Sen. Heitkamp Part of Large Nationwide Problem

Senator Heitkamp has voted more like Senator Chuck Schumer than Senator John Hoeven when it comes to Cabinet picks.  Of the paltry 7 of 15 cabinet positions confirmed by February 10 by the Senate, Hoeven voted for all 7, Heitkamp voted for 4 and Schumer voted for 2.  No doubt Heidi will continue her liberal ways representing NY better than ND.  The Cabinet would be in full motion except for the bad behavior of Senate Democrats like Heitkamp.

Still open for confirmation are critical positions in Treasury, Interior, Ag, Commerce, Labor, HUD, Energy and the VA.   Ag, Energy and the VA seem rather important to North Dakotans but not to Democrats.

Only 3 of the 8 nominees for cabinet-level positions are filled with the EPA, US Trade Rep, OMB, SBA and National Intelligence languishing.

Heitkamp will probably be allowed to vote for Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch by her Democrat caucus but her hopes for re-election hinge on if she can dupe the voters in to thinking she is a moderate.

Do-nothing Democrats have not shown up for committee hearings on candidates.  Meanwhile, the do-nothings do nothing to silence the violent crowds nationwide who riot over presidential Executive Orders, cabinet nominees and hurt feelings.  They encourage the violence, the anarchy and the rancor which is now a daily staple.  We had all we could stomach over a pipeline that put law enforcement in to harm’s way, damaged the land and water and greatly diminished respect for certain groups of people.

Senator Heitkamp deserves all the shame coming her way for the way she votes and the way her fellow Democrats behave; whether they are Senators in chambers, violent thugs on the streets or “water protectors” destroying equipment at a pipeline.  I’m not holding my breath for an apology from Heitkamp or a renunciation of her Senate colleagues and their reprehensible behavior.

Advertisements

Immigration Executive Order Sound

On January 27, 2017 – a Friday – the President issued an Executive Order on immigration.  Click on the link in the previous sentence to read the exact text from the White House website.

 

I read two-thirds of this EO (Executive Order) and found it to be anything but what most of the media claimed.  It is first and foremost an exercise in prudence.  It protects American citizens while still being rife with ways for immigrants and refugees to enter the USA.  You read that correctly.

 

The liberal media, e.g. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Huffington Post, claim it is a religious test.  The only religious test in the EO is the one which protects refugees who are persecuted religious minorities in 7 countries identified during the Obama administration by the Obama administration.  This would include Christians, Hindus and certain Muslim sects in majority Muslim countries since it was the Obama administration which identified these sources of terror in “Countries of Particular Concern.”

 

The liberal media also claims it bans immigration.  Hardly.  Read the EO and you will see it has many exceptions based on need and current immigration status.  Essentially, the EO is a temporary halt of immigration of only 7 countries in a world of 196 countries.  It affects only 4% of the world’s countries and leaves untouched 96%.  Syria is singled out as a particularly troublesome country and more restrictions are placed on Syria.

 

The EO is a halt to a lax immigration system.  The President wants a review of our immigration process with an eye toward national security.  Given how badly lax immigration has affected most of western Europe and Scandanavia, his concerns are warranted.  Once the review period is over, about 4 months, expect to see either an extension of the EO or a resumption to immigration, albeit with a process that will sift out the terrorists from entering the USA.

 

The purposes of immigration are to bolster our national interests and provide a safe haven to those fleeing persecution or seeking a better life for themselves and their posterity.  It is not to provide a safe haven for terrorists wishing to launch their attacks on the USA from within the USA.  It is not to provide a safe haven for those wishing to repudiate the USA through non-assimilation or the establishment of organizations and practices meant to thwart our laws, customs and goals.

 

I have yet to hear from an anti-Trump protestor as to why the USA is the only place where immigrants from these 7 countries can enter.  The rest of the world can provide a home for these immigrants. Russia, China, India and Argentina come to mind as perfectly good places.  Just last week, President Trump worked out a deal with Saudi Arabia to provide Safe Zones in Saudi Arabia for immigrants to stay, away from persecution in their country of origin.  Immigrants and refugees don’t always have to have the option of the entire USA to escape persecution.

 

President Trump got this right.  I support him without hesitation.

Jim Shaw: Wrong About Prejudice

Fargo Forum columnist Jim Shaw told us that “Prejudice thrives in ND”.  He had 3 points; homosexual marriage language, banning refugees and out-state tuition.

First, my experience tells me that prejudice exists but hardly “thrives” in North Dakota.  But he may travel in different circles than me so his personal experience may be quite different.  What is clear is that his examples are hardly examples of thriving prejudice.

