“What difference does it make?”

May 16, 2015



Bruce Kent

PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson reported recently on Luis Gutierrez’s (a congressman) comparing those who support national security and faithful law enforcement to a “mouse” who, when given something to eat, refuses to feel palliated or satisfied.  Incidentally, no one seems to have pointed out the gross mistake Gutierrez made regarding the children’s book:  It’s a moose and a muffin, not a mouse and a cookie.  (See the children’s book by Laura Numeroff.)  Apparently, Gutierrez needs to spend some time working on literacy strategies as he’s reading stories to his children.

Barack Obama made a similar insinuation a while back when speaking of the same group of people when he made the slippery slope/straw man argument that Republicans will one day want a mote and alligators to ensure national security at the border (Alligators, 2011).  Gutierrez makes use of a common political snare, which teachers have often witnessed in their diversity training courses where instructors often begin outlining curriculum by defining words such as Islamophobe, xenophobe, nativist (a word Gutierrez employed during his speech), homophobe, or some other straw man caricature of those concerned about the denigration of traditional morality, legal tradition, and national security.  For a superlative example of a leftist employing a straw man fallacy to escape justice, watch the end of the interaction between Louis Ghomert and Janet Napolitano after Texas Public Safety officials uncovered Department of Homeland Security’s unabashed employment of terrorist-affiliated Muslims to advise our so called experts on national security issues and Islamist terrorism.  Napolitano wiggled out by falsely accusing Gohmert of Islamophia.  Ironically, the enemies of national security and law will often prey on the genuine concerns, including national security and tolerance of the innocent in order to forward conspiracy, intrigue, corruption, and potentially, coup de etat.

One problem with Gutierrez’s argument comprises his disingenuous attitude toward national security.  Any fool on the hill who cares a wit about securing the United States from foreign enemies, including terrorists, must acknowledge the data proving Border Patrol have discovered dangerous foreigners streaming into the United States, including Mexican drug cartel members, common thugs, serial killers (Malkin, 2002), and people of Middle Eastern descent.  But our esteemed political colleagues simultaneously discount the most obvious point:  Those coming into our country illegally, regardless of reason, are coming into our country illegally, which makes them not mere criminals, but enemies of the state (apparently, enemies of the state tend to vote left on the political power spectrum).  As Trey Gowdy said, those who accept the corruption of law today will one due rue the day and wish for the protection law might have afforded us (2015).  Sadly, those days seem recurring at least since September 11, 2001.  (Meanwhile, media reports tell of the presence of ISIS in the United States, including the attempted mass murder of innocents in Garland, Texas, and an ISIS training camp 15 miles from the U.S. border in Mexico.)

Another problem with Gutierrez’s argument entails the crisis-creating-crisis pattern extolled by leftists everywhere and explicitly outlined in Saul Alinsky’s leftist playbook, Rules for Radicals:  Never let a good crisis go to waste.  Like the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) who created much of the crises in Germany preceding Germany’s complete fall to Nazi lust in the wake of the still-mysterious Reichstag fire, today’s tyrant-hopefuls and nominal saviors of the presumably disadvantaged have become experts at creating and exploiting real world economic and security crises to push forward their grand utopian schemes.  If men like Gutierrez aren’t up to no good and fomenting bigotry against Christian conservatives on the floor of the legislature by accusing us of bigotry and threatening to cut off incrementally the resources necessary to maintain peace and justice under law in our country, they’re usually up to no good striking deals with foreign canards like ISIS, Iran’s racist regime, or Russia’s secret society captains and further undermining global security and economic stability.

Among American progressives the attitude seems to involve a sort of lassais fare common to all those nihilists who deny God’s existence and disbelieve in any legitimate law or epistemic system beyond those created by man.  “What difference does it make?” quoth Hillary Clinton when asked to give an honest accounting for why the State Department failed to offer support to those Americans under siege at Benghazi.  Stop the life-saving enhanced interrogations of enemy combatants and terrorists and, for Pete’s sake, close Guantanamo, cried Eric Holder and Barack Obama.  (Meanwhile, Eric Holder’s history revealed his law firm had defended detainees at Guantanamo [Malkin, 2009]).

Over 2,000 years ago God, through His prophet Isaiah, pronounced a warning on those who call evil good.  Today’s progressives have truly placed our security, intelligence operations, and prosperity on the brink by doing exactly that:  Calling good evil and evil good.  I suppose, as one recent report indicates, if it weren’t for our people’s abandonment of spiritual principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even progressives would know right from wrong—or, at least acknowledge right from wrong.  And, if so, the country must be saved and therein prosper again as in times of old.

In terms of disparate impact, including unequal crime rates, graduation rates, suicide rates, murder rates, delinquency rates, and more, one common thread connects them all:  Family strength and structure.  Before political pundits’ and social researchers’ references to broken families as the central cause of all social ills, including poverty, prophets ancient and modern cautioned leaders of nations and communities that cultural elements promoting illegitimacy, adultery, and homosexuality must lead inevitably to the complete destruction of nations.  It is progressive ideology that drives, encourages, endorses, and advocates cultural elements that promote illegitimacy and the destruction of our marriages and families.  Thus, while lowly characters like Gutierrez scold Christian conservatives (he may himself claim to be a Christian, but true Christians do not use rhetoric to demoralize the honest and corrupt law) for seeking the resources needed to enforce law and provide security to our nation, a simple solution exists after all:  Worship God, repent daily of mistakes, strengthen marriages, build families, discourage illegitimacy, and preserve justice under law.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Help Utah Conservative and Conservative Fifty become a success! Give $5, $10, or whatever you can today!



Privacy Policy

Like Box

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera