyone.)

Trump has been vilified with accusations of treason, and the usual petty name-calling: "Comrade Trumpsky," etc. When Hillary sold our uranium interests to Russia, did the right call her "Clintonev?"

And when Obama told Medvedev - in front of a live mic - that after he was re-elected, he'd have more flexibility to work with Putin, did those on the right call him "Obamavitch?" The left believe that when candidate Trump jokingly invited Russia to find Hillary's deleted emails, it was an open signal that he wanted Russia's assistance in getting elected. Could not Obama's statement to Medvedev have been a similar invitation? "Help me get re-elected, and we can work together." Consider Medvedev's reply: "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

No, I don't believe Obama was asking for help, any more than I believe that Trump's campaign trail joke was a similar request. (No matter how stupid the left thinks Donald Trump is, nobody would be stupid enough to make that ask in public. Not even Maxine Waters.) Both are half-baked conspiracy theories.

A side note: when you start throwing around unsupported terms like "treason," "impeachment," and the inevitable comparisons to Hitler, you've lost the argument before it has a chance to get started.

As to the summit itself, let's go back to the analogy of the views you gain at a summit. Speaking from experience, the better I get to know someone through one-on-one conversations with them, the better able I am to tell when they're lying to me, and to figure out what to do about it.

FDR met with Josef Stalin in Yalta. Stalin was far worse than anything we've seen from Russia's leadership since.

JFK met with Krushchev in Vienna. Krushchev wasn't much better than Stalin.

Reagan met with Gorbachev, and was the only U.S. President that's been able to make much of a difference in U.S.-Russian relations.

And Obama also met with Putin, on several occasions, the first on Putin's home turf in Moscow during the infamous "Apology Tour." The result of that relationship, which began with Obama apologizing to Putin for America being America? The annexation of Crimea, the Syrian civil war, the banning of U.S. adoptions of Russian children, to name a few.

Why did those leaders - at least the first three - meet with their Russian counterparts? To gain insights - the views that only come with pursuing a challenging and rocky summit. Reagan got results (which didn't last); the others didn't. And Trump likely won't, either - or if he does, those results won't last.

The reason lies with Russia itself.

I recently read an excellent historical novel called, Russka, by Edward Rutherfurd. Okay, yes, it's a novel. But if you've read any of Rutherfurd's other works, you know that his works of fiction are based on historical fact. Rutherfurd - the nom de plume for Francis Edward Wintle - studied history at Cambridge University, and went on to do graduate work at Stanford, then was a political researcher before launching his writing career. One can learn much of world history reading his books, which corroborate and expand upon everything I learned in the numerous world history courses I've taken.

I've read several of his works, including some about places I've visited, studied, and whose histories I have some knowledge of, including Sarum (about the Salisbury region of England), London, Paris and New York. I've also further researched specifics regarding his novels about those places, and found them to be historically accurate, his observations about the people of those places insightful. Similarly, I researched a number of the things he wrote about in Russka, and found them to be accurate as well.

The reason that democratic reforms have never worked in Russia - and the reason that communism was able to work as it did, keeping the people oppressed under dictatorial rule - is that the Russian people know nothing different from centralized control. From the Tatars in the east to Poland in the west, through the tsars and the Bolsheviks and the Communists and on through Putin - the Russian people have always been ruled by centralized governments, for many centuries.

In addition, Russia is largely a vast nation of villages that haven't changed much since medieval times. You can see this in any documentary about the Russian hinterlands. It's a huge country, with nearly two times the land mass of the U.S. or Canada. Yet its population is about half that of the U.S., ranking ninth in the world. Its population density is nine people per square kilometer. Its urban population percentage is 73%, meaning that more than a quarter of its population is spread across those ancient villages that span its 6.6 million square miles of land.

I had the opportunity to listen to former Federal Reserve Governor Wayne Angell, who grew up on a Kansas farm, describe his visit to Russia after the Iron Curtain fell. He relayed two stories that were very telling.

Their small convoy of vehicles approached a railroad crossing in the middle of the Russian steppe. You could see and hear for miles around on that vast, treeless, flat terrain. There was no sign of a train, yet the cross-arm - which was operated manually by a guard in a wooden booth - was down, blocking the road. (Bear in mind this was in the 1990s, when as far as I know, all railroad crossings in the U.S. were automated.)

Dr. Angell grabbed his translator and went to speak with the guard, asking him why the cross-arm was down. The guard replied that it was 3:00, and that his instructions were to lower the cross-arm fifteen minutes before the arrival of the scheduled 3:15 train, and leave it down until the train had passed.

Dr. Angell asked how often the 3:15 train was on time. "Never," was the reply. He then asked how late the train typically was, and the guard indicated that it was sometimes more than an hour late - thus the road remained blocked for that time. He then asked why the guard didn't just wait until he heard or saw the train, since he could see and hear for such a long distance on the steppe, and he'd have plenty of time to lower it before the train arrived and cars were at peril.

The guard shrugged and said, "Those aren't my instructions."

Mind you, this was after the Iron Curtain had fallen. Yet nothing of Russia's infrastructure had changed. I doubt it has since across much of that country.

The other story was of Dr. Angell's group approaching some women harvesting wheat - something the former Kansas farmer knew something about. The women were using sickles, cutting the wheat by hand. He got out of his car, translator again in tow, and observed them. Each woman would swing her sickle once, cutting a small amount of wheat, then carry it to the wooden cart that they'd use to bring in their harvest. Then they'd go back, pick up the sickle, and take another whack.

Dr. Angell removed his jacket and handed it to his translator, rolled up his sleeves, and - through the translator - asked one of the women if he could borrow her sickle. She handed it to him, and he proceeded to swing it repeatedly, cutting as much wheat as he could carry. Then he picked it up and took it to the cart before returning to repeat the task. In short order, he'd cut more wheat than the women could cut in a much longer time, and with less effort.

He said that the women looked at him as though they'd just witnessed the Industrial Revolution.

Now, one might think that this mindset was a product of Communist rule. Reading Russka, you'll find that this mindset has pervaded Russia throughout its history. It's a function of ingrained centralized rule.

That's why democratic reforms failed in Russia, from the times of the tsars to the beginnings of Bolshevism to the fall of the Iron Curtain. The Russian people have no collective history of self-governance, and there are always despotic leaders like Putin at the ready to give them the centralized control they're used to before they can figure out the alternative.

And this is why Russia is likely not a serious military threat to the U.S. It's not an economic threat, either; its GDP is less than 2% of that of the U.S. In fact, its GDP is less that California's or Texas', and barely more than New York's.

True, it is a cyber-threat - or is it?

It appears clear that Russia meddled in our 2016 election. Yet, it appears equally clear, from intelligence sources and from the Mueller investigation, that its meddling did not change the outcome of that election, much as Hillary Clinton wants to believe otherwise.

So how much of a threat is Russia? It may have spread disinformation and propaganda. News flash: so did CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, and pretty much every other media outlet.

Its stated intent was to sow discord among American voters. American voters don't need any help with that. In fact, we're better at sowing discord among ourselves than Russia will ever hope to be.

Let's face it, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to vote straight party-line, and seek out "news" sources that align with their pre-conceived notions, whether those sources originate from Fox News headquarters in Manhattan or from the Kremlin.

I vote based on how the candidates' positions align with my own, after careful research of all the source documents I can find - and they're not hard to find if you put forth the effort - not based on anything I see on TV or read on the internet (I gave up on newspapers long ago - they're yesterday's news, literally).

As such, I am far more concerned about Russia hacking my bank than hacking the DNC or the RNC (especially since I'm a member of neither party).

I will say that the left should absolutely love the fact that Russia attempted to meddle in our election, though. Why?

Because it gives them a convenient scapegoat every time they lose an election. Sore Loser Syndrome just found its BFF.

The Originals

If you clicked on the link thinking I was going to post something about the popular TV show, you've come to the wrong place. Our topic for the day is Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and more specifically about originalism as it pertains to the judiciary.

By all accounts, Kavanaugh is an extraordinary jurist, respected by peers and pols on both sides of the aisle. Of course, that won't stop Dems from denigrating, muckraking, and dragging a good man's name through the mud during the confirmation hearings, all in the name of the agonizing ignominy of SLS (Sore Loser Syndrome - see Clinton, Hillary).

Liberal late-night pundit (hey - the Curmudgeon made an oxymoron!) Stephen Colbert even ridiculed Judge Kavanaugh's name, saying that "Brett" sounded less like a Supreme Court Justice and more like a waiter at Ruby Tuesday's. Of course, Colbert - who probably couldn't hold down a job as a waiter at Ruby Tuesday's, and isn't qualified to judge a middle school debate - is a buffoon.

Read this quote from Judge Kavanaugh, and then we'll address the issue of originalism vs. activism in jurisprudence (emphasis added):

"The Supreme Court Judge’s job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution. Don’t shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is for the amendment process. Changing policy within constitutional bounds is for the legislatures. Remember that the structure of the Constitution –the separation of powers and federalism –are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are at least as essential to protecting individual liberty as the individual rights guaranteed in that text. And remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits. Simple but profound."

Profound indeed, and that alone makes him an excellent choice for the high court: he gets it. He goes to the heart of the matter.

The second sentence in italics is why states' rights issues like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell (again, not taking a moral position, merely pointing out the legal reality) ought not to be the bailiwick of the Supreme Court. Note that I not only italicized the word "legislatures," I bolded and underlined the plural "s." For Judge Kavanaugh's use of the plural was quite intentional, and quite right.

You don't like the laws of your state? Work to change them. Educate people about your position. Try to persuade. Get out the vote. And if you still lose in the legislature ... well, that's democracy for you. Democracy doesn't say take your case to the Supreme Court and try to persuade them to legislate from the bench. Sore Loser Syndrome favors that approach, and it has nothing to do with democracy.

As for the first sentence in italics, there is a school of thought that says the Constitution should be a living document that changes as the times change. All well and good. Indeed, women's right to vote, the abolishment of slavery, and other important matters have been added to the Constitution over time -

Through the amendment process, as Judge Kavanaugh rightly notes. That process requires not only proposal by the U.S. House and Senate, but ratification by the legislatures of the requisite number of states - again, legislatures must take this action, emphasis on the plural.

Why is this so? Two reasons, one a matter of Constitutional law, the other of common sense.

Regarding Constitutional law, Article Five of the original Constitution - unamended, as drafted by the framers - stipulates the proposal and ratification process. It provides for the Constitution as a living document, but only through the amendment process - not by the courts.

Regarding common sense: the original Constitution was not drafted and adopted by the courts, it was drafted by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and ratified by the legislatures - again plural - of the states. Thus why would it now be left to the courts to amend it, when there is no such provision or precedent in Constitutional law?

Further, if Congress felt strongly that abortion rights or same-sex marriage rights were Constitutional rights, why did they never propose amendments? They left these states' rights issues to be debated in the state legislatures and/or on state voting ballots - not because they were doing the right thing by leaving these issues to the states (which they were), but because they didn't have the political will to take on such polarizing issues - after all, it could cost them re-election.

So again, there is nothing to fear from Judge Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court - in fact, there is less to fear from a Justice Kavanaugh than there is from any Justice who voted to usurp the states' power in an activist decision, if one values the Constitution - and that's true whether you believe it should be a living, breathing document or not.

(As an aside, there are numerous examples of despotic leaders in other countries who re-wrote those countries' constitutions to suit their own whims and assure their own continued power, proving that to vest power to change the Constitution in the hands of a few is the ultimate act of oppression, as it strips the people of their right to self-govern.)

