Dems’ narratives that turn complex issues into simplistic ones drive me crazy.
Part 1 – Deportation and Ivy League Antisemitism
You know what drives me even crazier? That people continue to accept their premises, using them to resolve the serious issues facing us. We should know better by now but sadly the Dems are experts on how to frame issues. Frequently, they turn these issues into either-or choices. Take deportation and Ivy League antisemitism. If you are for deportation, you are not for due process. If you are against the virulent antisemitic Ivy League protestors, you are against free speech. However, these issues are not quite that simple.
In the case of deportation, they have left out the complete picture, namely, that we are talking about illegals invading our country, and yes, it is an invasion. The Tren de Argua labels their criminal enterprise - Invasión. What is the English equivalent for that word? Invasión means invasion. If they confiscate personal property by invading it. Yeah, it’s an invasion. That is their MO.
In the case of the Ivy League Hamas sympathizers and supporters, their narrative is totally wrong. Calling for the genocide of the Jewish race and state has nothing to do with free speech.
Why do the Dems do this? To control the discussion and how we address the problem. Therefore, it is important for us to get these issues right. If we don’t, their narratives become the basis for policy on these two issues. By the way, that’s nothing new. Think Roe v. Wade.
So, I want to point out of few truths obfuscated or left out of the narratives. Bear in mind, however, that my post is not a thorough discussion. There are many more salient points. Something I discovered as I proofread my post and verified facts. Perhaps at a later date, I can talk about those.
Narrative #1 - Trump’s mass deportations deny illegal crimminal aliens due process.
According to the Dems narrative, if you support his deportations, you are against upholding the rule of law. Never mind that the Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President power to deport and Article 4, Section 4 gives them power to “proect each of [the States] against invasion. And never mind that other presidents have deported far more illegals than he has. Barack Obama was known as the “Deporter-in-Chief.”
The Dems avoid those articles in their narrative. In doing so, they reduce the deportation issue to simply being about due process. It is not. If anyone brings up Trump’s Constitutional power, they will accuse them of being against due process for all. No, they are the ones sidestepping, or rather ignoring, the Constitution. So, let’s put due process in context. Stephen Miller clarified the issue best. So, I’ll just quote him.
So, due process and deportation of illegals, specifically criminals, are not linked; rather, they are separate issues. The former speaks to the right of citizens to defend themselves against their own government. The latter speaks to the removal of foreigners who violated our laws by sneaking into our country illegally. Tren de Aragua gang members are not citizens of the U.S. Their allegiance is not to the laws of this country. That holds true for MS-13 gang members as well. Tren de Argua, again, by their own admission, are executing an invasión into our country.
Why frame the narrative this way? They know that most Americans believe in due process for everyone. They leverage our genuine desire for fair play, knowing full well that most of us don’t understand its constitutional basis. They know that few people understand or know how it’s laid out in the Constitution or know about the president’s power to deport. Nor do they remember that past presidents deported many more illegals than Trump.
Even the Supreme Court apparently fell for their narrative. Last week, I saw that the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump using the Alien Enemy’s act. Disappointing. In doing so, they went against the Constitution which grants him that right. They have overstepped their own authority, essentially putting themselves above the Constitution. They are not the final authority. The Constitution is. Additionally, they missed the fact that these gangs again by their own admission are invaders. But they have been known to be wrong and to change their minds. Think Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Narrative #2 – Ivy League “antisemitic and anti-Israel” protests are about free speech.
Calling for the genocide of an ethnic group has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with genocide, which by the way is not only against our laws but against international law. Horrifically, that isn’t stopping Columbia and other private universities from doubling down on the false narrative that the First Amendment protects their speech.
Free speech, however, isn’t the only “right” they defend. Harvard defends its “right” to federal money. Crazy, right? After all, they do valuable research, and we’ll all suffer if it doesn’t continue. Somehow, I doubt that. I’m pretty sure they willingly went along with the false COVID narrative. Sorry, not sorry, there are clear guidelines for taking that money, one being not discriminating against anyone.
However, the issue isn’t about money any more than it’s about free speech. It is about civil rights, as Linda McMahon, the DOE secretary, correctly pointed out. These schools are sanctioning discrimination against Jewish students on campus. These students, who paid tens of thousands of dollars, are being verbally assaulted and threatened. They do not feel safe on campus, nor are these colleges doing anything to protect them. Consequently, these schools deprive them of the very basic of civil rights – the freedom to move about in American society.
Indeed, they are violating not just some agreement between the federal government and a private institution but the law of the land!
Oh, but they are private institutions! I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where private citizens or institutions are exempt from following the Constitution.
“…they came for the Jews”
Those opposing the deportation of illegal criminals use this line as a defense against deporting them. Ironically and horribly, that is exactly what is happening to Jewish students on some campuses, such as Columbia and Harvard. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!
It is the Jews, not the illegal criminals, they are coming for just like they did in Nazi Germany.
The Dems totally ignore this truth that’s staring them right in the face. The illegal criminals aren’t being deprived of any constitutional rights. The Jewish American students are the ones being deprived of their right to life and liberty. The only “freedom” deported illegals lose is the freedom to steal, harm, and kill Americans. I’m good with them losing that freedom, yes, very good with that.
Deportation of illegals isn’t about due process and Ivy League antisemitism isn’t about free speech.
Of these two narratives, the second one concerns me the most because it is the most dangerous. Our country was founded on the principle that all human beings were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These calls for genocide of Jewish people and Israel strike at the heart of that foundation. If not stopped, they would deprive Jewish people of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, undermining our founding principles. That is un-American.
Let’s not forget either that the people who want to genocide the Jewish people, also want to genocide Americans. Why else would they chant “death to America?” Their actions can’t get much more un-American than that.
In a sense, that makes them invaders, not unlike Tren de Argua. Think about it. Both have invaded our country, seeking to take over our country. Neither seems to have any problem taking American property and/or lives. Bottom line: Be they foreign or domestic, they are enemies of American freedom.
Knowing how dangerous these antisemites are to our country, why are Dems defending them? It could be about hurting Trump. That always seems to be part of their agenda. Or it could point to a darker motive. After all, the universities are in bed with radical Islamists.
Regardless of their motive, we must expose both of the above false narratives. Invaders are not citizens. Therefore, they are not owed due process. Inciting violence and calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or any other human being, is not considered free speech as laid out in the Constitution. Therefore, their speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
We must stand for truth. Specifically, we must defend the Constitutional rights of the Jewish people in this country now because they are already coming for them. If we don’t stand up for them now, they will come for us next. Actually, they are already coming for us.