As an observer of both national and local politics, I think a lot about how our government works. Or lately, how it doesn’t. I’ve heard people suggest we get rid of political parties as though that would make us all stop disagreeing and work together. It’s easy to blame the party system, since it’s all we’ve ever known. History has shown us, however, that humans will always form themselves into groups. Take away the Democratic and Republican parties, and it won’t be long until we just call ourselves something else. Parties aren’t the problem; the problem is blind adherence to an ideology — even when that ideology is disproven by the evidence available to us.

I believe that the scientific method is not only an excellent way to conduct an experiment, but also a great framework to make decisions across all aspects of one’s life. The first step is to make an observation. Ask yourself, “What is my problem?” Secondly, conduct your research using credible sources by people who are educated in the subject you are trying to learn more about. It’s important not to just read articles that you already agree with. Next, form a hypothesis. Your hypothesis should be a reasonable, educated statement about your subject. Afterward, test your hypothesis. Most of the time this can be accomplished by doing more research or going out into the world to make observations. Lastly, record what you learned and draw a conclusion. Do not dismiss the conclusion just because it was the opposite of what you thought would happen.

Let’s try to apply this method to an issue that has made January a tough month to be an American: the proposed building of a border wall. Using the scientific method, we should first ask ourselves, “Would a wall solve the problems we have concerning immigration?” Next, seek out sources that will give you a clear picture of the problem. We’ve been told by proponents of the wall that workers in the U.S. illegally take jobs away from Americans and commit high rates of crime. They’ve also told us illegal drugs are pouring through this area, thereby fueling the opioid crisis. If you explore this issue in more detail, you will find that undocumented workers contribute not only to the U.S. tax base but take jobs that many native-born people will not take. Without them, our economy would be in serious trouble. Secondly, crime statistics show immigrants commit crimes at a rate lower than the native population does. Lastly, if you read the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Justice Department’s report on how drugs are smuggled into this country, it’s very hard to accept the argument that a wall would help in any way — especially in light of the tunnels that have been discovered between Mexico and the U.S.

Due to the confines of space allowed for this column, I cannot go into every piece of research that debunks the myths surrounding the so-called crisis at the southern border. What is very interesting, however, is that the George W. Bush Presidential Center has devoted a whole section of its website to debunking immigration myths. What is also fascinating to me is the folks who were against the Monocacy River plan’s nonexistent “land grab” are OK with private citizens’ land being confiscated for a wall. Not to mention the ecological damage and impact a wall would have on animal populations. Immigration policy needs to be formed through rational, thoughtful approaches, not sensationalized campaign rhetoric.

Shannon Green writes from Frederick.

(65) comments

public-redux

Here's another way to think about whether or not the US should build a wall along its southern border: See what the bible has to say about it.

Ralph Drollinger, the guy who leads bible studies for Trump and his Cabinet members, says he " was asked by Members of President Donald Trump's White House Cabinet to provide perspective from Scripture on illegal immigration and whether nations had biblical authority to build barriers to protect citizens from invaders." So he did.

"Romans 2:4 indicates how God is tolerant toward us as sinners....."

"The book of Proverbs, God’s OT thesis that defines wisdom, uses the word
understanding over and over again!...."

"In our ongoing present study of the Book of James, the Greek word translated
reasonability in James 3:17 appears in the shopping list of godly characteristics that define the wisdom from above in contrast to the wisdom of this world (cf. James 3:15). If you say you are wise (and our country deserves wise leaders), you must be reasonable with others! ....."

"Add to this that God’s Word explicitly states we are to be submissive to governing authorities. That is clear
from Romans 13:1-8 and I Peter 2:13-14. In that our President is elected through an Electoral College process as our
leader, we need to follow his lead (presupposing the direction he desires us to go as a nation is biblically based; ...."

And the conclusion:

"In specific regard to building a wall, is that a biblically justifiable objective? The answer is an unequivocal YES; God had Nehemiah build a wall to protect His people. Further, see my attached Bible study on illegal immigration. Note the section wherein God has OT Israel classify people into citizens, sojourners, and illegals.
These monikers of distinction are applicable to every nation today – including ours. Accordingly, in God’s eyes, our President has every biblical right to construct a wall in order to keep out illegals. And since he is our elected leader, we the people, including Congress, should submit to his authority as our President and all get behind building the wall. Such a spirit stands in contrast to being intolerant, lacking understanding, being unreasonable, or downright rebellious. POTUS is pursuing a biblically justifiable objective."

