Today, when the electors meet and officially cast the votes that make Donald Trump the next President of the United States, Ethics Alarms will retire the “This will help make Donald Trump President” tag. I was going to wade through the many posts bearing that tag, but the task was too arduous and depressing, and besides, new examples pop up every day. Trump does not have the skills, experience, reliability, judgment or temperament to be trusted to serve the role that those who voted for him designated him to serve, but the reasons much of the nation desperately, fervently, urgently wanted someone to fulfill that role and now, should be evident to anyone who is not part of the problem.
Two examples suffice.
1. Illegal immigration. Thanks to Trump’s slovenly rhetoric, Democrats, illegal immigration advocates and the news media managed to turn what should have been a substantive debate over the U.S.’s enabling of illegal border-crossing into the false narrative that Trump was racist, xenophobic, and had called all Mexicans “rapists and murders.” (He never did that.) Then Trump himself allowed the debate to focus on his absurd impossible measures to address the crisis: a Berlin-style wall that he would “make Mexico pay for” and mass deportations of 11 million U.S. residents or more. These deflections didn’t change the facts, however: Eight years of the wink-wink-nudge-nudge Democratic and Republican policies of allowing a constant stream of law-breaking foreign citizens over our borders, bolstered by the Orwellian deception by journalists, elected officials and activists of calling them “immigrants” to make dissent from these policies vulnerable to attack as “racist,” had justly infuriated many Americans. After watching so many politicians pretend to oppose the flood across our borders and back down or descend into double-talking gibberish, it was refreshing and—yes, Mrs. Obama–hope-inspiring to hear someone, anyone, call the crisis what it was and pledge to address it, even in crude terms.
Illegal immigration, and the flaccid, dishonest handling of it by both parties is the issue that made Donald Trump’s rise possible, and all of the conditions that created public indignation and anger over the issue still exist.
1,574 illegal aliens were apprehended at the U.S. Mexico border per-day during the month of November, marking the fifth straight month of escalating illegal immigration into the southwest United States. Nobody knows how many weren’t apprehended, but it is probably more. In addition to the tens of thousands of illegals streaming in from Central America, officials are reporting increased numbers of Cubans and Haitians crossing into the United States from Mexico. No, they aren’t all rapists and murderers or even criminals, and they aren’t all Mexicans, but they all came here or tried to come here illegally. That makes them wrong and undesirable, and all the linguistic tricks being employed to make that simple statement difficult to express won’t alter that central fact.
This month, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that illegal immigrants with criminal records in this country probably total at least 820,000, with most having felony and serious misdemeanor convictions. Other estimates, naturally the ones cited by Trump, have suggested up to two million criminal illegal immigrants, but 820,000 is still a number larger than the populations of four Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming.
The immigration think tank cited numbers from the Urban Institute, but that liberal group framed its statistics by arguing against deporting any criminals who have children that were born here. This growing problem doesn’t get addressed because policy-makers and academics evidently don’t want it addressed. Enter Donald Trump.
To deflect the issue, the news media argues about numbers. When Trump said in his nomination acceptance speech in July that “nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens,” the reliable Democratic Party-supporting Politifact challenged his estimate, saying,
Trump’s campaign said his statement came from a June 2016 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors more strict immigration policies. The Center for Immigration Studies, in turn, relied on data obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to CIS, there were more than 925,000 immigrants who had been ordered removed but were still in the country as of July 2015. And an estimated 20 percent of them had at least one criminal conviction — nearly all of whom were at large. So Trump’s numbers are correct. But experts say there is some important context.
Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, a senior researcher at Pew Research Center, said the figure includes immigrants from countries that won’t accept them back.
“In these cases, the immigrants have to be released after they have completed their sentences,” Gonzalez-Barrera said.
Got that? Even PolitiFact had to admit that it was impossible to tell whether Trump was accurate or not, because the government refuses to distinguish between immigrants and illegal immigrants in its statistics. All the better to call you–or Trump– racist and xenophobic with! Also, all the better to import future Democratic votes, legally or illegally, as well as sub-minimum wage workers for the “jobs Americans won’t do.”
There is no honest, principled argument for facilitating, enabling, rewarding and ignoring illegal immigration, nor is it unconscionable not to use every available mechanism to make it clear that while legal immigrants are the fuel of America’s greatness, illegal immigrants are not welcome.
This, more than any other single factor, is why Donald Trump will be elected President today.
2. Speech and expression suppression through political correctness, victim-mongering and power abuse by progressive and leftist institutions.
This story, for example: Buck Ryan, director of the Citizen Kentucky Project of the University of Kentuckey’’s Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, reported in an op-ed that the University of Kentucky punished him for “sexual misconduct,” “in part for singing a Beach Boys tune covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks.”
Under Administrative Regulation 6:1, Discrimination and Harassment, UK’s Title IX coordinator ruled that the song, “California Girls,” included “language of a sexual nature” and was somehow offensive, though no victims were identified. He explains,
The occasion for the song was the closing ceremonies for an inaugural Education Week at a Chinese university as part of a UK program. I taught a class, “Storytelling: Exploring China’s Art and Culture.” For my Chinese students, I sang a song to teach the many differences in Chinese and American culture. The Beach Boys riff was one of three takeoffs of popular songs (Sting, Wizard of Oz) that I sang in my closing remarks. A few of my top Chinese students attended the closing ceremonies, and they actually liked the song. One was impressed that I could use the names of Chinese places instead of the original American ones.
Somebody complained. He continues:
As a former director of the journalism school, I know that if a student or a faculty member comes forward with a complaint, the university insists on due process to resolve the problem. In my case, I sent an email asking to know what exactly were the complaints against me. My message was turned into an open records request by UK’s legal office. A few days later I received a two-page letter denying my request.The dean who issued my punishment never talked to me. I learned about my fate in a letter dropped on me by two assistants just before I was to teach a class. My punishment in this case-without-victims bans me from receiving international travel funds and strips me of a prestigious award worth thousands of dollars. When I inquired about my due process rights, I was told by the provost that I didn’t have any. Here’s the quote:
“There is no constitutional right to represent the University of Kentucky abroad. Nor is there a constitutional right to teach a particular class. Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.”
As a result, I was convicted without trial of inappropriate behavior, which never occurred, with two women students. They wanted to defend me, but they were never interviewed by university officials. The next time you read about the University of Kentucky’s struggle to handle Title IX cases, think about my Beach Boys song. As for the song that begins, “Well Shanghai girls are hip; I really dig those styles they wear,” what kind of mind views it as offensive for using “language of a sexual nature?”
Unfortunately, for the wrongly accused, it is the same kind of mind that can see innocent acts as perverted ones.
This kind of political correctness and institutional bullying will be familiar to any American who has followed the increasingly unhinged treatment of men, whites, speech, dissent and expression by American universities, and their administrators’ abuse of due process, often in response to the Obama Administration’s ominous “Dear Colleague” letter. Many Americans feel the garrotte of state mandated indoctrination tightening around the culture’s throat, and decided that a man who obviously wasn’t afraid to say anything, no matter how rude, untrue or stupid, was a good bet to loosen it.
Finally, it cannot be reasonably denied that the unAmerican conduct and behavior by Democrats, progressives and the news media since November 8 could not have demonstrated more vividly why this unlikely character was seen by sufficient numbers of voters to be worth the huge risk if he presented immediate hope that the oppressive arrogance, coercion, self-righteousness and disrespect for half the nation by the could be reversed, stopped, or at least slowed down.
And now, another song..