First, the century code in North Dakota does not and is not required to be updated because the US Supreme Court decided in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges in a 5-4 decision to claim it was Constitutional.  Our century code represents the will of North Dakotans.  The State does not have to “comply” with the country’s same-sex marriage laws as (1) there is no federal law and (2) we are not out of compliance.  He also implies that North Dakota does not adhere to that 5-4 Supreme Court decision.  There is no proof of that because there is no evidence of that.  Evidence might make for a valid claim or prejudice or non-compliance.  The legislature’s vote to adopt the bill in question – changing our century code to gender-neutral on marriage – was certainly not an insult to gay and lesbian North Dakotas.  He then takes a swipe at the fact that North Dakota has not included homosexuality as a special class alongside race, creed, color or handicap.  He doesn’t indicate he has any examples of discrimination based on homosexuality but that detail seems to escape him.

Second, he laments the fact that the Governor might be given the authority to limit or halt immigration.  I would like him to explain to me how someone who is legally in the United States does not have the right to travel from State to State.  Upon last check, there was no border patrol on I-94 between Moorhead and Fargo or did I miss something?  He then restates the hysterical claims that we would be more welcoming to white Christians; kind of like how America didn’t appreciate those Irish Catholics at one time.   Yuck, where did this turnip fall off the truck.

The truth is that a great of money is being spent on assimilating refugees from Africa, the middle East and Asia in North Dakota.  Having worked with refuges from all those areas, they come with a host of problems but those problems are mostly theirs and not the communities.  However, they cost money to bring up to speed in school, in the workplace and, yes, many are instantly place on welfare and welfare-type programs.  Shaw has no proof of his claims about taxes.  He is laughably wrong about the thorough vetting they receive.  As for not committing acts of terrorism, I need only say ‘San Bernardino’.  Thankfully, I think North Dakota has been spared the type of Syrian immigrants that Germany has attracted, for now.

I have found that there is no single label that fits all immigrants.  I have found differences in some cultures that clearly indicates some are more beneficial to our cities than others.  Many of these immigrants from Liberia, Congo, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, Bhutan and other places are kids who play soccer with my White kids.  We have a grand time!  It is sad to say that nearly all of their parents have never seen their kids play; something I simply can’t understand.  It has to make the kids sad.  I have seen some kids get in to trouble, e.g. teen pregnancy, truancy, poor grades.

To punctuate his silly essay on prejudice, he points to the appalling legislature and their attempts to discriminate against that dastardly class of people know as ‘Minnesotans’, as if they were some refuge, homosexual or transgendered people.  How dare we raise out-state tuition on our Universities.  Jim, you can make the case that it might be bad for business, but prejudicial?  Have you seen what Minnesota has done to North Dakotans that want to attend the University of Minnesota?  ‘Yippin ‘Yimmini!

The Pro-Life Position is Conservative

First, a definition is in order.  For a person to be pro-life, it means more than being against tax dollars being used to fund abortion.  One has to be careful about people who claim to be pro-life.  There is no single definition of the word “pro-life” that exists in Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist or any denomination.

A pro-life person conserves human life, protects it, defends it, cherishes it.

A pro-life person is opposed to abortion at any time during pregnancy.  Ectopic pregnancies often require surgery to save the live of the mother while unintentionally killing the developing child.  As long as the surgeon does not intend the death of the child, it is licit to save the mother.  A pregnant woman in danger of losing her life due to cancer or other condition has to rely on modern medicine, wise counsel and her well-formed conscience.

A pro-life person does not abort a child with physical problems or abnormalities.

A pro-life person understands what so-called birth control methods are actually abortifacients, i.e. chemical and mechanical means to prevent conception or to abort a very young, developing child.  Natural Family Planning methods are acceptable means to space pregnancies without negating God’s love in the procreative act.

Abortion is both a religious issue, a biological issue, a nature issue and a political issue.  As a political issue it requires a legal solution that would place unborn children on a legal par with innocent, born humans.  Those who intentionally end an unborn child’s life are in legal jeopardy of a murder conviction.  That would apply to the abortionist and his conspirators as well as, in all likelihood, the mother and her conspirators.

As a biological and natural issue it is clear the growing child is strictly human (not another animal) and is alive.

As a religious issue, it appears only the Catholic Church recognizes the humanity of the unborn child, the problems of birth control, and the requirement to legally protect the child.  Many other Christian denominations fall closely in line with the Catholic Church teaching while some others falter in the areas of birth control or the level of protection afforded the child.  Non-Christian faiths are varied in their positions on abortion.

It is noted that many Muslims, devout Catholics, some Protestants and some Mormons are being fruitful and multiplying at great rates.  This is especially true of Muslims whose birth rate in countries often hovers around 8 children per couple.  Catholic fertility rates in America, Europe and Asia are low whereas the fertility rate in Africa is much higher but still not near 8 children per couple.

A person who is pro-life is not simply pro-birth.  Their concern for life extends through to death in policies that care for the elderly and infirmed.  It also includes concern for those in poverty, in abusive relationships and other conditions.