Strzok Out, and Other Musings

In this installation, the Curmudgeon will address the Peter Strzok circus, the Mueller indictments of Russian officials for meddling in our election, and other related buffoonery.

First, to Peter Strzok. The public hearings were indeed a three-ring circus, as many of the Dem Congresspersons noted during their questioning.

Yet - ya notice how none of them refrained from contributing to the circus?

It's as if the Dems and the GOP got together beforehand and said, "Okay, so after 11 hours of grilling this neophyte, we've learned nothing more than that he hated Trump, cheated on his wife, and apparently didn't influence the election one way or the other. But hey, we gotta keep the people divided. So let's have another nine hours of public hearings. On the GOP side, we'll rake this punk over the coals, and on the Dem side, you all can sing from the same sheet of music:

"Three thousand babies have been ripped from their mothers' arms at our southern border, yet we're not holding hearings over that. Our nation has been tragically affected by gun violence from San Bernardino to Las Vegas to Orlando, yet we're not holding hearings over that. (Note that they didn't suggest we should have hearings over the gun violence in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, which sees hundreds of African-American youth gunned down by gun violence every year - no, they don't count.) Yet, here we are, holding hearings over this nonsense."

The theatre of the absurd from the left continued: "Mr. Strzok, this Republican said this about Donald Trump - was that the result of a coordinated conspiracy planned by you?"

("No," because it's doubtful Strzok could plan a conspiracy with any more success than the Three Stooges.)

"Mr. Strzok, that Republican said that about Donald Trump - was that the result of a coordinated conspiracy planned by you?" (Again, the answer was no; again, for the same reason.)

I'm surprised no Dem asked Strzok whether he plotted to assassinate JFK, or to kill JR.

The low points came when one Dem Congressman invoked "my personal hero, Bruce Springsteen" (really??) and another suggested that Strzok should receive a Purple Heart.

A Purple Heart? I would respectfully submit that the Congressman who suggested that be issued a rifle, sent to the front lines, and allowed to experience what it's like to risk one's life to defend one's country. He'd probably be shot in the back by his own men.

Indeed, at one point, Strzok pointed to his 26-year career of "defending his country." No, Pete, you didn't defend your country. You spent 26 years playing bureaucrat while others put their lives on the line. You're an insult to the fine men and women of the FBI who do their jobs without bias, and to the men and women in uniform who truly do defend this country.

Speaking of bias, anyone who can read the words, "We will stop him" from being elected and not see bias, couldn't see a basketball if it was flying at their face. The suggestion that Strzok was not biased is an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable person.

Strzok became incensed at the notion that anyone would suggest he had an integrity issue. Hey, Pete, you cheated on your wife - dude, that alone is indicative of an integrity issue. I just hope she takes you to the bank. Reading her resume vs. yours, she's certainly smart enough to do it.

Someone should have asked Strzok whether, given his obvious bias, he could work for his Commander in Chief and support his agenda. The answer would have been interesting, and should form the basis for whether he should keep his job.

The high point of the day came when Strzok, being questioned by Trey Gowdy, protested vigorously that he didn't appreciate having his integrity called into question, to which Gowdy replied:

"I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok, I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016."

Boom.

The bottom line is that this putz had a strong bias against a candidate for President and pledged to his girlfriend that he'd do whatever was within his power to stop that candidate from becoming President. While he was involved with not one, but two investigations related to that candidate and his opponent, during an election year. You read between the lines.

****************************************

On to the Mueller indictments. So Russian officials meddled in our elections?

News flash: governments have been meddling in each others' elections for a damn long time, it's just that the interwebs have made it more interesting.

Remember when Barack Obama tried to influence Israel's elections to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from getting elected? Or how about when the U.S. used to drop flyers out of airplanes to spread disinformation to try to influence elections in Communist countries?

More to the point, election meddling has been rampant within the U.S. for generations. Remember the intimidation tactics employed by Obama supporters at inner-city polling locations? Or how about the dumping of ballot boxes by JFK operatives? Gerrymandering, anyone? Opening our borders to bring in more potential Democrat voters? Attempts to manipulate election results have been going on for decades, if not centuries, on both sides of the aisle.

But now that Russia is doing it to us (which they likely have been since Stalin and Kruschev, along with China), it's suddenly worth worrying about.

It's like the lines from Animal House when Boon and Otter are watching Niedermeyer haze Flounder:

Otter: "They can't do that to our pledges."
Boon: "Only we can do that to our pledges."

*****************************************

In the wake of the Russia indictments, Chuck Schumer (who never met a camera he didn't love) and Nancy Pelosi (who's just plain bat-poo crazy and probably doesn't know which end of a fork to use) have "advised" President Trump not to meet with Vladimir Putin.

Should our President take the advice of two people who couldn't get elected as dog-catcher in most jurisdictions? And if he did, you can bet your IRA that they'd criticize him for not meeting with Putin.

*****************************************

Finally, to the UK protests against President Trump. I have to wonder how many of those signs and protesters were placed by Americans. I did hear one interview with a protester who didn't have a British accent.

And I found it ironic that one news report noted a street sweeper in the background, cleaning up the aftermath of the protest, which left thousands of pieces of trash strewn across the streets of London.

In the foreground was a sign held up by a protester that had a hand-drawn picture of Trump's face along with the words, "Stop air pollution."

O, the irony. Dude, you have forfeited your right to protest air pollution when you've left your trash all over the streets of your city for the street sweeper to clean up.

Justice for All?

That's something that Democrats absolutely don't want.

With the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump has the opportunity to nominate the second Supreme Court Justice of his first term.

Democrats want no part of giving a Republican President - especially Donald Trump - an opportunity to "stack" the highest court in the land. (Of course, they have no problem if a Democrat President is presented with that opportunity; President Obama also nominated two justices to the bench).

So Chuck Schumer, who never met a camera he didn't want to jump in front of, is calling for Republicans to "honor the precedent" set when Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings in 2016 for a potential third Obama nominee, Merrick Garland, because it was an election year and that appointment should be reserved for the new President.

(McConnell's gamble, by the way, was most fortunate for Republicans; Garland was a moderate jurist, but had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, can you imagine the kind of liberal activist judge she'd have appointed to the high court?)

But wait - there are a couple of nuances to consider. First, McConnell's refusal to hold hearings to confirm Garland was not actually the precedent for this argument. In 1992, then-Senator Joe Biden - a Democrat - set the precedent by declaring that, if a vacancy arose during the remainder of President George H.W. Bush's term, nomination hearings should be delayed until after the election. Indeed, in refusing to hold hearings on Garland, McConnell stated that he was invoking "the Biden Rule."

Second, those arguments against holding hearings during an election year were during Presidential election years. The logic behind them was that, given that a new President would be elected in a matter of months, the people's will, as would be exercised in that election, should be considered in the timing of the nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

Partisan political ploy? Yes. But one based on a defensible argument related to respecting the will of the people? Indeed.

This year is not a Presidential election year. If confirmation hearings on Kennedy's replacement are held after the election, Donald Trump will still be President. (Please, don't even try to go down the impeachment path - only Maxine Waters is bat-poo crazy enough to think that's going to happen.) The Dems merely hope that they'll win enough seats in the midterms to be able to block any Trump nominee they don't want, meaning they'll hold out until he nominates the second coming of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

My advice to the Democrats would be to gamble carefully. Mitch McConnell got lucky in that Trump won, and instead of Obama's third nominee, or Hillary's first, we got Neil Gorsuch. Dems, the Republican majority is sufficiently slim that you have some clout today, plus you have never-Trumpers like John McCain in your camp. What if, instead of gaining seats in the midterms, you lose them (which, given your outrageous antics of late, is a distinct possibility)? Then, any Trump nominee - even the most conservative of jurists - could breeze through the confirmation process with nothing more than the usual evening news soundbites from you during the hearings.

The Democrats, in trying to gin up public support for their push to delay a second Trump nomination this year, are using Roe v. Wade, trying to fear-monger the public into believing that the landmark abortion decision might be reversed with another Trump nominee to the court.

There are three reasons that people needn't or shouldn't worry about that. The first is based on simple fact, the second is based on history, and the third is based on Constitutional law, which most Americans don't understand.

Fact: There will be at least one more Donald Trump nominee to the Supreme Court, and perhaps two. Kennedy's retirement is a done deal, so that's one. And Justice Ginsberg is 85, and has had health issues. So there is a perfectly reasonable chance that she won't stay on the court for many more years. So accept it: Trump will nominate at least two justices to the Court.

History: Roe v. Wade passed by a 7-2 vote of the nine justices on the Court. Of the seven voting in favor, five were nominated to the bench by Republican Presidents; only two by Democrats. And of the two dissenting justices, one was appointed by a Democrat.

Moreover, to the "stacking the Court" argument, Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton and Bush I each nominated two justices to the bench. Reagan nominated three, Carter, zero, and Ford, 1. Nixon, a Republican, nominated four - three of whom voted in favor of Roe v. Wade. LBJ nominated two, and JFK, a Democrat, nominated two - one of whom dissented against Roe v. Wade. Ike, a Republican, nominated five - two of whom voted in favor of Roe v. Wade. The only justices who voted as one would expect based on the party of the nominating President were Justices Douglas voting in favor (an FDR nominee), Marshall also voting in favor (an LBJ nominee), and Rehnquist dissenting (a Nixon nominee).

So there's no guarantee that a Republican nominee will vote consistently along the lines desired by conservative voters, and vice versa. Indeed, the justices are supposed to be independent voices, though some lean more activist (read: liberal, open to legislating from the bench, which tends to favor liberal causes) and some more originalist (read: conservative, holding to the original intent and meaning of the Constitution, which tends to favor conservative causes).

And that distinction leads us to a discussion of Constitutional law. The Constitution established that the people would be largely self-governing through the States, as opposed to a centralized, all-powerful Federal system. This is what defines a Democratic Republic, which is what the U.S. is, vs. a pure democracy. It's why we have the Electoral College (which the Dems oppose when they lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote, yet favor the rest of the time). Heck, it's why we bother having states and state governments to begin with. The framers knew all too well that a centralized Federal government can all too easily morph into a monarchy or a dictatorship.

Thus certain issues are to be decided at the state level, according to the will of the people. Two examples of this are abortion rights and the right to same-sex marriage.

Now, before any reader goes all liberal hysteria on me, let me say that the following comments speak only to Constitutional law as it pertains to these two matters, and not to my views on the matters themselves. I'll keep those views to myself. If anyone wants to engage in personal, one-on-one, civil discourse regarding them, I'd be happy to share my views, and listen to theirs. Also, let me remind readers that I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I see the good and the bad in each party. Mostly the bad, because there's not all that much good in the current environment.

The clearest evidence that these are states' rights issues can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used both as fodder for the seminal cases that decided them, once and for all, against the intent of the Constitution, and for the dissenting opinions. That Amendment states (I've italicized the sections that are germane, legally speaking, to these cases):

• That "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(The remaining Articles of the Fourteenth Amendment have to do with the apportionment of Representatives, the Electoral College, eligibility as a Senator, Representative or elector, public debt, and the powers of Congress to enforce the Amendment.)

The clause "citizens ... of the State in which they reside" reinforces the sovereignty of the States. And the due process clause is the key to the arguments both for and against Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, which decision led to the declaration of same-sex marriage as legal in all 50 states. The other key pillar of those arguments was the "equal protection of the laws" argument, but that was found to be a straw man in the dissenting opinions in both cases. (I may explore this last topic further in a future post.)

But first, some background. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified by the states in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction Amendments in the aftermath of the Civil War. Thus, it was intended to cure and/or clarify some distinctions that arose out of the end of slavery and the reunification of the Confederacy with the Union.

This next point is very important: at the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for many years thereafter, both abortion and same-sex marriage were illegal in numerous states. During the ensuing 100+ years between the Amendment's ratification and both Roe and Obergefell, there were no meaningful challenges to the legality of those matters on the basis of the due process clause.

Why? Because the states, the people and the courts accepted the fact that, given that those state laws existed at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, and the lack of legal challenge in the ensuing century, clearly these matters were within the purview of the citizens of each state to decide by majority rule. In other words - these are states' rights issues. And were accepted as such under the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified, and for more than 100 years thereafter.

So what changed? Well, as the decades passed, some states changed their laws (though others didn't; nearly half the states' abortion laws remained unchanged from 1868 to 1973). Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was legalized in a number of states. It's just that, if you lived in a state where it was illegal, you had to travel to another state to get a legal abortion. Since the poor tend to have more abortions than other women (for a variety of reasons we won't delve into here), this was seen as an unfair burden by the pro-legal abortion crowd (the term "pro-choice" is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig, and actually detracts from the cause of those who adopt the label, so the Curmudgeon prefers to err on the side of accuracy).

Likewise, prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriage was legal in some states, but illegal in others, which again meant if you lived in a state where it was illegal and wanted to marry your partner, you had to get married in another state. (This issue is less related to socioeconomic level.) But in either case, there was nothing stopping one from going to another state to do what they wanted to do, with no legal ramifications when they returned home.

In the case of both issues, other states were beginning to consider changing their laws to legalize abortion or same-sex marriage in the years leading up to these Supreme Court cases. The people in those states wrestled with and debated the issues. Some states held votes in which the legalization effort failed. That's part of the Democratic process; you put the matter to a vote of the people, try to educate voters in support of your case, and ultimately let the majority decide.

Alas, Democrats don't like democracy. Supporters of these issues celebrated when they were placed on ballots in an increasing number of states. But then they couldn't accept the outcome if it didn't go their way. (This is increasingly common among Dems; we saw it when Bush defeated Gore, again when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, and we saw it with these two legal issues. In fact, what the right refers to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is really just "Sore Loser Syndrome." It wouldn't have mattered if Trump had defeated Clinton, or if Kasich had defeated Bernie Sanders; the reaction from the left would have been the same. Democrats appear to increasingly favor permanent rule by one party - you know, like the Soviets had.)

So the Dems hired lawyers and took their cases to the courts, chasing them all the way to the highest court in the land. And in both Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court chose the activist route. They chose to legislate from the bench. They chose to substitute their judgment for the will of the people.

In other words, they chose to usurp Democracy, to subjugate states' rights.

That's where the Fourteenth Amendment becomes the basis for the dissenting opinions, and in eloquent fashion. The dissenting opinion to Roe v. Wade penned by Justice White stated (emphasis added):

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

Boom. And from Justice Rehnquist's dissent (no emphasis needed, as the entire statement would be in bold font):

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas wrote similar dissents in the Obergefell case, noting that the due process and equal protection under the law clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment had not been violated. Chief Justice Roberts noted that advocates of same-sex marriage lost their opportunity for acceptance through public debate, as the decision closed the matter from further consideration by the states. Similarly, Justice Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of "the freedom to govern themselves", noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted. And Thomas noted that the Justices voting in favor had based their decision on moral judgment vs. the rule of law, as was evident in the majority opinion penned by ... none other than Justice Kennedy, a Republican nominee.

The upshot of all of this is that:

1. Every President has the right to nominate candidates to open seats on the Supreme Court. Even Presidents you don't like, or from the party you aren't registered with.
2. Some Presidents have the opportunity to nominate multiple candidates; in fact, since FDR, only two Presidents have nominated fewer than two candidates (not counting Trump, who will almost certainly nominate at least two). Also, since FDR, Democrat Presidents have nominated 18 justices to the bench, the same as Republican Presidents to date (Trump will soon move the needle to 19 nominees by Republicans). Thus there is near-perfect balance in appointments by Presidents of the two major political parties - not that balance is what the Democrats are after.
3. The party of the President nominating a justice has little to no bearing on how that justice will decide cases, particularly in the two most egregious examples of activist jurisprudence in the Court's long history. In other words, a second Trump nominee does nothing to increase the likelihood that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Roe v. Wade should never have been decided by the courts anyway, as it is clearly a states' rights issue, so if it is eventually overturned by a subsequent Court, Constitutional law will have been reinstated, and it will rightly become a matter of the people's will once more. Then we can all debate the matter on the merits, instead of running to the Supreme Court to get our way, like some petulant child whose mommy and daddy say "No," so they run to grandma.

Sanctuary!

The post title was borrowed from the cry of Quasimodo when he sought asylum for Esmeralda in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, in Victor Hugo's classic, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."

And that's the topic for today: asylum. The left and its media puppets have been throwing about a lot of claims about the numbers of people attempting to cross our southern border - with and without children - that are doing so because they're seeking asylum. As usual, it's largely uninformed.

To be sure, those numbers are up. Why? Because it's easier to get to stay in this country when you've crossed the border illegally, if you can successfully present an asylum case. The problem is that, while those numbers may be up, there is significant question as to whether those seeking asylum actually have a case for it.

The bigger problem is that those on the left - those engaging in the social media hysteria on this topic, those in the media, and quite possibly those in Congress - don't have the first bloody clue what "asylum" means. Their only knowledge of the topic has been gleaned from Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, the New York Times, et. al.

So, as is the Curmudgeon's practice, let's go to the source documents and get the facts. Specifically, let's look at the Asylum Eligibility and Applications FAQ page on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website.

First, let's note that none of these laws are new; they weren't passed by Donald Trump. The sections cited below were last reviewed or updated in either 2008 or 2013.

Now, to the questions and their answers, in italics:

Where Can I Find the Law on Asylum?
The legal provisions governing the Asylum Program are codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For the part of the law concerning asylum, please see INA § 208. Rules concerning eligibility requirements and procedures to be followed by applicants and the government are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 8 CFR § 208. Asylum officers also rely on case law to adjudicate asylum claims.

The above is presented in case anyone actually wants to read the law. Instead of reading what some liberal blogger or journalist says the law is.

How Does the Asylum Officer Determine if I Am Eligible for Asylum?
The Asylum Officer will determine if you are eligible for asylum by evaluating whether you meet the definition of a refugee. The definition, which can be found in section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), states that a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to and avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country of nationality or, if stateless, country of last habitual residence because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The determination of whether you meet the definition of a refugee will be based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an Asylum Officer.

The Asylum Officer will also consider whether any bars apply. You will be barred from being granted asylum under INA § 208(b)(2) if you:

Ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion 

• Were convicted of a particularly serious crime (includes aggravated felonies)
• Committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States
• Pose a danger to the security of the United States
• Were firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States (see 8 CFR § 208.15 for a definition of “firm resettlement”)

You will also be barred from a grant of asylum under INA § 208 if you are described in any of the terrorism or security-related inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(3)(B) or (F).

Read and re-read the words in bold type above (emphasis added), as they form the foundation of whether these claims of asylum are justified. We'll explore that in detail later in this post.

What About My Spouse and Children?
You must list your spouse and all your children on your Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, regardless of their age, marital status, whether they are in the United States, or whether they are included in your application or filing a separate asylum application.

You may ask to have your spouse and/or any children who are under the age of 21 and unmarried included in your asylum decision if they are in the United States. You should bring these individuals with you to the asylum interview. This means that if you are granted asylum, they will also be granted asylum status (unless they are barred from such status) and will be allowed to remain in the United States. However, if you are referred to the Immigration Court, they will also be referred to court for removal proceedings if they are not in legal status.

In other words, if your petition for asylum is legitimate, the kiddos get to stay in the U.S. with you. But if you presented bogus reasons for seeking asylum, the whole brood will get sent back home with you.

Who Is Eligible to Apply for Asylum?
You may only apply for asylum if you are arriving in or already physically present in the United States. To apply for asylum in the United States, you may ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport, or border crossing), or, if you are already in the United States, you may file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, at the appropriate Service Center. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status, whether you are here legally or illegally.

This point has been made time and again, but the left ignores it: you may only legally petition for asylum if you arrive in the U.S. at a port of entry, as defined above. If you climb a fence, crawl through a tunnel or swim the Rio Grande, you may not legally ask for asylum. So why wouldn't you just go to a port of entry to make your claim?

Simple: if you know your claim for asylum is unfounded, you know that if you cross at a port of entry to make that claim, you'll eventually get sent home after your case is adjudicated. But if you cross illegally at some other point along the border, you only have to present your unfounded claim for asylum if you get caught. The odds are in your favor.

Now, in case anyone wants to review the actual form used to request asylum, here's the link: https://www.uscis.gov/i-589. Just click on the hyperlink for the Form I-589 pdf.

As you read it - you are reading it, right? - pay particular attention to page 5. Note Question 1: "Why are you applying for asylum or withholding of removal ...?" The only possible answers are:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Political opinion
• Membership in a particular social group
• Torture Convention

This is the foundation of the "Credible Fear" and "Reasonable Fear" standards that are the basis for decisions regarding refugee status, and the granting of asylum.

Here's the rub: those standards are based on persecution, for the reasons above, by one's government. Gang violence doesn't meet the standard. Lack of economic opportunity doesn't meet the standard. Being reunited with one's extended family already in the U.S. doesn't meet the standard.

Voting Democrat for life out of gratitude because the left gave you a free pass to get into the U.S. for any of those reasons that don't meet the standard, also doesn't meet the standard, as much as the Democrats would like it to.

Okay, given that the vast majority of illegal immigrants - seeking asylum or not - come from Mexico and Central America, let's examine each of the criteria noted above, and whether people from those countries can justifiably claim persecution by their government on those bases.

• Race - the people crossing our southern border from Central America are all of the same race. So that's a big nope.
• Religion - most of those crossing the southern border from those countries are members of the dominant religion of their home countries, and there are no reports of religious persecution in those countries. (Indeed, Christians in those countries will generally be treated better by their governments than Christians in the U.S. will be treated by the left.)
• Nationality - since the people coming from, say, Nicaragua are Nicaraguan, and the Nicaraguan government is also Nicaraguan, that's also a nope. (This standard might apply if there were a civil war going on, and the country was divided, as was the case with, for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are currently no civil wars going on in Central America.)
• Political opinion - there are no reported instances of persecution in those countries on this basis, either. True, a number of the governments are corrupt, and in several of those countries both government officials and the police are complicit with the cartels and gangs, which increases the risk of violence. However, some police officers in the U.S. have been on the take from various criminal elements, going back to the 1930s and beyond. And if you think our government isn't corrupt, you're a hopeless Pollyanna.
• Membership in a particular social group - this standard is generally applied in cases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or HIV status (the precedent for this was established in 1994 by President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, based on "Matter of Toboso-Alfonso," a court case involving a gay Cuban man). It's highly unlikely that a majority of the families crossing our southern border could present a claim for asylum on this basis.
• Torture Convention - while it's certainly possible that prisoners convicted of crimes in those countries, whether rightly or wrongly, are tortured, this is not the scenario for which this standard was intended.

To that last point, let's examine the history of asylum. A nice summary is presented by the immigrant rights organization, Immigration Equality:

"U.S. asylum law is derived from international agreements written after World War II which provide protection to people fearing or fleeing from persecution. The first agreement, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, was drafted by the United Nations in response to the large migrations of people in the aftermath of the Second World War. The United Nations attempted to set forth an internationally agreed upon standard for who will be considered a refugee. The 1951 Convention, however, only applied to people who were refugees on the basis of events occurring before January 1, 1951. The United Nations incorporated the definition of refugee set forth in the 1951 Convention but expanded it to include future refugees in the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 1 The United States acceded to the 1967 Protocol in 1968. In order to bring U.S. law into compliance with its obligations under the Protocol, the United States enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, adopting essentially the same definition of refugee as set forth by the Convention."

It's important to note that the U.S. definition mirrors that of all other nations that acceded to the 1967 Protocol - in other words, the U.S. treats refugees no differently than any other country.

Note also the circumstances that gave birth to U.S. asylum law: the aftermath of WWII. At that time, a number of countries were persecuting residents on the basis of religion and nationality in particular. Think the Soviet Union under Stalin. And many of us can recall cases of legitimate claims of asylum from Soviet, East German or Chinese athletes who came to the U.S. for various competitions, then escaped their teammates and coaches and made their way to a U.S. embassy to seek asylum.

Thus asylum is generally granted on a political basis, again based on the factors presented above, and not due to economic circumstances, gang violence or family reunification. Let's face it; if escaping gang violence were a justification for seeking asylum in another country, half the population of Chicago would be living in Canada today.

Come to think of it, that's not such a bad idea.

But I digress. The following notes are taken from the CIA's World Factbook for each of these countries: Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. (We don't get many illegal immigrants from Costa Rica and Belize - heck, Americans tend to move to those countries after retirement, so they can't be that bad.) The notes are in the Factbook's "People and Society" section for each country, under "Demographic Profile." My comments follow the notes for each country.

Guatemala: "Guatemalans have a history of emigrating legally and illegally to Mexico, the United States, and Canada because of a lack of economic opportunity, political instability, and natural disasters. Emigration, primarily to the United States, escalated during the 1960 to 1996 civil war and accelerated after a peace agreement was signed. Thousands of Guatemalans who fled to Mexico returned after the war, but labor migration to southern Mexico continues."

The civil war is long over. No mention of any of the factors noted above (if political instability were a justifiable criteria, we could all move to Costa Rica and Belize).

Nicaragua: "Nicaraguans emigrate primarily to Costa Rica and to a lesser extent the United States. Nicaraguan men have been migrating seasonally to Costa Rica to harvest bananas and coffee since the early 20th century. Political turmoil, civil war, and natural disasters from the 1970s through the 1990s dramatically increased the flow of refugees and permanent migrants seeking jobs, higher wages, and better social and healthcare benefits. Since 2000, Nicaraguan emigration to Costa Rica has slowed and stabilized. Today roughly 300,000 Nicaraguans are permanent residents of Costa Rica - about 75% of the foreign population - and thousands more migrate seasonally for work, many illegally."

Again, the civil war is over. Natural disasters, while tragic, don't fit the standard for asylum. And we don't grow a lot of bananas and coffee in the U.S.

El Salvador: "Salvadorans fled during the 1979 to 1992 civil war mainly to the United States but also to Canada and to neighboring Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Emigration to the United States increased again in the 1990s and 2000s as a result of deteriorating economic conditions, natural disasters (Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and earthquakes in 2001), and family reunification. At least 20% of El Salvador's population lives abroad. The remittances they send home account for close to 20% of GDP, are the second largest source of external income after exports, and have helped reduce poverty."

Yet again, the civil war is long over. Remittances back to the country give a hint to the real reason Salvadorans seek to emigrate: $$$.

Honduras: "Honduras' population growth rate has slowed since the 1990s, but it remains high at nearly 2% annually because the birth rate averages approximately three children per woman and more among rural, indigenous, and poor women. Consequently, Honduras' young adult population - ages 15 to 29 - is projected to continue growing rapidly for the next three decades and then stabilize or slowly shrink. Population growth and limited job prospects outside of agriculture will continue to drive emigration. Remittances represent about a fifth of GDP."

Again, look at the remittances as a percent of GDP. No mention of strife of any kind. Apparently the biggest driver of emigration from Honduras is a lack of birth control.

Mexico: the Factbook makes no mention of the reasons for emigration from Mexico, which is the 15th-largest economy in the world. But we know for a fact that it's not ruled by some despotic dictator like Stalin or Castro who persecutes Mexico's people. As noted in a previous post, I've visited Mexico several times as a tourist and never felt unsafe.

It's clear that the primary reason for seeking entry into the U.S. is economic. People want better opportunities to make a living, better health care, better education, maybe safety from natural disasters (though we're not immune from those). They undoubtedly know that the U.S. government is increasingly talking about providing some of these things for free, including to illegal immigrants.

Fine. Come here legally, go through the naturalization process, and become a citizen of the U.S.

Hiding that economic motivation behind false claims of asylum only bogs down the system, and makes it that much harder for legitimate claims of persecution to be processed. Remember a few years ago when the left was all a-clamor for the rights of Syrian refugees? If they really cared about the plight of legitimate refugees, they'd be less inclined to defend the influx on our southern border making false claims for asylum.

Where Was Your Voice?

The Curmudgeon has wanted to weigh in on the topic of children being separated from their parents at the border for several days now. However, I'm not sure where to begin. There is so much disinformation around this topic, it's so emotionally charged, and the truth is so obfuscated by the hysteria, that it's hard to present a cogent discussion of the topic, regardless of one's views regarding it.

However, the Curmudgeon has, as usual, uncovered the unerring truth. So here it is:

1. None of us knows the full facts surrounding this situation. I don't. You don't. Your friends don't. Your friends' friends don't. There's too much disinformation, too much emotion, too much partisan spin, to get at the facts. I've been trying, harder than most - and I generally know where to look. But it's become buried deeper than a coyote's tunnel under the border. The bare facts of this matter won't be found on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR or any other news outlet, let alone in the blogs and memes and mis-dated viral pictures floating around the internet.
2. The rhetoric has become hysterical. Not hysterical as in funny; hysterical as in hysteria. The inevitable references to Hitler, Nazi Germany, concentration camps, "babies being ripped from their mothers' arms" ... it's all just so much noise. And when you start spewing that nonsense, I just can't take you seriously. I've studied history. I know better. This is no Holocaust.
3. The vast majority of the public outcry has been politically motivated, whether from the talking heads in the media, or from your Facebook friends. It's yet another partisan reaction stemming from the inability to accept the results of the last presidential election.

Don't believe me? Consider this.

My Facebook feed has been inundated with friends speaking out about this situation - lending their voices to the call to end this practice. To those friends, I would respectfully ask a few questions:

When Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of young girls - separating them from their families - and subjected them to unspeakable horrors - where was your voice?

As long as human trafficking and sex slavery has been a global problem, with children separated from their families, with more slaves in the world today than at any time in human history - where was your voice?

When children are gunned down on the streets of our cities, separated forever from their families by senseless gang violence - where was your voice?

When the same practice is in place in other countries - including some of our allies, such as the U.K. - where was your voice?

When U.S. citizens who are parents are incarcerated, and separated from their children - where was your voice?

And what about when 186 abortions per 1,000 live births per year literally rip unborn babies from their mothers - where was your voice?

(To that last point, the irony is not lost on me that the very people who, when arguing the climate change issue, scoff at those who disagree with them, saying, "You can't deny the science," yet they themselves deny the irrefutable science that proves beyond a doubt when life begins.)

I ask these questions because none of the people I've heard lending their voice to this matter, lent their voices to these - and countless others - concerning children's issues.

It leaves one with the impression that this concern for children, this passion for their rights, began around, say, November 2016.

To wit: many of my friends who are speaking out about this are members of the United Methodist church, as am I. The bishops of the church recently released a statement calling for President Trump and Congress to end the practice of separating families at the border.

The bishops released a similar statement in 2009, calling on President Obama and Congress to end the same practice. Yet I don't recall any of my church friends speaking out then.

Ah, you may ask, so is the Curmudgeon in favor of separating families of illegal immigrants?

Here's the answer: no. I am not in favor of unnecessarily separating families of illegal immigrants. However:

I recognize that the very act of crossing our borders illegally is a crime (that's what "illegal" means), whether the border is with Mexico or Canada. I do not believe the solution is unfettered access to our country - open borders haven't worked so well in the EU. And Presidents from Reagan to Clinton to the Bushes to Obama have spoken in favor of securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration. They just failed to do anything about it.

I have concerns about incarcerating children with their parents. That is more cruel to me than separating them, if the parent is going to be incarcerated. The idea of jailing a kid just because the parent has broken the law isn't appealing to me.

I also have concerns about detaining parents and children together, which is now the at least temporary solution under the President's executive order. Because not all of the "parents" are parents. Some of them are posing as parents and are in fact smugglers and child traffickers, either using the children as chits to get themselves across the border, having paid the parents on the other side for the use of their kid, or are planning to sell the kids into slavery once in this country. To be candid, in situations in which we can't verify that the "parents" are actually the children's parents, I'd rather all of those kids be separated from the adults than hear of one child suffering abuse at the hands of an adult not his or her parent, while being detained with them.

I question the veracity of all the claims of asylum. More illegal immigrants come to the U.S. from Mexico than from all other countries combined, by half again. Mexico is far from an oppressive dictatorial regime. I've visited that country many times, and I've found her people to be delightful, hardworking and friendly. None of them seemed to be in fear of their government. I've personally always felt safe there, even when I got lost in less than the best part of one of her cities. So a defensible argument for the "credible fear" standard of asylum is hard to support.

I wonder why the parents themselves don't care if they are separated from their children. All of them, upon crossing the border, are given the option (after a brief amount of time, less than a day) to return across the border with their children. Yet large numbers of them choose willingly to be separated from their children so that they don't have to go back home (and again, the "asylum" argument is hard to buy in the vast majority of cases). If they themselves don't care if their children are separated from them, maybe those kids are better off in the care of relatives or foster parents, at the very least until the parents' cases are adjudicated.

And as for the much-decried "deterrent" argument - yes, I believe we need some kind of deterrent to the massive increase in immigrants crossing our border illegally with children in tow with the explicit intent of using those children as a chit to get to stay illegally in this country, whether those bringing the children are their parents, smugglers or child traffickers. We only have so many resources, especially when Congress refuses to act to curtail the activity.

(Why, by the way, does Congress refuse to act - especially the Dems, who have been such outspoken critics of this practice? Because there's an election looming, and if they can keep this political football bouncing on the field until November, they might be able to eke out a majority. Using these kids as fodder for partisan political gain is more abhorrent to me than any of this.)

In short, this is a very complex issue, one whose nuances are far beyond the simple outcry of these recent converts to passion over children's issues. There is not a simple solution; if there were, I'm sure that one of these protesting voices would have offered one, and I haven't seen a single solution offered. As a CEO, I always told my employees that people who brought problems to my attention were a dime a dozen - after all, I can see the problems for myself - but people who brought me solutions were invaluable.

If these comments don't apply to you, your conscience is clear. Thank you for always and consistently speaking out in support of justice for children, both in the U.S. and across the globe.

But if you haven't done that - if this is a new concern for you - you might want to do some soul-searching, and ask yourself whether your concerns are nothing more than just another brick to add to the anti-Trump wall that's been building since his election.