5 reasons to support building the wall


Call the bluff of the liberals

Reason 1: To call the liberals’ bluff

The liberals (including the press, as demonstrated by the article below) have put together a mesh-mash that reflects poorly on the Trump administration. That mesh-mash includes accusations against President Trump, stories reflecting well on the illegal aliens, and favorably quoting sources from the aliens’ countries of origin. Without making outright statements of “this is wrong and that is right,” the articles push an open-borders, free-healthcare perspective.

Therefore, the first reason to push toward building the wall is to call the liberals’ bluff and start an honest conversation on the topics surrounding immigration, national sovereignty, and law beyond our national boundaries.

Too bad liberals don’t seem to aspire to those goals.

Trump widens demands in wall standoff, threatens Mexico border closure

A 28 December 2018 Reuters article does its best to lay the blame on Trump (starting with the heading [quoted above] and proceeding to quotes from the incoming Mexican President [not included in the blockquote below]).

President Donald Trump threatened on Friday to close the southern U.S. border with Mexico unless he gets the money he wants for a wall, raising the stakes in a standoff that will present an immediate test next week for the new U.S. Congress.

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, they plan to quickly approve a spending measure meant to end a partial government shutdown that began on Dec. 22, triggered by Trump’s demand for $5 billion in funding for his proposed wall.

Democrats have made clear that the House measure, which would then have to go to the Republican-controlled Senate, will not include $5 billion Trump says is needed for the wall, a central part of his tougher positions on immigration than his predecessors.

“Democrats are united against the president’s immoral, ineffective and expensive wall … that he specifically promised that Mexico would pay for,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement, referring to a Trump 2016 presidential campaign pledge.

(Read more at Reuters)

One of the reasons that I voted for President Trump rests firmly in the fact that Trump takes no guff. This is one instance where it would greatly benefit the Trump administration if he were to remain true to this trait.

Anyway, considering the fact that few of the average Americans seem to be even marginally effected by the shutdown, maybe some government savings are in order.

Pueblo sin Fronteras of Chicago leads the invasion

Reason 2: To expose the liberal organizations in their tactics and motivations

Another reason to push for a border wall is that, in doing so, we might expose the tactics of the liberal organizations that oppose the wall.

As with the article used to illustrate the previous point, the liberal perspective central to its writing suggests some fuzzy anti-Trump and pro-liberal ideas.

Although the following article does start with a statement of fact that exonerates Trump and his Border Patrol, the rest of the article seems to suggest a number of liberal talking points that most Americans will not support.

Guatemalan boy who died in U.S. custody had the flu: state officials

In light of the wailing by liberals regarding the second death of an underage illegal alien brought by a parent invading from Guatemala, we have to wonder whether liberals want us to:

  1. Sue the organizations that obviously have been trolling through communities and suggesting that a child is a ticket for access to Easy Street in the US or
  2. Provide health care to any potential invader to the US

Otherwise, it would seem that their complaints about our protecting our sovereignty are all just proofs that liberalism is a mental disease.

Nonetheless, the account of the death of the Guatemalan boy and accompanying statements by the Guatemalan and “advocacy organizations” found their ways to a 28 December 2018 Reuters article.

The 8-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in the custody of U.S. border agents this week had the flu before he passed away but the cause of his death is still unknown, state officials said on Friday.

Felipe Gomez Alonzo was the second Guatemalan child to die this month while being held by U.S. authorities, sparking outrage from immigration advocates.

In the wake of the deaths, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was traveling to the border to observe medical screenings and conditions at Border Patrol stations while Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate have called for a full investigation.

Gomez fell ill after being detained near the U.S. border with Mexico with his father. The two had traveled to the United States from their remote village of Yalambojoch in Guatemala.

New Mexico’s Medical Investigator’s office said in a statement that nasal and lung swabs during an autopsy found Gomez had influenza B, but said “determining an accurate cause of death requires further evaluation.”

(Read more at Reuters)

Any American who has had a young child knows the trips to the hospital that we experience (even with the multitude of vaccines available). Since early-childhood sickness is a common evil for parents even in affluent America, what would tempt a parent of a more-susceptible Central American family to take a young child on a stressful trip and expose that child to many sources of infection?

