Friday, August 25, 2017

Identity Politics Fouls American Melting Pot

Given the range of human behavior and perception, it's a social and romantic myth that “opposites attract.” In fact, it's likely a subconscious tendency for people to associate with others based upon superficial commonalities like ethnicity. All value judgments aside, its root is likely an ancient survival instinct. (Something that has nothing to do with hate or racial discrimination.)

This impulse emerges from one's family unit, building outward to larger circles of shared interests via common language and cultural experiences. In turn, these “specialized” factions form the matrix of vibrant communities from the local to the state level and beyond.

Still, there always remains some psychological tension between the individual desire for independence—versus any group's desire for uniformity. However, even in the case of identical twins, diversity is still seen in distinctive personalities. Thus, achieving a balance between all of these forces—where difference is as respected as sameness is embraced—is the foundation of any healthy and prosperous society.

In the modern age, freedom of thought, lifestyle and religious expression defines the West. Specifically, this is why America is the envy of the world: why people from distant shores—and diverse backgrounds—flock to live here. Yet, today, the vital mechanism that makes all of this work is under constant attack by Democrats' progressivism. Their words imply: 'come to the U.S. and impose your origin country's values even when they diametrically oppose our traditions'. Hence, Garrett Hardin, Ph.D. (1915 - 2003), ecologist and social scientist, cautions:

“Diversity within a nation destroys unity and leads to civil wars. Immigration, a benefit during the youth of a nation, can act as a disease in its mature state. Too much internal diversity in large nations has led to violence and disintegration. We are now in the process of destabilizing our own country. The magic words of destabilizers are ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’.”

Positive differences—same as new ideas—remain wonderful, and necessary things. Indeed, both add “spice” to any human interaction or evolving relationship. But, identity politics preys on those dissimilarities, exploits them for the ruling class's self-centered political ends. So, liberals subtly promote their Big Lie of the “bad American”: the dominant culture (read: white folks) perpetually victimizes minority groups because of their differing external appearance. Scurrilously, Democrats imply a deep-seated intolerance in our daily lives that does not exist. To add insult to injury, they pretend that those they claim to champion are somehow helpless or inferior. In reality, anyone can realize the American Dream with hard work, and a little luck.

Capitalism is the basis of America's economic strength—embodied by the good, but often stylistically mercurial President Trump. For context, his attitude of U.S. victory contradicts that of another recent political upstart: socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Unlike Trump's motto of “America First”—based upon private sector investment and expansion—Sanders peddles big government intrusion as the “solution” to society's woes. In retrospect, as a harbinger of failure, was it any surprise that Bernie was swept into office during the 110th session of Congress: when polarizing Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became House Speaker, and the legislature fell under total Democratic control?

Since that time, what of the nation's metastasizing debt—nearing 20 trillion under liberals' (and RINOs') inept ministrations? Does any clear-thinking person still buy the Washington swamp's narratives? For one, President Ronald Reagan certainly didn't. Back on August 12, 1986 he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Absurdly, “helpful” progressives act as if all non-whites have a built-in ax to grind because of their minority status. So, if something goes wrong for them, fault is always “elsewhere”. In fact, identity politics only gains traction because liberals, via the MSM, manipulate the low-information voter into believing he or she is aggrieved. As a case and point, if this is not so, why are they so busy fracturing the country over mute and harmless Confederate statues—otherwise completely ignored for generations?

Democrats' fiery rhetoric is stirring America's melting pot to the boiling point. Most eloquently, Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times recently wrote:

“Now we’re embroiled in domestic wars of a different kind and the younger generations challenge democracy from within, even marching against free speech, making the protection of the fragile First Amendment ever more difficult.”

