Sunday, February 12, 2017

The Passing Parade

by Stew Richland
This was the title of a radio program created by John Nesbitt running from the mid-1930s to 1951.  His program focused on historical events such as, “The Story of Typhoid Mary,” World War II events and the courage of the common man. 
As I sit at my computer thinking about the major events that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 or 40 years, I wonder which stories John Nesbitt would have selected to narrate on his show.
The time is about 100 years from now. You and I are long since in our graves.   The scene is a beautiful classroom with our great, great grandchildren sitting looking out the window wishing they were someplace else. The instructor to enter the room.  He faces the class and says does anyone know why this day is special.  The students look up from their reverie and wonder why this day is more special than all the rest.
Well on January 27th 2017 President Donald Trump issued and executive order to review and restrict immigrants attempting to enter the country from seven Middle Eastern nations.  This was the same type of executive order that the previous President, Barak Obama signed but did not execute. This all happened during your great parents day.  The teacher points to the old and ragged out of date history texts that are sitting on the floor in the corner of the classroom. Well, he tells his students, let's examine what happened 100 years ago.
Immediately the backlash began.  The Progressive/liberal/Democratic left-wing supporters began to attack what President Trump did as anti-American, anti-Muslim, and unconstitutional.  Just exactly what did President Trump do?  He issued an order to vet with extreme caution persons coming into the U.S. from nations that export or support terrorism.  What is wrong with this?  He wants to save American lives.  Just remember, the life he may save by this action may be yours.  Compare this action to what former President Obama has done.  He had allowed thousands of refugees to enter this country under the guise of humanitarianism without vetting these immigrants.  Very few or none of the Arab Christian population have been allowed to enter the U.S.  This is blatant discrimination.   Where are the voices of opposition when President Obama released hardened terrorists from the Gitmo holding center in Cuba? We have evidence that these criminals have gone back into the field and their goal is to kill Americans. 
Hollywood celebrities are addicted to the spotlight and use every opportunity to voice their views about the Trump administration. Sadly these low-level thinkers have been hooked by the extreme progressive ideas that have inculcated into the daily lives of these so called “knowledgeable experts.”  I listened to the comments that were voiced by some of the leaders of the women’s march the other day.  They sounded deranged. Madonna, a person of high moral principles (HA, HA, HA  - perhaps “Bazinga” as a phrase Sheldon uses on the “Big Bang Theory”  as a gotcha) should spend more time with her family than in front of the mike, said that she felt like “Blowing Up the White House.”  Perhaps we should encourage her to live up to her promise to leave the U.S.  She and Amy Schumer should spend some time in Nigeria and use their persuasive  charms on the Boko Harm killers to return the stolen children.
Where was the outrage voiced by these celebrities when so many American citizens were killed by illegal aliens, many of them who were deported numerous.  The cost of electric power in California is sky high.  A few years ago it was proposed to build a new atomic generating plant, many celebs said yes, but not in my neighborhood.  When there was a strict ban on watering lawns in Beverly Hills, for example, these celebs just kept on watering their lawns and they paid the fines. This is another example of the double standard these people live by.
Perhaps the ugliest example of anti-Trump pandering was exhibited by New York Senator, Chuck Schumer when he stood at the podium, with Muslim children behind him and started to cry when he attacked President Trump’s immigration plan.  I suggest that my readers look at Senator Schumer’s Congressional record to explore what he has accomplished over these many years.  Not much. Where were his tears for the 4 murdered Americans in Benghazi? or Oakland or Newtown?
Look what has happened to Germany, France, and Belgium with their unrestricted immigration policies. Terrorist attacks, immigrants molesting women are just some of the examples of when a government has a policy of unrestricted immigration.  Do you want the same here in the United States?  Trump’s ban is temporary. He was elected to defend the United States against all its enemies, domestic and foreign. If there is any criticism of what the Trump administration has done is that they implemented the immigration in  haste.  Homeland Security should have been informed about the plan so they could exempt those arriving with green cards and other acceptable identification papers. Let the Administration do what they promised because the next casualty could be you or a member of your family.
The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates refused to accept the Presidents policy order temporarily restricting the admission into the United States of aliens from various Muslim-majority countries, as well as aliens from Syria and elsewhere who are claiming refugee status.  The Constitution provides that the President has all executive powers not just some of them.  If a subordinate objects to these policies and refuses to execute the policies, they should resign. There is no other way.  That is why President Trump fired Sally Yates. 
Sally Yates was appointed by former President Obama.  She is a Liberal-Progressive and knew that when Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General she would be replaced. Rather then resign when Trump became President she remained in office.  Her decision not to support the Administration's  immigration policy was based on political considerations only, the way liberal populists would respond. If she objected then she should have quit her job. She chose not to and thus was fired. 
As one reporter noted, there are many Federal Judges who may not like the
Supreme Courts ruling on Roe vs. Wade, but there duty is to obey the law.  Yates did not and was rightly fired for her decision. 
The teacher in this futuristic scenario points to his desk and says, “This stack of grungy, faded newspapers published a day after this incident all had as its major headline, “Monday Night Massacre.”  This referred to a time when President Nixon was being investigated in relation to the Watergate Scandal.  An independent council was in charge, however, he ordered the Attorney General to fire the independent counsel.  The AG could not do this because of the “independent” nature of his responsibilities.  As a response, Nixon fired his AG.  These two incidents are totally different.  Yet the anti-Trump, liberal press plus the left wing cable stations jumped on the bandwagon and began using the term “Monday Night Massacre.”  This is just insane and irresponsible journalism.  The teacher philosophized that this was one of the “fourth estates lowest hour.”
He referred his students to the time when President Obama declared a “Red Line” is now drawn in the sand, because of the reports that Syria was using poison gas against the rebels. The President was going to take action.  He did nothing.  Neither did the press or Hollywood celebrities.  Where was their outrage at that time?

The teacher looks at the wall clock and sees that the class is almost over. He remarks that history has a tendency to repeat itself and the lessons learned must be used to make the right decisions.  The bell rings, the kids grab for their backpacks, with the phone in hand, just a few with that gleam of understanding about what was just discussed.  As for the rest, he hopes that their parents have not rented the spare bedroom yet.  


    1. Support for Judeo-Christian values – ban other religions.
    2. Economic liberalism – eliminate laws that keep companies honest.
    3. Defense of western culture – do not eat Chinese food.
    4. Anti-communism – goes to war with the commies to keep the military-industrial complex in the money.
    5. Strengthen the free market – gives the fat cats on wall street more freedom.
    6. Limit the size of government – fire all federal employees and force them to live in their cars.
    7. Ban labor unions – keep workers in poverty.

    1. Equal pay for men and women.
    2. Loves ethnic foods.
    3. Livable minimum wage.
    4. Rules to keep the wall street fat cats from robbing the middle class.
    5. Labor Unions to keep the workers from becoming slave labor.
    6. Freedom of speech.
    7. Belief in civil and political liberties, governed by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

    I assume Stewart from your dissertation; you are a conservative.
    I am a proud liberal.

  2. I agree with what Stewart has written about President Trump's executive order to TEMPORARILY not allow visitors from certain countries into the U.S. I am neither conservative nor liberal. Those labels may be okay for some, but they are too simplistic to properly describe many people. The following is what I wrote a friend in Massachusetts who is more "liberal" than I. We respect each other's views and learn from each other. He replied in this instance that I had a point.

    "But what do you do, Bob, when the Trade Center and 3000 innocent persons die, and there is terror incident after terror incident, many now "close to home" to many of us (Boston Marathon to you, Ft. Lauderdale airport and Orlando to me)? And when nearly all of the terror is traceable either directly or indirectly to an extreme Jihadic portion of Islam? Do you just stand by and let it keep happening? Doesn't the president have a responsibility to protect the citizens of this country? I would suggest when his responsibility to do this conficts with heartfelt desire to help refugees that the first takes precedence. These are very tough decisions for a leader with a heart to make.

    "Bring it closer to home and what WE would do in a similar situation: We are parents, have three little kids, and live in a neighborhood that has become overrun by gangs of young toughs. Shall we spend our time and money trying to help others in the neighborhood to the neglect of the safety of our own children? Would you? Would you be off at a neighbor's "helping out" while leaving your own little charges to walk home from school unescorted? The first isn't wrong--if you can do it without jeopardizing the second, which is your prime responsibility, don't you think?"

    --Lanny Howe

  3. Interesting article, Stew. May I add to it?

    Someone should let the judge from Washington state know about this. This little gem should go VIRAL! What? --- the McCarran-Walter Act.

    Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during his Presidential term, Donald Trump asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?" It has been a law for almost 65 years.

    Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do NOT have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

    After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and President Obama called such a prohibition on immigration "unconstitutional".

    As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, Surprise, Surprise!" It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

    Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or any class of aliens into the United states would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

    And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was Democrat President Jimmy Carter, no less then 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.

    But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

    So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and Obama.

    Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarron-Walter Act also requires: that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in AGREEMENT with the principles of our Constitution."

    Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should be refused immigration to OUR country.

    All of this information was taken from an authenticated article in the National Library.


    1. Hey Ed,
      The McCarren Act was instituted and known primarily as the anti-communist act.
      President Truman was against it but Senator Joseph McCarthy LOVED IT.
      Need I say more.

    2. Olga, may I suggest that you re-read the article that I posted. First of all, I am talking about "The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952" as it may apply to MUSLIMS. What is the McCarren (sic) Act of which you refer? Also, The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 was never thought of as the anti-communist act, nor was I referring to communists in my authenticated statements; that is your interpretation. I wasn't talking about President Truman, who , by the way, was overruled by Congress with regards to enforcing the Act. Lastly, Olga, how does Senator Joseph McCarthy relate to my article? How do you know if the Senator "LOVED IT" or not.

      Yes, I think you need to say more, --- more comments on point.

      Just because you hate President Donald Trump for any number of many reasons, and I may even agree with some of them, --- it doesn't mean that you must automatically denigrate other people's opinions. It is not a healthy way to look upon factual matters and spew such hate.


  4. This comment has been removed by the author.