Read the whole letter. Every knee shall bow.

https://capmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-Bible-and-the-Wall-by-Ralph-Drollinger.pdf

DickD

You are having too much fun, Gladys.

phydeaux994

So that’s why GOD wanted Trump to be our Supreme Potentate as Sarah Huckleberry Sanders said. 📶📶📶

public-redux

"There's a whole lotta things that I've never done.
I ain't never had too much fun."

Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen

gary4books

They had Kings. We do NOT have kings. We have a Congress and they are our elected representatives and they decide where our money goes. The President is to execute their orders - an executive. No king. Not even Caesar. Even if he were a king, I would say we have built walls and fences enough on that border. We do need workers and trade. It is madness.

public-redux

Ralph Drollinger has anticipated your objection. He knows what to do about Scripture-rejecting "unregenerates" like you. This isn't about kings versus legislators but about people who know what God wants America to do and people who don't:

Unregenerate people in general, legislators in specific, are not morally-naïve, blank pallets innocently standing by to be scrolled on by the faithful members of the House. They are not tabula rasa... Unbelievers carry a bias in the direction of sin because of their endemic sinful nature (cf. Gen. 3). They find themselves resisting the truth lest they condemn their own evil ways. And when left with the choice between suppressing that which they know and outwardly manifesting hypocrisy, many are those who will cop for the former. That too explains why so many avoid the Bible Study groups in the Capitol. They are living in sin and they know it, and to sit in an environment where the Scriptures are being proclaimed is hugely uncomfortable. Better to tell yourself “the Scriptures aren‟t true.”

BIBLICALLY, TO DECLARE, “THERE IS NO GOD” OR “I DON‟T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE” IS EQUIVALENT TO THE FIREMAN WHO SWITCHES OFF THE ALARM IN HIS ATTEMPT TO GAIN SOME NEEDED REST

So don‟t buy the excuses of suppressors. Learn to view suppression as one crying out for help. The governmental leader who states rebelliously, “I don‟t believe in the Bible” is in need of someone to come along side and help him or her to quit overpowering (by way of self-deception) that which they know to be right. Accurately diagnosed, on display is a strong will in need of deliverance from sin. They need a loving believer to call them to repentance and liberate them from their bondage through reception of the Lord Jesus Christ.

https://capmin.org/how-to-respond-to-scripture-rejectors/

DickD

Agree 100 percent, Shannon. And what you didn't say is the fact that 30 percent of illegal drugs coming into the country come from boat along the long coast line that the U.S. has.

public-redux

A sea wall can take care of that.

DickD

God would send a tsunami and wipe it out, Gladys,https://www.gotquestions.org/walls-of-Jericho.html

"The story of the walls of Jericho falling down, recorded in Joshua 6:1–27, is one that vividly demonstrates the miraculous power of God. But more than that, the utter destruction of Jericho teaches us several grand truths regarding God’s grace and our salvation."

public-redux

I always thought the moral of that story was “Learn some engineering, dood.”

veritas

Nice but embarrassingly ineffective try, attempting to portray this partisan hit piece as the residue of thoughtful application of “the scientific method.” Pelosi and Schumer and a host of Dems have voted in the past to significantly expand the wall. I suppose their intransigence on the issue now is a result of their application of the scientific method and has nothing to do with political hyper-partisanship and seething contempt for Trump. Yeah, right ... [beam][beam][beam]

Hayduke2

veritas - just curious, how do you explain the President's intransigence? Two bills have passed the Senate and had House support - it was and is the president who stands in their way. BTW, the polical hyper-partisanship and seething contempt is also on display for Pelosi and Schumer...