When free speech is repressed—as it is now by unhinged leftist mobs—an angry and frustrated environment encourages the generalized use of fists rather than words. Remember, these purveyors of alienation want chaos, open borders, lawlessness, and most of all, tribalism. What's absolutely alien to them is the American motto e pluribus unum: out of many, one. The underlying reason for all of their destructive vulcanization is simple: a happy electorate votes for Republicans.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Blaming Others for Dastardly Deeds

Capitol Hill displays 100 luminaries in Statuary Hall: two donated from every state in the nation. Per The Washington Times, more than 25 of these silent sentinels—Confederate politicians and/or soldiers; others merely slaveholders or segregationists—from a bygone era have come under public assault by polarizing progressives. Notably, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently said:

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country.”

Recall, Ms. Pelosi is a 30-year veteran of the House of Representatives. Has she forgotten she was in charge of that institution not so long ago? As the 52nd Speaker of the House, why didn't she have the “offensive” Confederate figures populating her workplace removed? Wasn't four years—from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011—enough time to purge the chamber of her “undesirables”?

Correspondingly, Democrats had total control of the U.S. Senate for four months. A 60-member filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. For context, in that small window there was ample time for them to pass Obamacare. Yet, on this matter, why were Democrats as mute and inactive then as the statues they now so vehemently object to?

A shame unmentioned by anyone—but known by everyone—is an open historical secret. Ms. Pelosi's violent bigots were her own political forebearers: antebellum Democrats. If those disreputable Southerners were not pro-slavery, why did they start the Civil War? Did they not also create the Ku Klux Klan to resist liberating Republicans, and intimidate their supporters? Furthermore, weren't chastened Democrats still managing things on the ground after the Reconstruction in 1877? Did they not establish segregationist Jim Crow laws (as antithetical to Republicans as slavery) that finally went out of favor at the beginning of the civil rights movement of 1950?

Certainly a cruel record they would like the informed to forget. Fortunately, conservatives—aptly represented by the GOP's symbol of the elephant—have long memories. What's understood is that liberals, regardless of the passage of time, have always been rabble-rousing troublemakers. Specifically, as they evaluate every circumstance through the superficial prism of race—aren't they as identity obsessed, and polarizing, as their political ancestors?

Each generation presents a clear and unmistakable threat to traditional American values. Therefore, in function, obstructionist Democrats (read: anti-Trump proponents) are simply the latest version of anti-Union Confederates. As an example, wasn't West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd—known as the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK—also a lifelong Democrat? In that regard, it's interesting to note that Ms. Pelosi worked side by side with this former Klansman for 23 years. Thus, for decades, she was apparently untroubled by Mr. Byrd's outspoken embodiment of racial prejudice. Why then should inanimate Confederate statues now provoke discomfort for her?

What hasn't bothered her in more than a quarter of a century suddenly does so on August 17, 2017 when she proclaimed:

“The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible. If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.”

So, solely on her say-so—via Democratic voodoo (one imagines some magical form of osmosis she has been immune to during her lengthy Congressional career)—Republicans have secretly been infected by pro-KKK attitudes? Specifically, Republicans should be condemned for not doing what she never has—and brought up for the first time last week? This Democratic leader has certainly mastered the art of hypocrisy!

In truth, her ridiculous assertion contradicts the GOP's founding principle of abolitionism! From its inception in 1854, Republicans have repeatedly championed equal rights for all. Thus, only dupes would heed this Johnny-come-lately to anti-Confederacy sentiment. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi's hollow claim to value honor is yet another polarizing stunt. It's neither Republicans nor Confederate statues that's contemptible here!

In light of all their dreadful history, it's easy to see why progressives will never acknowledge these facts. As with their antecedents forming the KKK, today's Democrats encourage their lawless followers to riot and terrorize. Once again, Pelosi's fiery rhetoric—based upon utter falsehoods—foments insurgency:

“I am deeply alarmed by the hateful and dangerous nature of the event, its timing so soon after the horrors in Charlottesville, and the serious questions over whether the National Park Service is at all equipped to ensure public safety during a white supremacist rally.”

Pelosi's “dangerous” assembly is a multicultural free speech rally by Patriot Prayer next Saturday at San Francisco's Crissy Field. Since when is a gathering to express mainstream American tolerance something “hateful”?

In any case, what Democrats care about here is cleansing the American landscape of physical mementos of their vile political past. Hence, their Confederate counterparts must go. In practice, when that occurs, progressives ensure the innocent right wing is blamed for it; as well as any associated street violence (perpetrated by their fascist thugs).

With the abetting MSM media in tow, Democrats' propaganda is constantly reinforced. Their message is wrongly perceived by the low-information citizen as gospel. To subsist, responsibility-phobic Democrats habitually scapegoat others (read: “Trump Derangement Syndrome”). Thus, liberals' latest fixation on imaginary Confederate ghosts is yet another subject-changing distraction from their own leftist tyranny.

In the final analysis, how devious is Nancy Pelosi's strategy: demonizing the defenseless dead while simultaneously defaming the reputations of Republicans as de facto 21st century collaborators! Yet, her wickedly revisionist narrative fails to hide the timeless cultural sins of her corrupt political party.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, August 21, 2017

What Triggers the Mob

How can the removal (or destruction) of any external object purge the human psyche of a disgraceful mind-set like racism?

Recall that all history is a series of discrete events locked in time: unchanging and unalterable. Therefore, today's revisionist fervor directed at America's antebellum past is misguided. Like amber dating back 100 million years to the mid-Cretaceous period (proving Tyrannosaurus rex had bird-like feathers), would it be right to destroy a specimen simply because the subject could evoke some existential human dread of prehistoric monsters? An absurd example that makes an important point: Confederate statuary, like dinosaur bones, only demonstrate the existence of a thing. Yet, meaning is inherently fluid: applied in the now by the living.

To eradicate historical artifacts in the name of progressives' “progress” is jackbooted fascism. It's the real-life manifestation of George Orwell's “1984”. Specifically, Big Brother is the identity politics-obsessed Democratic Party. Their creature is the violently inflamed street mob: faceless, mindless and everywhere. One prominent example is Black Lives Matter who on August 29, 2015 publicly proclaimed, “Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” On CNN, this lawless group was praised by Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson who said Wednesday, “The people that we claim, Black Lives Matter, the antifa movement, and so on, are interested in preserving the fabric of America.” So, exactly how does a cop-killing advocacy group “preserve” American society?

Democrats demonize today’s law enforcement officers—simply for wearing a uniform (and perhaps carrying a gun)—as indiscriminately as long-dead American icons. Telling examples are found in the murder capital of Chicago. Instead of spotlighting the skyrocketing death toll, the aggrieved and clueless like Bishop James Dukes, pastor of the Liberation Christian Center, has asked the mayor's office to remove monuments to two U.S. presidents including Founding Father George Washington. Even worse, a Chicagoean malcontent has vandalized a giant bust of Abraham Lincoln—our slavery-abolishing 16th president—with a flammable spray. Thusly, President Trump's Thursday Tweet is prescient, “Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish.” What's foolish is in the name of “tolerance”, the intolerant constantly attack the undeserving, then as now, as “racist” bogeymen.

Anti-American anarchists populating the left thrive by causing chaos and disruption. Their whack-a-mole strategy is based on a fundamental flaw of reasoning: that the inanimate—especially what they label triggering symbols—can be blamed for flawed human choices that constantly mold society. Hence, their fascist impulses to prohibit what's objectionable only to them: guns, cops or Confederate figures. Yet, none of these groupings automatically cause problems. In truth, almost anything physical can be weaponized. For instance, would Virginia be wise to ban all cars because one crazed individual, James Alex Fields Jr., 20, killed Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer, 32, with his silver Dodge Challenger?

What plagues our culture are Democrats who exploit various tragedies for their own divisive political ends. They don't see the evolved reality of the melting pot that is 21st century America. For them and their followers, individual responsibility is nonexistent. Instead, liberals promote victimhood narratives—eagerly embraced by those easily manipulated by fictional offenses—to incite actual violence.

Simply as a record, history deserves to be protected because all men are fallible, and wrongdoers exist in every age. The mistake our generation is making is focusing on them instead of their hateful modern-day equivalents.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Clinton Caused Korean Crisis

If David Keene's column (“Making the best of a bad nuclear hand, The Washington Times, 8/15/17) on North Korea was analogous to a play, it would focus on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while disregarding the story's lead, Hamlet. Indeed, the mysterious figure central to today's Asian travesty—and wholly unmentioned—is Bill Clinton, circa 1994. Recall some 23 years ago, Slick Willie entered into a $4 billion agreement for U.S. aid to Kim Jong Il's regime. The stated goal then was to “end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” Given the threat now presented by Kim Jong-un: whoops!

Isn't it important to mention the person most directly responsible for getting America into this international quagmire?

Instead, Mr. Keene focuses on trivial players: Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser and U.N. ambassador. For his part, Mr. Ellison is the former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. For context, at a town hall meeting in Jensen Beach, FL, ex-congressman Allen West said on April 10, 2012:

“I believe about 78 to 81 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Given Ellison's murky background—whom Mr. Keene pegs as a fool—why quote him? Likewise, speaking of untrustworthy Democratic mouthpieces, is Susan Rice. Remember Benghazi and “Sunday Susan's” multiple claims that the consulate attack was the result of an internet video. Why waste time on those with zero credibility, as she, while letting another politician surnamed Clinton go scot-free?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog  

Monday, August 14, 2017

Gifting Nukes to North Korea, Iran

In nature, typical human beings are smart enough not to feed the gators. Wisely, neither do they tangle with grizzly bears. Historically, why then do Democratic presidents consistently subsidize, and embolden, America's geopolitical foes? A prime example is Bill Clinton's public capitulation to one back on October 18, 1994:

“This agreement [$4 billion in U.S. energy aid] will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective—an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”

In light of the present reality there: whoops!

Recall that this poll-obsessed president—same as the last occupant of the White House—mastered the promotion of superficial political narratives. Stated plainly, the optics of how something can be politically spun: without any thought to how dire something actually is, or may turn out in the long term to be. Facilitated by Bill Clinton, what greater example could there be than North Korea? Today, a totalitarian regime has him to thank for reportedly passing the nuclear threshold.

Beyond any consideration, Democrats are always about preserving their party's influence via the next election cycle. Back then, in the middle of his first term, Mr. Clinton badly needed a talking point. An illusory “victory” he could point to to stave off what shortly became 1994's Republican Revolution: a GOP takeover of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Yet, at the time, Clinton's machinations were even acknowledged by the partisan New York Times:

“The accord struck in Geneva gave the President a chance to proclaim a major foreign policy success just weeks before the midterm election. But Asian diplomats pointed out today that it also placed the United States in the odd position of bolstering the political capital of a man it has regularly denounced as a terrorist, a supplier of missile technology to Iran and a dictator: Kim Jong Il.” 

Ah, the difference 23 years makes.

In retrospect, Kim Jong Il (Kim Jong-un's father) had Bill Clinton's yellow cake and ate it too. Naturally, by cake, I refer to de facto U.S. financing of North Korea fledgling nuclear weapons program. Over the decade that U.S. billions flowed to Pyongyang, isn't it likely that some of that American cash was misappropriated to acquire uranium, and develop military technology like ballistic missiles?

As the Clinton administration had declared Kim Jong-un's father a terrorist, why would they foolhardily enter into an agreement with someone obviously so dangerous and untrustworthy? Remember, the former Arkansas governor had no international experience. His shortsighted political “fix” garnered some momentary positive press, but achieved nothing meaningful. In the House of Representatives, a 54-seat swing put Republicans in charge for the first time since 1952. Likewise, an 8-seat gain gave the GOP control of the Senate held previously in 1986. As is so typical in modern-day politics, problems escalate by being kicked farther down the road to someone else, and an uncertain future.

Then, as now, Republicans hold the reins of power in Congress and the White House. Given the contentious political landscape—and disturbing international developments—a mixed blessing, at best. What it really means is that the GOP—and Donald Trump, in particular—is left holding the bag for decades of liberals' reckless policy decisions. Idiotic choices exemplified by thoughtless neophytes like Bill Clinton in the 90s, and repeated by Barack Obama during his administration. Besides Obama's coddling North Korea for eight years, what of his adding almost 10 trillion added to the nation's debt; ISIS's full flowering under his watch; the healthcare debacle that is Obamacare; and the yet-to-be realized Damocles sword that's his disastrous Iranian “deal”. Wrongly maligned by the beltway establishments of both parties, how “lucky” for Mr. Trump to also potentially contend with an upcoming nuclear threat from Middle Eastern Ayatollahs!

In essence, isn't Bill Clinton's North Korea misadventure equivalent to Barack Obama's and Iran? Once again, the pretext of a “Democratic victory lap” on the international stage was the unhinged rationale for misappropriating American resources to bankroll the largest state-sponsor of terrorism: $33.6 billion! As the clock rapidly expires, does any clear thinking person truly believe that Iranian leaders are not actively following North Korea's lead?

To that end, in the modern era, Democratic presidents tend to drag America into armed conflicts (or as close to them as possible). As examples, there's no doubt that Democrats were in the White House during the three big “defensive” wars of the 20th century: the two World Wars and Korea. Furthermore, Democrats started and escalating the widely unpopular Vietnam War. In Asia, so much American blood and treasure needless lost! If history repeats itself there, his Democratic predecessors, not Trump, overwhelmingly bear responsibility.

In the interest of full disclosure, there are two notable exceptions where contemporary Republican presidents have initiated war. First, was Bill Clinton's minor inheritance of the military intervention in Somalia ordered by George H. W. Bush. Second, and of far greater significance, was Mr. Obama's inheritance of the Iraq War from George W. Bush. Yet, an important mitigating factor shows, once again, that a Democrat's hands are central to triggering that American tragedy. This time it was Bill Clinton's chose not to act against Osama bin Laden—the mastermind of the 9/11 attack—that enabled the deadly domino effect. As Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) articulated in the GOP debate on February 13, 2016:

“The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn’t kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him [four chances per the 9/11 report].”

For all of the above, if not for failed Democratic presidents would Mr. Trump be in such an unenviable position overseas? Thus, his fiery rhetoric of “fire and fury” is singularly appropriate under these circumstances. For insight into the president's mentality, his 1990 book, “Trump: Surviving at the Top,” states:

“Americans have become so accustomed to professional politicians that when they are faced with a strong personality—a man or woman of action—they are afraid, or at least very wary … When we fear leaders of great passion, though, we often forget that the other side fears them, too.”

Such a mind-set undoubtedly scares anti-Trump pundits populating the MSM media, but it sends an unmistakable, Reaganesque message of strength and resolve. Trouble-making North Korea—and other anti-American despots—would be wise to listen. For real change has arrived: this time a pro-America grizzly is being provoked. Regardless of the outcome, that will make all of the difference. No longer does a wishy-washy Clinton, or a progressive apologist, occupy the Oval Office.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

SF Pays Illegal To Stay

A threatened lawsuit from illegal Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, 33, for “wrongful arrest” has compelled local officials to pay him $190,000! This appalling decision gives the words of acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas D. Homan, deeper resonance:

“Sanctuary cities, in my opinion, are un-American. … They're a sanctuary city, they're proud of it.”

Ah, San Francisco, represented by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Recall, her stomping grounds were made infamous by the July 1, 2015 slaying of 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Walking along Pier 14 with her father, Ms. Steinle was struck in the back by a ricocheting bullet from a stolen gun in the hands of an illegal, Juan Francisco López-Sánchez: a felon with 7 convictions and 5 deportations. López-Sánchez had been in the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff on drug charges when ICE issued a detainer for him. Instead of turning him over as federal law demanded, this convicted criminal was set free—and an innocent lost her life.

