One thing is clear: There are two broad steams of thought in the United States of America today. These two streams of thought cannot be reconciled, which is ominous for that is what causes civil wars to occur.
To put it simply, in the mid-19th Century, this country found itself home to two opposing streams of thought where one sizable body of the population believed that black Africans were to be subject to chattel slavery while the other sizable body of the population believed in the ideals enshrined in our founding documents, that all men are created equal. The good guys won in that bloody conflict and slavery found itself disintegrating in the ash heap of history.
Now, in the first quarter of the 21st Century, this country again finds itself home to two opposing streams of thought, where one sizable body of the population believes in lawlessness while the other sizable body of the population believes in law and order.
I don’t need to articulate much about the side that believes in law and order, other than to say that they are true Americans, are patriots, many of them hold, in some degree, to Judeo-Christian religious values.
I do believe it important to be more descriptive of those within the growing faction that believe in lawlessness. Here are some recent examples.
The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, is lawless. He taunted Tom Homan who runs Border Security, to dare arrest him. Newsom sounded like a high school punk looking for a fight. Remember, Newsom seems to think he’s above the law while claiming no one (except illegal aliens) is above the law. We know what side Governor Newsom is on.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost the recent presidential election, made this statement just a few days ago about the riots taking place in Los Angeles: “Los Angeles is my home. And like so many Americans, I am appalled at what we are witnessing on the streets of our city.”
What is it she finds appalling?
Is she appalled at radicals and renegades throwing rocks at police and injuring them? Is she appalled at crazies setting cars on fire? Is she appalled at rioters spitting in the face of law enforcement?
Not at all. In her mind, those things are cute.
Listen to what she is appalled at: “Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos. In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California and across our nation, it is part of the Trump Administration’s cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division.”
Let’s review: Rioters who hate this country and who hate law and order, spread mayhem in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump sends in the National Guard, and then the Marines. And Kamala Harris is appalled that Trump sent in the necessary resources to restore order. She thinks sending in such resources spreads panic.
You mean, there wasn’t panic already present when angry mobs started throwing things, including bricks? You mean everything was fine? It only got out of hand after Trump sent in the needed manpower to quell the violence? She went on to claim, falsely, “. . . as the LAPD, Mayor, and Governor have noted, demonstrations in defense of our immigrant neighbors have been overwhelmingly peaceful.” Does she really believe that? Maybe she does. . .
Over in New York City, the radicals on the Left were upset that the Trump Administration rounded up illegal alien rapists, murderers, child molesters, human traffickers, and other assorted riff-raff, and shipped them off to a maximum security prison south of the border. The radicals actually chanted “Bring Them Back!” The Lawless Left are not bashful about showing where their loyalties lie; they want illegal alien criminals free in our country to help destroy it. The radicals are not embarrassed or see any irony or shame in making such proclivities known.
So what did they do next? Since they hate Donald Trump to the point of irrationality, they stormed Trump Tower. Why would they do such a thing? Did they imagine that by doing so, President Trump would say, “No! Not my hotel! OK, you thugs win; I will let the illegal alien murders and rapists stay in the country illegally. Just don’t harass the guests inside my hotels!”
Two dozen radicals were carted off in handcuffs in short order.
Here’s another example. Over on the television gabfest known as The View, co-host Sunny Hostin said this: “. . . it is not illegal to be undocumented. It is not a crime to be undocumented. We need to put that information out there. It is a civil infraction.” And then, of course, she added this line: “People are not illegal.”
OK, let me tackle her closing quip. She thinks people are not illegal. Does she mean the physiological composition of a person is not illegal? Does she mean one’s personality is not illegal? Is anyone saying anything to the contrary?
Since these people are not, in Sunny’s mind, “illegal,” would she say an arsonist is not illegal? Would she say an extortioner is not illegal? Is a terrorist illegal? Is a car thief illegal?
No? OK, fine. I’ll give her that one.
Now I will ask her: Is the behavior of an arsonist, or an extortioner, or a terrorist, or a car thief illegal?
If she still says their behavior is not illegal, then she is saying nothing is illegal (except perhaps, being a conservative). But if she can bring herself to acknowledge that people are capable of doing illegal acts, now we are getting somewhere, and hopefully she can drop the vacuous quip about people not being illegal because it’s meaningless and a kind of smoke screen.
But is Sunny Hostin accurate that being undocumented is not an illegality?
Well, her statement is somewhat accurate, but also an example of legerdemain. She is being sneaky and misleading, perhaps unwittingly. I will explain.
Sunny Hostin is correct – to a point. But she is leaving out some key information.
Ms. Hostin is correct that being undocumented is a civil, not a criminal violation. Here are some related examples. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation. Or even simply living in the United States without legal status is a civil infraction. It can trigger deportation proceedings, but it doesn’t carry criminal penalties, per so. So far, Ms. Hostin is on target.
But wait! There’s more.
When it comes to immigration law, there are two specific immigration offenses. One is called Illegal Entry. That is when a person enters the United States in a way that bypasses the normal channels of going through our border checkpoints, such as finding an opening somewhere along our border but away from Immigration authorities. This is a crime. It is a misdemeanor and it is punishable by up to 6 months in jail. Would Sunny Hostin dispute this? If so, she would be wrong. Thus, while being in the United States is not, by itself, anything more than a civil issue, how one got into the country in the first place does matter, and if it was done in a way that bypassed the normal channels, that is by itself a crime that can result in incarceration.
Sunny never mentioned that. I wonder why. . .
But I stated there were two specific immigration offenses. The second one is called Illegal Re-Entry. That is when a person is in the country that shouldn’t be here, is removed from the country (i.e., deported) and then sneaks back into the country illegally. This crime is a felony and punishable by up to 2 years (or even more for repeat offenders.)
Thus, when Sunny Hostin makes a blanket statement such as “It is not illegal to be undocumented,” and leaves it at that, she is either demonstrating a colossal lack of understanding of the issues involved, or she is being blatantly deceptive. But it’s clear that she takes the position that any and all people who are undocumented are not criminals, no matter what the details are about their individual circumstances. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a given “undocumented” individual is here and they had previously been deported but snuck back in, they are felons. Pure and simple.
Let’s turn to the public spat between two famous female athletes, Simone Biles, the Olympic gymnastics sensation, and Riley Gaines, the 12-Time NCAA All-American Swimming sensation. Gaines has become an advocate for preventing men who pretend they are female from encroaching on actual women athletes in their various sports competitions. Simone Biles decided to enter the debate and choose sides; curiously, this Olympic female athlete chose to side with the charade that men are actually women. Here is what she said to Riley Gaines: “You’re truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race. Straight up sore loser.”
Truly sick? Well, one of them is.
I suspect it’s Simone Biles, a very confused individual who is calling the clear-eyed Gaines a sick individual. It’s akin to a person with moral leprosy calling a morally healthy person “sick.” And does Biles forget that just a few years ago she posted something on social media to the effect that she was glad she didn’t ever have to compete against men in her sporting events, with the clear implication that she sensed she may be bested by men who are significantly stronger than she is? Is she really that much of an amnesiac?
These are divisive times. Our states and our citizens are very much divided, not united. How will the impasse be resolved? I shudder to think about it, but we who are patriots must never concede so much as one-inch of ground as the issues of the day get debated. The Left must be soundly defeated.
And that, my friends, is the latest elephant in the room.