DickD

If you have a better way, let's hear it. Blind support for the pathetic child in the White house is not enough to convince anyone.

veritas

Blind support? Hardly. Did not vote for Trump and still don’t care for him... but do support much of his agenda. Dems have lost their minds... free college, Medicare for all, open borders, wealth tax, abortion on demand up to and including delivery of the child; the list is long and ugly. I’ll cross my fingers and hold my nose, but I’ll pull the lever for Trump in 2020 in opposition to the nightmare being offered by the increasingly leftist Democratic Party.

des21

Well said veritas and, as usual, I'm with you. Didn't vote for Trump, think he's repugnant on much but in terms of tax reform, nominating scores of conservative judges, standing up to China (our real international foe) deregulation of the 4th unelected branch of government, etc., I'm with him. This at a time when the Democrats (as you cite) have veered even farther to the left. They are not an option for any rational, thinking, compassionate person IMO. Scientific method (such as it was presented) or not!

Hayduke2

Veristas - I don't have a crystal ball so I am not sure what the nominee for the Democratic party will bring. Could be a left of center moderate that advances things like tax breaks for the middle class, infrastructure improvements, middle class tax reform, drug pricing legislation and health care improvement. Your saying Dems have lost their minds simply shows that you have your own predisposed ideas about generalizing a large group of people. As far as holding your nose when you pull the lever, that is a part of the problem and leads to a president with only 40% support.

Funny how no one is claiming Trump as “their own” now.

No doubt there are problems with our trade relationship with China. No one questions that. The problem is how Trump attacks the problem with poorly thought out bullying techniques. The question is, will his negotiating style make matters better or worse? Does he have a strategy other than to create a crisis then claim victory by ending his self-created crisis... We’ll see.

Has anyone notice the number of trademarks that have been recently approved by China for Trump’s daughter, Ivanka? 🤔 Coincidence?

public-redux

aw,

Well, it is true that not that many people voted for Trump so we shouldn't be surprised when people say they didn't. I do know that a lot of my relatives said they did vote for him and they are very pleased so far.

gary4books

That may be a write in vote.

shiftless88

Really, veritas? You take their votes out of context; why? For one, it wasn't a stand-alone "wall" vote and it was also a while ago when the situation was different. On the other hand, the Senate voted unanimously just five weeks ago to pass a budget without wall funding so why don't you go after all the Republicans who voted for that?

public-redux

"I suppose [Dem's] intransigence on the issue now is a result of their application of the scientific method and has nothing to do with political hyper-partisanship and seething contempt for Trump. Yeah, right..."

The author didn't make that argument so your dismissal of it is a strawman. Nor did the columnist suggest that Dems's prior support of walls/barriers/fences was justified. Which of the substantive arguments do you think are erroneous?

phydeaux994

That they voted for a WALL before has got to be the dumbest argument yet! If you always had to do what you did before nothing would ever be improved!!! Think veritis, Think. George W. Bush presented the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which was passed by a bipartisan vote of Congress. Nancy didn’t vote for it. The Bill specified how the fence was to be built, where it was to be built, what technology would be used and where, sensors, cameras, etc., and what additional equipment and personnel would be funded to keep the Border secure. One year later the DHS came back to Congress and said they were having problems building the fence as dictated in the Act, because of the varying terrain. So an amendment had to be made to allow variations in the construction of the fence. Then came the lawsuits from Mexico, landowners, citizens, environmental groups, etc. that had to be settled, which are still going on! Look up the results of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 veritis and subsequent Legislation concerning the maintenance of the fence. And explain how 7500 additional Border Agents will be hired when they are 2000 Agents short as we speak!

gary4books

No good reason to do it all again. Some additions may be in order as are repairs and all. But the whole nine yards? Please. it is madness.

sevenstones1000

The crippling problem with American politics is the electoral college. Whatever its initial intent, it has far outlived any relevance.

One person, one vote for president. The largely unoccupied states still have the Senate where they can throw their weight around and hold the majority of Americans hostage. They should not also be able to play games with the Presidency.

DickD

[thumbup][thumbup]

des21

That'll be a hard pass thanks. Having America's political future determined but self-selecting experts clustered around large, bi-coastal urban centers? No thanks.

Mickey7

[lol] speaking of self-selected experts?

des21

Yes, that would be you Vic. I, along with 3% of humanity, have the highest degree in my field.[beam]

public-redux

"92% are LIBERAL!"