Over two years later, things have evolved from the tragic to the farcical.

Today, San Francisco is apparently so “proud” of their ongoing sanctuary status, they're paying Señor Figueroa-Zarceno six figures for not living up to their federal law-violating “principles”! For context, back in December 2015, Figueroa-Zarceno informed police about his stolen vehicle. That caused them to become aware of his DUI conviction and an order for deportation to his home country of El Salvador. Reporting the theft of his vehicle ironically led to his arrest and two month incarceration. Yet, given San Francisco’s sanctuary policies, this outcome was illegal. Per the 1989 “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance):

“City employees [are prohibited] from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.”

Hence, for complying with federal law—that importantly supersedes local statutes—San Francisco obliged itself to pay Figueroa-Zarceno from the taxpayer till. What's more absurd: that this two-faced “victim” claims “what happened to [him] was very unfair and it was an injustice,” or cutting him a large government check for his “inconvenience”? Indeed, this outrageous settlement illustrates the schizophrenic nature of sanctuary policies for law enforcement. Which do they honor? The conflicting city policy or the federal mandate? Siding with the former means releasing often violent offenders or risking similar payouts.

Hypocritical Democrats falsely justify sanctuary cities by advocating the straw man argument of “tolerance and multiculturalism”. In truth, Democrats promote these lawless enclaves—populated by illegals and criminals—precisely because these same illegitimate groups overwhelmingly support them politically! As a case and point, is California Political Review's “Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote”. Tellingly, 80% of noncitizens back Democrats. Therefore, progressives shield these lawbreaking foreigners because their political prospects are tied to them.

For this safely ensconced ruling elite, what do they care about perpetuating a dangerous environment? Another Democratic-run urban jungle—like America's murder capital, Chicago—leaps to mind. Former Obama flunky Rahm Emanuel parrots, “We want you to come to Chicago if you believe in the American dream.” What of the unrealized dreams of the 423 fatalities—recorded there in 2017, so far—Mister Mayor? What of this unending nightmare Democrats universally condone, and encourage? Undocumented aliens hide in plain sight while citizens cower from shadowy, un-American threats to life and limb.

This discrepancy is most clearly seen in San Francisco's disbursement of money to “injured” parties. While illegal Figueroa-Zarceno will be quickly paid for his trouble, last January U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero dismissed the wrongful death suit filed against San Francisco, and then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, by Kate Steinle's family. (The lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management—the source of the López-Sánchez's stolen firearm from an agent's car—is proceeding.) In essence, city leaders have negated a citizen's constitutional rights, Kate's, while championing the “rights” of a foreign squatter? What an Orwellian result! In the final analysis, which group demonstrates more contempt for America? Liberals who run San Francisco or illegals who inhabit it?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, August 4, 2017

The Hidden Costs of Illegals

The distinction between legal immigration and illegal migration makes all the difference in the world. At issue is the American impulse to extend freedom, counterbalanced by the undocumented aliens' desire to usurp it. Thus, to consider what liberty means to us, we must directly reference an inspirational source:

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome ...
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

– From “The New Colossus” (1883) by 19th century American poet Emma Lazarus

Based upon the above description, is it any wonder a more famous part of this sonnet—referring to “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free”—has been inscribed on a bronze plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty?

Inscribed since 1903 upon that monument, this message conveys a uniquely American spirit. It's defined by humanitarianism and economic generosity. In cultural terms, it has translated into our “melting pot” philosophy: a warm embrace of foreign-born citizens. Speaking of the statuesque and the great is our own current first lady, Melania Trump, born in Slovenia (formerly Yugoslavia). For any newcomer, who's a better symbol of the American Dream than she?