Let me suggest that these groups that advocate for “immigrant rights” (meaning “illegal alien rights”) have traveled to Central America and are telling people, “Increase your chances of getting in and remaining in America by bringing a young child.” Why else would these parents bring 6 and 7-year-old children on a 3,000 mile walk in the cold part of the year? When does the flu normally come to the Americas? Do they not know this?

If proof comes forward that these “immigrant rights” advocates have pushed susceptible young parents into making this trip with children, they should be held accountable.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga arrested

Reason 3: To protect America

A third reason to push for a border wall becomes evident through examination of any of a number of articles describing the murder of Americans by illegal aliens.

Although these articles rarely accuse President Trump of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, these articles (especially those covering the death of a law enforcement official) drive home the need to protect our citizens from illegal alien lawbreakers.

Police arrest illegal immigrant suspected in California officer’s killing

One 28 December 2018 Reuters article presents the bare facts on the death of an officer and the apprehension of an illegal alien suspect.

A suspected illegal immigrant accused of shooting to death a California police officer was arrested on Friday after a two-day manhunt that President Donald Trump cited in his push for building a wall on the border with Mexico, officials said.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga, 32, a Mexican national, was arrested in Bakersfield, a city less than 200 miles (320 km) south of Newman where the officer was shot on Wednesday, Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said at a news conference.

The shooting and manhunt in California’s agricultural Central Valley entered the national debate over immigration, after Trump tweeted about it in his advocacy for a border wall and Christianson criticized California’s sanctuary law for immigrants.

Arriaga is accused of shooting to death Newman police corporal Sonil Singh after Singh pulled him over on suspicion of driving under the influence.

The suspect, who exchanged fire with Singh, has claimed to be involved with a criminal gang called the Sureños and was trying to escape to Mexico, Christianson said.

On Friday, heavily armed police officers surrounded the Bakersfield home where they believed Arriaga was hiding and he walked out with his hands up, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood told reporters.

(Read more at Reuters)

I have to ask this: if we could build a structure that would discourage (even turn back) one or two people who feel entitled to kill our police, why wouldn’t we?

America's collective pocket is being picked

Reason 4: To show even more that we will not be the continued object of financial abuse

One last reason listed in this post for supporting our building the border wall could be expanded into infinity — our need to rein in our habit of throwing cash at everything. In this case, America needs to stop throwing money at regimes that do nothing to further our interests.

In other words, we need to stop sending millions of dollars to countries that support our enemies or send their criminals or otherwise try to confound our systems.

Of course, if we are going to eliminate our international largess, why not pare down our bureaucratic waste? Why not eliminate federal departments that have not improved the overall performance of fields that they duplicate state and local efforts?

Trump threatens to cut aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador

According to a 28 December 2018 article in The Hill, talks about how Trump “threatened to cut foreign aid” (as if these funds were guaranteed and owed in perpetuity the American people to these foreign nations).

President Trump on Friday threatened to cut foreign aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, accusing the Central American countries of “doing nothing for the United States but taking our money.”

“Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money,” Trump tweeted.

“Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries – taking advantage of U.S. for years!”

This is not the first time that Trump has threatened stop providing foreign aid to countries he says are not doing enough to stop migrant caravans from forming. In October he said that “no more money or aid will be given to Honduras” if a migrant caravan was not stopped.

I want your ideas

Reason 5: To put flesh to other conservative ideas

Since I don’t pretend to have a monopoly on conservative thought, I am open to hearing from other conservative thinkers.

Please either post your ideas on why we should support the building of the wall in the comments or put a link in the comments to your post on the same topic.

Donald Trump’s Potential Judicial Appointments List


Steven Colloton and William Pryor

Considering all the times that I have spoken about my doubts regarding Trump, I felt it necessary to give all perspectives provided by several conservative sources.

Raves and Doubts of Trump expressed at the National Review

An 18 May 2016 article in the National Review not only lists its accolades of Trump’s potential Supreme Court appointees, but also provides some conservative perspective.

“I still don’t believe Trump is a conservative on domestic policy or responsible enough to lead our nation’s foreign policy. But he may be starting to unify the party with the right moves — if his list of potential appointments to the Supreme Court is any sign.

