Page 4 - Reedley Exponent 12-13-18 E-edition

The Reedley Exponent A4 Thursday, December 13, 2018 Editorial & Opinions
Serving “The World’s Fruit Basket” since 1891
A Mid Valley Publishing Newspaper
Founded March 26, 1891, in a two-story building on the corner of 11th and F streets, by A.S. Jones
Fred Hall — Publisher
In my OPINION
There can be little doubt that the differ- ence in the way immigrants arrived in this country in the early 20th century and now is like night and day. Back in the early 1900’s it required an orderly process which provided health checks and other criteria for entrance into this country.
Other Opinions
Jon Earnest — Editor / Sports Juanita Adame — Panorama Editor Budd Brockett — Editor Emeritus
How might this civil war differ from the previous one?
Places like Ellis Island did everything in
their power to insure newcomers would not
bring diseases and would be a net plus for
America while affording them all the oppor-
tunities of being Americans. In the early 21st
century it is more of a stampede with no control and little federal oversight.
Today there is much being written and said about immigration, both legal and illegal. With calls for everything from a wall, to stem the unchecked flow of human beings, to contraband and open borders, as well as facilitating the constant, unimpeded traffic, the simple truth is that, as long as we maintain a welfare state, it is an impossibility to operate anything close to an open border with anyone and everyone being welcomed with open arms.
I’m a firm believer in the axiom that a nation without borders is not a nation! California has become the king of welfare states. As such, that magnet has resulted in a state with infrastructure to support 20 million souls now at 40 million with homeless villages filling the streets of our larger cities. That should be no surprise to anyone when much of our population growth is poorly educated and survive on the public dole.
Basic facts for your consideration: Fully, 72 percent of the homesteads occupied are occupied by those living or who have entered the country illegally, and are on some sort of welfare from the State of California. According to surveys; California taxpayers spend 30.3 billion per year on the immigration crisis. In excess of their tax contributions; there are 1.105 million children of people who have entered or are living in the country illegally, jammed into our already over crowded, under performing school system.
Those numbers alone should prove that, although individually they may be wonderful people, they, as a general rule, are not a net plus to the California economy as so many claim.
One must realize that, when referring to these facts in any discussion of orderly, controlled immigration there is a good pos- sibility that it will result in one being called a racist. The prevalent rebuttal by the open borders crowd is that illegal immigration is a net gain for the State of California, but that simply and demon- strably is not the truth.
The original intent of immigration law relied on three stipulations as criteria for anyone who wished to become a citizen of America. Those were that, one must provide proof of being self-sustaining with no burden for financial support being placed on others. Developing the skills necessary to communicate in English, and one must make real efforts to assimilate into the American culture. When was the last time anyone saw indications that the criteria was being met?
Doing otherwise with an arbitrary decision to continuing one’s native language would result in America becoming a nation of tribes existing in small enclaves. It doesn’t require a lot of re- search or deep thinking to realize lifestyles that are “foreign” to basic American culture are are already becoming all too common in this country. A couple of generations on our current path could conceivably make any corrections from tribalism an impossible task.
Our new Democrat dominated government seems to be in a race to see who can submit the largest amount of largesse in the form of proposed legislation that will add to be number of “free- bies” available to anyone and everyone in California. A welfare state is an absolute magnet to the poor, uneducated or under edu- cated peoples of the world.
The newest undertaking by the most recent iteration of the socialist order being opted for by California voters calls for free health care for everyone. This included those who are living, or entered the country illegally. Where the hell that money is going to come from has to be a complete mystery to any thinking people. These, by the way,are the same voters who thought it would be a good idea to keep an oppressive gasoline tax in place to reward a state which will inevitably squander the money on the High Speed Rail. Instead of continuing to expand the right to vote to more and more people, perhaps we should do mental evaluations to qualify for voting.
That, you realize, was uttered in jest because we can never eliminate stupid people from their Constitutional rights! We do, however, wish that really dumb voters would do a little more due diligence in evaluating issues. One can’t always decide issues in the “what’s in it for me” basis.
What happens to California when middle class citizens are no longer able to afford the cost of housing and personal maintenance for the privilege of living here. Politicians already have a large segment of our voters convinced that they will continue to “soak the rich” because they owe a special debt to the rest of us because of their success. Sorry, I just don’t understand the thought pro- cess.
The current mess along the border is harmful to all Americans, including our hard-working hispanic neighbors who have taken the time to learn the English language and immerse themselves in the American culture. They have truly become Americans which so many claim to want but make no effort to achieve.
But, as always, that’s only one man’s opinion.
By Harold Pease
Guest columnist
In the Civil War the nation divid- ed geographically to the point that Lincoln, a moderate on slavery, was not even on the ballot for president in much of the South. For two years the Democrats have not supported anything initiated by President Don- ald Trump, the divide is so complete. Bipartisanship was difficult before he was elected, now it is virtually non-existent.
If no one listens to the other side, which is now where we are once again in the United States, one en- ters extremely dangerous territory. Each side can believe themselves right, even supported by God, and thus justified in killing those of the other side.
This happened in Kansas in 1854 which resulted in two state govern- ments and two state constitutions each questioning the validity of the other. And each opposing sheriffs hunting the illegitimate one. The Trump presidency began with Demo- crats staging demonstrations in cit- ies throughout the land his first week in office questioning the validity of the election and still, two years later, believing with no evidence, that the election had been stolen in a “Russian Collusion.”
In Kansas, John Brown hacked five pro-slaveryites to death in 1856. In our civil war James Hodgkinson opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice, injuring five, al- most killing House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. In either case the politi- cal party and media outlets of the kill- ers appeared not to care. In the first Civil War, Sen. Charles Summer was beaten up by Rep. Preston Brooks on the Senate floor for a speech Brooks did not like. This time, conservative Sen. Rand Paul was attacked by a neighbor fracturing five bones with seemingly no outrage from Demo- cratic media outlets.
In the U.S. today we have no middle or neutral national medias, only Republican and Democrat Par-
ty news outlets each giving opposing news. The same happened in the first Civil War. Kentucky Sen. John J. Crit- tenden, seeing an impending war be- tween the North and South, and hav- ing two sons each a general on each side positioned to kill the other, may have been the last U.S. Senator that did not want the conflict settled in blood. His Crittenden Compromise went nowhere.
How will the present civil war differ from that between 1861-1865? There will be no geographic lines like the Mason-Dixon line separating combatants as before, nor will there be blue or gray uniformed armies colliding enabling one to always know his enemy and those innocent to flee both. In this war neighbor will be against neighbor, city against city, county against county, and state against state and against the federal government. Isn’t that happening now with sanctuary cities, counties and states. And, isn’t the state of Califor- nia refusing to adhere to federal law?
In this civil war mobs will drive people from place to place, like out of restaurants which happened to Sena- tors Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, even White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. This war will be daughter against mother and son against father and vice versa. Chicago has experience this for some time. But why on a national scale? Be- cause each has his separate source of information consulting non other, am- plified by social media, which radi- calizes him enabling this civil war to be in ones own home. Vengeance will beget vengeance amplified.
Without geographical lines or uniforms, and where “the enemy” is within, rather than without, as in the first Civil War, one may never know who has targeted him. Mobs like An- tifa or MS13 will operate openly, with little or no fear of law enforcement. In such an environment, unlike the North vs South, farmers will abandon
their fields for safety precipitating food shortages and horrible famines. This happened in the South but only when opposing enemy forces were near by. Outside General William Sherman’s famous march, that Civil War’s battles were largely limited to the middle states.
In such chaos factories will close and spare parts will be almost non-ex- istent as likely also will be commerce, communication, and travel. Without uninhibited use of freeways fuel will be scarce or non-existent. Electricity and gas providers also may be target- ed and homes left freezing in the win- ter. Today, few have wood burning fa- cilities. Where “the enemy” is within, rather than without, everything and everybody can be targeted without warning. If people are afraid to go to work who provides and purifies our drinking water? Who picks up our garbage, operates the hospitals, drug and grocery stores? If the families of law enforcement are in peril they will not go to work. Society could come apart at the seams.