Thanks for pointing out that having a Ph.D. is no guarantee of wisdom. I'm sure des would agree.

phydeaux994

Des, you have PhD in Elementary School Physical Education?? Did you see Trumps statement on his criticism of the Intelligence Department Heads? He said he talked to them and they said they had been misquoted by the mainstream Media, that their reporting was the usual “Fake News”!!?? Trump forgot, didn’t know, was unaware, that their presentation to the Intelligence Committee was TELEVISED TO THE NATION!!! ‼️‼️⁉️🆘🆘🏨

public-redux

"Having America's political future determined but self-selecting experts clustered around large, bi-coastal urban centers?"

des, This sounds like a fancy way of saying "the majority of Americans".

What do you think recommends the superior judgment of self-selecting experts in the non-urban non-coastal areas of the country? After all, the experts in a lot of those places thought you were terribly wrong in 2016: they voted for Trump and you didn't.

Mickey7

Facts have Liberal Bias!

gabrielshorn2013

Again with this? Facts are facts, and are unbiased. They just are. Your perception of those facts may be biased. Discrete counting of a population of objects provide a factual number. Polling is a sample, and therefore subject to bias. Please, no Deepak Chopra on this subject.

public-redux

“Emotional intelligence shapes potential choices.” ~ Deepak Chopra or Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator.

des21

Come on Phy- you know my PH.D Is in political science which I taught for 17!years before returning to my first love. I should get 20 votes for your 1!😀. Phy I do have great respect for American historical identities which seem anathema to the left. While I didn’t vote for Trump I have been impressed by his performance economically, in FP, in reining in the unelected bureaucrats- maybe the shutdown is a way to get these highly skilled workers to go elsewhere-4% unemployment- the times couldn’t be better! I also appreciate him fundamentally changing the courts ina conservative direction. He has fulfilled most of his ‘16 promises- except the wall. I think he’ll get it- I wouldn’t bet against him.

DickD

You think where you live is more important than the individual? And you think that is reasonable? Come on, Dave, you can do better than that.

Mickey7

[thumbup]7

Hayduke2

Agree seven - given the technology and ability for a candidate to reach all immediately, it is time to revist the structure of the EC. At the very least, the EC should be based on the percentage of the popular vote won. For example, you win 49.8 % of the popular vote cast, you get 49.8 % of the EC. No winner take all because you managed to get almost half of the popular vote. This argument that the middle of the country won't be represented is a very popular myth among some.

wran

Would be interesting to see outcome if states would allocate their EC votes proportionately. A candidate can receive 50.1 % of votes in a state yet receive all the EC votes of that state. Not likely to happen though.

public-redux

A while back I hypothesized a bunch of ways to allocate the EC vote, including fractional EC votes. Trump won in every scenario I could think up except, of course, popular vote. For the record, a candidate can get all of the EC votes of a state while receiving fewer than 50% of the votes in that state. If memory serves, the only jurisdictions where Clinton got more than 50% of the votes in 1992 were Arkansas and DC.

gary4books

Something to think about: "What is also fascinating to me is the folks who were against the Monocacy River plan’s nonexistent “land grab” are OK with private citizens’ land being confiscated for a wall."

DickD

I am against both, Gary.

Mickey7

Thank you, Mr. Green!

public-redux

I love her emphasis on afaithism.

phydeaux994

Trump doesn’t give a rats butt about a WALL/FENCE/BARRIER. All he cares about is not letting Nancy Pelosi win. Of course, she has already bested him twice. So he is desperate to keep his “best Deal Maker in the History of the World” title. The only way he can save face is to get his WALL/FENCE/BARRIER and $5.7B to fund it. But I think Nancy Pelosi will go three for three. 🥊🥊🥉🏆

secpol1970

If you think pelosi is winning against Trump you have been asleep. She is losing her grip on the party. As for the piece of garbage article I seriously doubt he has done his research much less actually go to the border. Gutless democrats only care about the open border and illegal aliens rather than their fellow citizens. democrats are no longer an American party but an international socialist workers party. They will destroy this country with their loony policies.

That guy

Who is saying Democrats want open borders? Who is saying they want illegal aliens? Who is saying they're socialist?

Hayduke2

That guy - it's always the same inane generalization. You won't get an answer because there isn't one. Democrats, like Republicans fall across the political spectrum and ideology.

veritas

Democrats are saying it. Actions speak louder than words: Sanctuary cities, counties and states; drivers licenses for illegal immigrants; free health care for illegal immigrants in San Francisco and NYC, two trend setting leftist cities; allowing illegal immigrants to vote; free or reduced tuition for illegal immigrants; opposition to census counting illegal immigrants; attempting to eliminate ICE; opposition to expanding the border wall to enhance border security. Dems say thet are not in favor of open borders, but their actions prove otherwise.

Hayduke2

Each and every thing you mention has a solid, logical argument for it as well as against it. The reality is that generalizing based on diverse and articulated talking points by individuals is inaccurate. Its like blaming Republicans because their administrations always increase government spending and run up the debt. Issues are complicated with reasonable actions available to compromise.

shiftless88

veritas continually does what he accuses this LTE of doing; throwing around partisan talking points while pretending they are thoughtful analyses.

veritas

88 and Duke... you guys crack me up. I come here to voice an educated opinion and make an occasional point or two, not provide in depth research, independent analyses with references, footnotes and the like. You guys apparently come here anticipating Wikipedia-like depth. No wonder you always sound so disappointed and frustrated. I’m going to keep expressing my opinions here without citing sources or references. If you’re really so interested on what informs my opinions, read an occasional article or commentary from National Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, or the like. But be careful... you may find they make a whole lot of sense to you.

Hayduke2

V - glad to see what you try to pass as factual are nothing more than your opinions with no more merit than any others.

veritas

Hey, Hay... so your posts are 100% certifiably, objectively, spot on accurate? Yeah. Right. Dude, we all have at our finger tips a plethora of exclusively accurate “factual”data to support our respective positions. In the final analysis, it all comes down to what we have in our hearts and minds that molds our positions. I’m good with where I am on all that. And I’ll keep yammering on in this forum to present my positions, irrespective of whether or not they meet your sanctimonious standards of legitimacy. Is this a great country, or what?

Hayduke2

Veritas - agree that you are more than welcome to post your opinions - my response is that you often phrase them to indicate they are completely factual and are the correct generalization of diverse views. You ought to try reading the occasional article or commentary from the Washington Post, NPR, New York Times or the like. But be careful, you may find they make a whole lot of sense too! [lol[smile]

marinick1

[thumbup]

DickD

Gutless? Mitch McConnell says that he has had enough of government shut down and there will not be any more. Nancy Pelosi didn't win? Tell me how yourhero Donald Trump won, I really need a good laugh this cold morning.

olefool

Well, well mr/mrs/miss (or whatever you identify as these days) that's quite an imagination you have there. Trump will destroy his presidency and our country for a wall on the southern border while at the same time he opens the white house door and hands the keys to our democracy to vladimir putin. I might show facts as plain as day: but, since your eyes are blind to reality, you'd only say, 'Where? What?' and turn away.

sdm817

Your name fits you well. So, you have proof of collusion? Wow does Mueller know because hes been looking for years.

public-redux

The Mueller investigation is about 40% as long as the Ken Starr investigation ended up being. 20 months so far to Starr's 49. Mueller should have as long as he needs -- especially since he is a Republican investigating a Republican -- so the whole thing can't be spun as a whitewash if he doesn't come up with anything.

Mickey7

sdm, You need to read the book by Seth Abramson, "Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America"

olefool

sdm817: I didn't mention collusion now, did I??? You must have a guilty conscience or nothing to add to this thread. Do you deny, with some specificity that Trump is not in cahoots with the Russians to damage the USA? If so, proof please.

phydeaux994

Scoreboard! Scoreboard! Scoreboard! Remember that old High School cheer secpol? Check the Scoreboard!! Can you remember worrying about a crisis on the Southern Border before Trump started with “The WALL THAT MEXICO WILL PAY FOR”??? Can you explain how “hundreds of thousands” of illegal aliens are pouring across the Border but the number of illegal aliens in the Country has DECREASED since 2007 according to the DHS? Is that what you call being for open Borders? And could you actually IDENTIFY the looney policies you are talking about? What policies have Democrats even put in place in the last DECADE?? Come back when you have some answers!!! 🗣🗣🗣

gary4books

Like fresh air, this seems.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!