Who You Gonna Believe?
Well, well, well! The leopard CAN change its spots, after all. It seems that Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and liberals are, all of a sudden, playing a new tune.
Not long ago, they were strident advocates of open boarders and breakneck immigration. Skeptics, like myself, saw poorly camouflaged ulterior motives in their “magnanimous altruism”. They looked forward to troves of future naturalized staunchly Democratic Party voters that would replace the middle class and working class voters that the Democrats have been hemorrhaging of late. Liberals mouthpieces spoke in platitudes about our “duty” to “shelter the oppressed”, and so on. Magically, thousands of economic migrants instantly became “asylum seekers”. Liberals then shamelessly used photographs of crying Latino children and videos of photogenic “les miserables” to tug at America’s collective heart strings. And America “bought it”, for a while.
But, now, the Democrats appear to have had a change of heart. Hillary Clinton, speaking in Europe last week, indicated the Germany’s policy of admitting nearly a million migrants in just one year’s time, might, just might, have been a “mistake”.
Back home, Chuck Schumer indicated, for the first time, that, maybe he might, just might, consider funding the “wall” in exchange for favorable legislation pertaining to DACA immigrants.
So, what’s going on here? Did the liberals suddenly realize that vetting immigrant candidates is an essential part of any sane immigration policy? Did they acknowledge that weeding out criminals and malcontents is a necessary part of any such rational policy? Did they come to understand that not all cultures are readily miscible, and some groups have little to no potential for assimilation? Did it dawn on them that money spent to provide the influx of uneducated and even illiterate migrants welfare benifits would be better spent on providing for our noble veterans, the education of our own children, the feeding of our own hungry citizens, and the taking care of our own impoverished countrymen?
No, I’m afraid that no such realizations are the explanation for change of in the liberal agenda. None of the above considerations, I’d wager, mean a thing to them. So, what gives? Well, I am betting, ladies and gentlemen, that, dollars to donuts, the DNC sneakily commissioned private pollsters to “take the pulse” of their core constituency. Lo and behold, their pollsters must have told them that main stream America DOES NOT WANT OPEN BORDERS AND UNCHECKED IMMIGRATION.
Apparently, videos of rock and bottle throwing migrants did not appeal to the majority of Americans. Even though efforts were made by major media to keep “concerning” videos of such mayhem away from the public’s eye, apparently enough video content got through so as to prompt a national “change of heart”. Further, Americans seem to have become a bit squeamish about taking in large numbers of people with tuberculosis, hepatitis, venereal disease and AIDS. Americans also became alarmed at the hardened criminals, including murderers, that ICE agents were able to identify (much to the surprise of the criminals) and apprehend at the border.
So, as a result of the changing attitudes of the American public, liberals “saw the light” and now appear to have changed their platform. They claim, now, that they are NOT in favor of open borders and will no longer countenance runaway immigration either. It’s about time, isn’t it?
But, what to make of their nascent claims? Are they sincere? As a generality, there are really just two scenarios that apply to such poll directed politicking.
The first scenario, which I’ll call “optimist”, goes like this: The liberals, in their quest for electoral victory, canvas the polity to find out what policies the electorate wants. They then use those policies in their campaigns, get elected, and go on to enact those policies, thereby fulfilling the will of the people.
The second scenario, which I’ll call “skeptical”, goes like this: liberals canvas the polity to find what policies they’ll need to espouse to get themselves elected. They then use those policies in their campaigns, get elected, at which time they do WHAT EVER THEY PLEASE.
So, dear readers, in the case at hand, which scenario do you find the most plausible?… Ten seconds!…. Yep!… “Door number two!”
Now, it is probably true that politicians of ALL stripes follow scenario number two now and again. Dishonesty knows no one political party. I would posit, however, that liberal pols are likely to be the repeat offenders. People of their mindset believe, deep in their souls, that only THEY are right. Consequently, they feel that political lying should not be considered a flaw for them, but, rather, a strategy! It’s okay for THEM to lie, you see, because they are on the side of righteousness. (Thanks LRM). This strategy of political deception on the part of the left has a long and storied history. It was even codified in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, a book which, incidentally, the author has dedicated to “Lucifer”! (No lie).
So political deception is very much a part of liberal “theory”. But, what about practice?… Yep!… It’s there too! A few random examples:
Recall that just a decade ago, Barack Obama ardently campaigned as a “uniter”. Once elected, however, he showed that he had no interest what-so-ever in uniting anybody, and then went on to be the most divisive President in American history.
Recently, newly elected Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar deliberately concealed her shocking views on both Sharia law and Israel (strongly pro for the first, and strongly against for the latter) during her campaign because those views would have been, in her words: “unhelpful”!… UNHELPFUL?… Really?…. Voters should be deceived about important policy positions in order to improve the chances that you are elected, at which time you’ll then be able to act on your secretive inclinations?… My, my!
Next, despite numerous campaign statements by Bill Clinton saying “I am not pro abortion”, once elected, he went on to appoint two strongly pro abortion Supreme Court Justices (Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) and a strongly pro abortion Attorney General (Janet Reno). He then went on to abolish many state based limitations on abortion. “Pants on Fire!”
My personal favorite political deception, however, has got to be Barack Obama’s campaign pledge that his health care funding overhaul would allow citizens to retain their insurance plans. Remember, “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period”.? He campaigned on this slogan knowing full well that his policies would close down most if not all existing insurance plans, and would do so regardless of whether people liked them or not. A bold faced lie, right from the start. That one’s got to take the cake.
The random examples discussed above are only a small sampling and are offered only for the sake of argument. I’m sure the interested reader can come up with dozens more.
So, when Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer tell you that they are going to be tough on immigration, which scenario, ladies and gentlemen, do you think will pan out?… In short, “who you gonna believe”?… I thought so.