In the first Civil War the threat of another nation coming in to “mop up” from our devastated condition did not exist. In a new civil war the hungry, jealous, and offended nations of the earth would be anxious to devour the spoils. China would come in from the west, Russia from the north and east and Latin American nations from the south.
Have I said enough? Have I made my point? Civil wars involve and af- fect everyone, nobody wins. Have I frightened you politicians, political partisans, race baiters, and media outlets to harness your tongues and to quit accentuating our demise. In the first Civil War 620,000 died, in this one it could be millions. You can stop it.
Harold Pease is a syndicated col- umnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He taught history and political science from this per- spective for more than 30 years at Taft College in Kern County.
Fred Hall
Jon Earnest’s column will return next week.
Why the left should appeal to the white male identity
By Matthew Johnson
Guest columnist
Liberals and progres- sives, with the notable ex- ception of Bernie Sanders, too often fail to appeal di- rectly to white men in the United States. I am not suggesting that they fail to appeal to individual white men or that white men are not interested in their plat- form; I am suggesting that left-wing activists and poli- ticians often do not even at- tempt to reach out to white men as a group. This is despite the left’s long-time embrace of identity politics.
Why cede so much ground to the right? Why permit Fox News and oth- er conservative media to target white men as their main, sometimes sole, au- dience? Not only are self- identified white men an extremely large political bloc, they are far from monolithic in their political leanings. Even though 60 percent of white men voted Republican in the midterm elections this year, that
Other Opinions
still leaves tens of millions of white men who voted Democrat, independent, or not at all. Moreover, a sig- nificant portion of that 60 percent could be convinced to support parties and can- didates that better promote their interests if more were done to appeal to those in- terests — to target white men directly as a distinct voting bloc.
Conservative pundits and politicians use fear as a tool for encouraging white men to vote Repub- lican: fear of immigrants, fear of unemployment, fear of feminists, fear of ISIS, fear of Antifa, and so on. Ambitious Republican politicians and operatives then use the same fear to move the party further to the right by undermining moderate voices. While the use of fear to manipu- late is an insult to both the intelligence and values of many white men, it is often a winning strategy. In fact
the ‘conservative’ label it- self is seemingly born out of fear: Researchers have determined that conserva- tives can be transformed into liberals if the percep- tion of physical danger is eliminated.
The answer for Demo- crats, however, is not to create an illusion of total safety or scare white men into voting for them instead of Republicans. The latter strategy might make sense, given the current adminis- tration’s fascistic tenden- cies, but it allows Repub- licans to control the dis- course. Campaigning in op- position to Trump — rather than promoting alternative values and policies — still gives Trump the attention he relies on to manipulate the public. He wants you to not only be afraid of Muslims, immigrants, and feminists: like all other au- thoritarians, he wants you to be afraid of him.
The opposition should not grant Trump this psy- chological victory. There are many pathways to
white male hearts and minds that are not paved by fear. White men care about many of the same things women, transgen- der folks, and people of color do. They care about health care, jobs, social mobility, the environment, education, and future gen- erations. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, scien- tists, sanitation workers, salesmen, and students. They may not feel econom- ic and social regression as deeply as less privileged groups do, but they feel it nonetheless. What if a few more downtrodden white men in Georgia, Florida, or Mississippi had voted blue in those tightly contested races? What if they had chosen to be taken in by the opportunity for progressive change rather than by the fear of that change?
White men are not a barrier to progressive ad- vancement but the missing link to achieving it.
Matt Johnson, syndi- cated by PeaceVoice, is co- author of “Trumpism.”
QUOTE
“This is the devilish thing about foreign affairs: they are foreign and will not always conform to our whim.”
James Reston (1909-1995)
New York Times, June 12, 1968