Everyone on the list is an outstanding legal conservative. All are young, smart, and committed. They would excel in any comparison with anyone whom Hillary Clinton would appoint to the Supreme Court. Several of the possibilities, such as Tom Lee of Utah, Allison Eid of Colorado, and David Stras of Minnesota, are former law clerks of Justice Clarence Thomas, while others, such as Steve Colloton of Iowa and Joan Larsen of Michigan, clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. They are joined by other well-known judicial conservatives, such as Diane Sykes, Don Willet, Ray Kethledge, and Bill Pryor.

These names are a Federalist Society all-star list of conservative jurisprudence. In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I count several of them as colleagues and friends. It is a good sign that, on one of a president’s most important decisions, Trump clearly turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for advice.

Interestingly, despite his anti-Bush rhetoric, Trump also owes a debt to the Bush administration: Many of the Trump possibilities were appointed by Bush or held positions in his administration. While the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies remain a source of debate for Republicans today, conservatives agree that most of Bush’s judicial appointments were stellar.

The other promising sign is that Trump’s advisers have looked beyond the lower federal courts to include potential nominees from state supreme courts. State supreme-court justices will have special sensitivity to the balance between federal power and state sovereignty. Many have run for office and already know what it is like to be attacked by the Left. They may prove more immune to the pressure from the New York-Washington liberal media/academic elite that has managed to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy and other Republican appointees.

It also doesn’t hurt that many of the possibilities are from battleground states in the coming November elections.

Trump’s team clearly respects the voters in Colorado, Minnesota, Utah, Michigan, and Texas, where he has named state supreme-court justices who have run for election. I am thrilled by this list. But that being said, I cannot trust Trump to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues, before, during, and after the primary campaign. How do we know he would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he were to win the Oval Office?”

Unlike Mr. Yoo, I have not spent enough time investigating the people on the list to tell whether they might be good additions to the bench; however, with the reviews provided by stalwart conservative organizations like the National Review, the Cato Institute, and Life News, these potential appointees must be good.

Therefore, as noted by Mr. Yoo, the real proof of this political pudding will occur (or not) when Trump can make the appointments.
 

Likewise, the Cato Institute Praises the List of Jurists, but Doubts Trump

In a similar 18 May article, the Cato Institute both lauded the list members and doubted Trump.

“We’ve been waiting for months for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to release his list of potential Supreme Court appointees. Today he actually came through on that promise. The would-be justices, in the (alphabetical) order in which they appear in the AP story that broke the news, are:

  • Judge Steve Colloton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Iowa)
  • Justice Allison Eid of the Colorado Supreme Court
  • Judge Raymond Gruender of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Missouri)
  • Judge Thomas Hardiman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Pennsylvania)
  • Judge Raymond Kethledge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Michigan)
  • Justice Joan Larsen of the Michigan Supreme Court
  • Justice Thomas Lee of the Utah Supreme Court
  • Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama)
  • Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court
  • Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Wisconsin)
  • Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court

This is an exceptional list. I’m not intimately familiar with all 11 judges and I don’t expect to agree with all of them on everything, but those whose jurisprudence I know well are excellent and the others have sterling reputations. These are not squishes or lightweights.

Also notable and commendable is that 5 of the 11 are state supreme court justices; not all judicial talent is already on the federal bench and the U.S. Supreme Court could use that sort of different perspective. I’ll forego quibbling over this or that pick – whom to drop for a top 10 or 5, whom to add to round out to 15, whether Senator Mike Lee would be better than his brother – but want to emphasize that these are among the very best judges who are young and smart enough to be on the Court.

I’m no fan of the Donald – and who knows whether he’d follow through if elected? – but he’s listening to the right advisers here. As I’ve previously written, Trump may not know originalism from origami, but there are better reasons to vote against him than judges.”

The Opinion of LifeNews

Finally, an 18 May 2016 LifeNews article presents a more focused perspective:

“Likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump today released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court judges he would appoint if he is elected president. In a statement accompanying the list, Trump said he would not appoint a liberal judge if elected.

When it comes to abortion, for pro-life voters there is no more important issue in the presidential election than who will control the appointment process for one or more Supreme Court judges who will determine the fate of abortion for decades. And on that point, earlier this month, Trump said he would appoint pro-life-friendly judges to the Supreme Court.

The list of potential nominees for the seat of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antnoin Saclia that Trump would conifer include  Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.

Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.

‘This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican party leadership,’ Trump’s campaign said.

In a statement, Trump said: ‘Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. The following list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.’

According to AP report, Trump said in March that pro-life voters don’t need to fear him picking a pro-abortion judge:

‘I am going to give a list of either five or 10 judges that I will pick, 100 percent pick, that I will put in for nomination. Because some of the people that are against me say: We don’t know if he’s going to pick the right judge. Supposing he picks a liberal judge or supposing he picks a pro-choice judge, Trump said at an event in Palm Beach, Florida.

He said then the list would include judges ‘that everybody respects, likes and totally admires’ — ‘great conservative judges, great intellects, the people that you want.’

‘I’m going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the United States Supreme Court, that I will appoint from the list,’ Trump said then. ‘I won’t go beyond the list, and I’m going to let people know. Because some people say maybe I’ll appoint a liberal judge. I’m not appointing a liberal judge.’

The initial reaction to the list from conservative circles was positive.

‘This list ought to be encouraging to anyone who prioritizes the rule of law, and I congratulate Mr. Trump on making a very significant policy statement about his desire to prioritize the future of the Supreme Court,’ said Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.

‘The names on this list would need to be vetted, obviously, but they all seem to share in common a record of putting the law and the Constitution ahead of their political preferences,’ Severino said.

Meanwhile, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List hailed the potential Supreme Court nominees in an email to LifeNews:

‘This is an exceptionally strong list of jurists with immense respect for our founding documents. We are encouraged by Mr. Trump’s repeated pledges to appoint constitutionalists, which stands in sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton’s position. There is no question Clinton would only nominate judges who stand in lock-step with the abortion lobby and would strike down even the most modest abortion limits.

‘Not only does Hillary Clinton support abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, she has said she wants to end the Hyde Amendment, longstanding, bipartisan legislation to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding elective abortion. Her proposal to end Hyde is so wildly unpopular, she would no doubt use the courts to impose her abortion ideology against the will of the majority of Americans.

‘The battle lines have been drawn and the two sides are now clear. SBA List is already working to make the case to pro-life voters that the Court matters and must be protected. This is not an election for pro-lifers to sit out.’

Hopefully, these articles will mark a new, strongly-conservative portion of Mr. Trump’s political career.

It Happened Again, Part 2: Christians Balance between Phariseeism and Right Judgement


Some Christians Judge the Trump Faux Pas at Liberty University

While speaking at Liberty University, Republican front-runner mistakenly referred to a particular verse in a non-standard way, as reported by Politico in an 18 January 2016 article.  Rather than saying “Second Corinthians 3:17,” he said “Two Corinthians 3:17.”  Of course, that was an obvious (but easily understandable) mistake for someone not accustomed to reading verses in an American, evangelical, public setting.

Immediately following that episode, some gasped at the faux pas and some offered automatic corrections, but Trump kept going.  During the totality of the speech, Trump spoke on Christian persecution in the Middle East, protecting ourselves by banding together in the US, combating economic trials in the US, and a number of other topics.  Nonetheless, the focus of many went to the slip-up, as shown by the tweets below.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

So, in light of these slips, what are the lessons learned about both Trump and his detractors?  Consider how this defines Trump in several ways:

For Trump, this defines his Past and Present

  1. This foible points toward one of several possible pasts of Trump:
    • He has not listened to teaching on any of the numbered books of the Bible.
    • He was never taught from those books (a very real possibility considering the gospel-less messages provided by many politically-correct churches).
    • Having marginally experienced those churches built more on socializing and psychological platitudes than on the tenets of the gospel, he thought that he could “wing it” when dealing with Christians.
    • He had a “senior moment” when he referenced the verse.
       

    To reword the first bullet, if he did go to church as he professed, maybe he did not listen (just as Obama did not hear the hate-filled rants of Jeremiah Wright) or he was presented with the gospel-less pablum common to many politically correct congregations.  Still, it does not seem that he bothered to be advised on a simple point for most Christians. Therefore, if anything, this points toward a need for some communication between Christians and the Trump camp.
       

  2. It has been well documented that Mr. Trump has held views that are outside of conservative and Christian orthodoxy.

    In respect to Trump’s differences with conservative principles, he has been an equal opportunity offender against both fiscal and social conservatives.  During previous attempts at office, Trump expressed support for bank bailouts and auto company bailouts that alienated most conservatives against both Bush and Obama.  Similarly, Trump supported Obama’s failed stimulus (passed when the President had Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate) — a stimulus that was estimated in 2010 to have cost $2.8 trillion.  Also among his problems with fiscal conservatives, Trump supported the use of eminent domain.  On the topic of Obamacare, Trump worked to pass the package and expressed support for nationalized healthcare.  Finally, before his conversion to the pro-life side, Trump supported partial birth abortion.  More recently, Trump initially suggested that his pro-abortion sister would make a good judicial appointee.

    Regarding Trump’s departures from orthodox Christianity, a number of examples come to the forefront.  As recent as 2015, Trump proclaimed that he was uncertain of having asked forgiveness from God.  However, in the light of his having sat through the sermons of Norman Vincent Peale (author of The Power of Positive Thinking and similar books), it seems more than possible that negative subjects like “sin,” “guilt,” and the need for repentance may have never been mentioned.

    Because getting people to change their mind on matters like limited government, abortion, and freedom of speech occupies center stage for most Christians, America’s Christians can both revel in Trump’s changes (but also remain vigilant against backsliding).

  3. At best, Trump is an opportunist who has tapped into the public’s anger.  Sometimes, the anger is against being forced to participate in events that violate our central principles.  Sometimes the anger rises from jobs lost to immigrants (both legal and illegal). 

For Christians, Some of the Trump Surge Points to Our Forgetfulness

In many ways, the Christians who are enamored of Trump’s persona may have forgotten:

  1. That we must trust God fully, not earthly politicians.

    It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes. (Psalm 118:8-9 NASB)

    Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. (Psalm 146:3 NASB)

    Thus says the Lord, “Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength, And whose heart turns away from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5 NASB)

    Considering how Obama campaigned at Saddleback Church and at least stated the central ideas of verses while he lied blatantly to get votes, it is amazing that many Christians so easily run past this red flag.  While we cannot know the heart of another (Psalm 129:1; Jeremiah 17:10; Luke 18:16; Romans 8:34; and other verses) and we should accept claims of change (Leviticus 19:17; Matthew 18:15; Luke 17:3; and other verses), we should act with wisdom (Colossians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Matthew 10:16) when selecting a leader who will be responsible for the protection of America.
     

  2. That, although we most often fill the lower ranks of this world, Christians have been made royalty (and, therefore, must protect those in our charge):

    And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.  (Revelation 1:6 KJV)

    And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10 KJV)

    It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink,  (Proverbs 31:4 NASB)

  3. That Christians are all priests:  appointed by God, given the job of leading others to truth, and under the direction of Christ as we represent the Church.

    (Y)ou also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5 NASB)

    Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. (Hebrews 8:1-2 NASB)

  4. Although I have heard “I am voting for a President, not a Sunday School teacher” more times than I want to admit, Christians and the rest of America are electing a leader who carries the amplified power of America’s military, press, and business world. Therefore, we must put Presidential candidates to a higher standard than what we demand of pastors and teachers. Therefore, let me present the standards for pastors:
    1. A pastor must be a one-woman man (Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:2) because this marriage illustrates Christ’s love for His church—His bride (Ephesians 5:22)
    2. A pastor must be the head of an obedient home (Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:4-5). If a man does not know how to manage his own family, he will not know how to take care of God’s church. Therefore, the pastor must be faithful to instruct his own family (Ephesians 6:4).
    3. The pastor must give faithfully to the church (Titus 1:7).
    4. The pastor must be humble (Titus 1:7).
    5. The pastor must be gentle, not a hot-head (Titus 1:7; 1 Timothy 3:3).
    6. The pastor must be self-controlled (Titus 1:7; 1 Timothy 3:3).
    7. A pastor must focus on the good of his followers and not on greedy gain (Titus 1:7; 1 Timothy 3:3; 1 Peter 5:3).
    8. A pastor must not abuse his power, but lead by example (1 Peter 5:3).