To that end, the U.S. permits more legal immigration than any other country in the world. That accounts for about 20% of the world’s migrants. For context, based upon available 2015 figures from Pew Research Center, some 43.2 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country. Add to that 277.7 born on native soil, and we arrive at 320.9 million: America's populace for that year. Given that the world's population then was approximately 7.2 billion, that means there's a 1 in 26 chance of being born stateside. Hence, not really good odds for the inhabitants of economically challenged Third World countries!

Yet, Liberty's “golden door” was never intended to be an open border policy. As a metaphor, that would be like throwing one's home open, at any time, to perfect strangers—allowing said “guests” to permanently reside—and expecting positive results. Compounding that disturbing dynamic is the general caliber of these criminal interlopers. For starters, they have already violated U.S. immigration law. Also working against them are cultural barriers, usually a lack education and specifically, English language proficiency. Even worse is an inability to find gainful employment legitimately. Under these obviously adverse conditions, is it any surprise that so many turn to crime to survive?

A recent government count of incarcerated aliens bears this out. As of June 24, 22% of the U.S. prison population, or 42,000, are in federal prisons. Per the Prisons Bureau, the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates (exemplified by Fiscal Year 2015) was $31,977.65. (Per inmate, per day, that's $87.61—or roughly 1.3 billion dollars per year!) Recall, per Social Security, the typical employee made $48,098.63 that year. So, astonishingly, housing a criminal cost 66% of what that average U.S. employee earned! And that is just the tip of the fiscal morass perpetrated by this shadowy underclass of 11 million squatters.

Globally, per the Washington Times, a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds they will drain nearly $750 billion from U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes. That's six times the cost of mass deportations. However, the cost is more than strictly economic. As these aliens predominantly congregate in failed Democratic-controlled urban centers, like Chicago, San Francisco and Portland, is it any surprise that these sanctuary cities are hotbeds for criminality inflicted against the law-abiding? Tragically, that's seen most graphically in a one-man crime wave that is Mexican Sergio Jose Martinez, 31. Reportedly deported 20 times for progressively more serious offenses ranging from drug possession and burglary to auto theft and hit and run, he's currently accused of raping a 65-year-old Oregon woman as well as the same-day attempted kidnapping of a 24-year-old female while wielding a knife. If released again, will he cause the death of some innocent like Kate Steinle?

Meanwhile, House Bill 3464—a bill to expand Oregon's sanctuary status with no Republican support—sits on beleaguered Governor Kate Brown's desk. Specifically, the measure prohibits state and local agencies from sharing information with federal authorities, or inquiring about a person's immigration status except as required by state and federal law. The high profile brutalization of one, and the threat of bodily harm to another, has galvanized state Republicans. Senate Minority Whip Dennis Linthicum said:

“[Sanctuary states] excuse lawless behavior and perpetuate criminal, rape and gang cultures. Every Oregonian should be outraged to see criminals let loose into the streets. Career Democrats shouldn’t sacrifice Oregonians’ safety on the altar of their extreme political agenda.”

Unfortunately, as state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Governor Brown spearheaded this harebrained effort, it seems highly unlikely that mounting political pressure will suddenly compel a veto. Therefore, how are these Democratic leaders not indirectly complicit in Martinez's crimes? In any case, shouldn't public safety always trump their politically correct social engineering? Indeed, to be effective, our democracy requires acclimation to agreed upon laws, a common language, and basic standards of civilized conduct.

At every level of community—from the local to the state to the national—the United States is individually and collectively owned, and financed, by her citizens. Would progressive politicians host and subsidize the uninvited and the violent in their personal dwellings? Therefore, how is it not insanity for them to advocate free rein for the unvetted and the lawbreaking within America's homeland? In any case, the waste of U.S. resources to mitigate the fallout from Democrats' dytopian schemes is appalling. Still, at least that exorbitant expense is measurable. What isn't is the domino effect of illegals' criminality: the invisible human cost exacted by victims' anguish and suffering. That price—which liberals completely ignore—is incalculable.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog