Chuck on the right side
THIS IS A BLOG THAT TRIES TO APPEAL TO THE AVERAGE CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN AND HAS NO AGENDA OTHER THAN TELLING THE TRUTH AS WE SEE IT.
Well, well, how true that statement is especially when it refers to our
treatment of illegal aliens. When we give people who have “invaded”
our country (even non-militarily) illegally, and we give them food,
shelter, clothing, education, health care, sanctuary cities, and a drivers
license, you know right away that our benevolence will attract others
to do the same, it's almost like a magnet. In other words, when you
reward something the more you get of it.
Common sense tells us that if we weren't so generous to those people
we call “illegal aliens” (according to liberals – they're undocumented
workers), the flow of these illegals into our country would drop to a
trickle as there would be no incentive for them to not get the
“goodies” that we now give them.
Why is that so difficult for liberals to understand? Is there a political
motive that influences their thought processes? Could it be that they
expect these “future citizens” to be reliable Democrat voters? Sounds
about right, doesn't it? But, when you ask a liberal, if someone, he/she
doesn't know, walks through his/her front door uninvited and demands
that you take care of them, would you let them stay or would you
summon the police to have them removed? The overwhelming
answer of these liberals would be “NO” they can't stay, so why are
they against a tightening up the border (with a fence that President
Trump wants put in place) in order to prevent letting people into our
country that have not been invited? You could deduce that liberals
have a “double-standard” and their resistance to tightening up the border is a valid case in point.
This editorials headline also applies to other situations affecting our
country, like lowering the standards in our schools (the “dumbing”
down of the curriculum) and not sufficiently punishing disruptive
students, thereby preventing learning from taking place for the
students who want to learn. Also, when people in government, in high
elective or appointed offices, violate the rules of conduct and they get
off without or little punishment (a slap on the wrist), you'll get more
illegal behavior ( a play on our headline might go like this, “When you
reward bad behavior, you get more of it”). The obvious case in point
is the rules that Hillary Clinton violated while in office and still no
punishment has been meted out because of a two-tier justice system,
one for the well connected and one for the rest of us poor slobs.
Now, we are faced with another problem that will affect society, and
that is the major push by some influential people to legalize drugs.
We've started with the legalization of marijuana in a few of the states
of the union, with more to come on board in the near future. Again,
you see that when you reward something, you get more of it. The
adverse effects of the legalization of marijuana already has had a
negative effect in the State of Colorado where traffic accidents and
deaths have spiked up dramatically since legalization. Although
marijuana is not a hard drug like cocaine and heroin, it is still a mind
altering drug that does affect the person using it, and legalizing it has
more people using it, not for medicinal use, but for recreational use.
So, in conclusion, when you reward something, you get more of it, can
be considered a sane conclusion in those areas mentioned above. It's
just common sense. So, be wary of those who want to do away
with our tried and true rules of conduct that have been handed down
through the ages, it might just be a changes for the worst, not the
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann