A woman and two children drowned in the Rio Grande on Friday night in Eagle Pass, Texas, after U.S. border agents were prevented from responding, federal officials said Saturday.

In a statement, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said U.S. Border Patrol agents were made aware of the migrants’ distress by the Mexican government but were unable to enter the area from the U.S. side after Texas National Guard troops, under the direction of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, prevented them from doing so.

~Dennis Romero/NBC News

Excuse me, but isn’t Greg Abbott the one who claimed to be pro-life when he signed the most draconian anti-abortion legislation in the country post-Dobbs. Governor, how is the above incident “pro-life?”

This tragic event occurred one day following the latest email from my favorite “do nothing” U.S. representative Aaron Bean (R-FL4).  He posted the following:

This week, I took to the House floor to refute President Biden’s false claim that Republicans are to blame for the border crisis. It’s this administration’s open border policies that have directly resulted in the invasion happening along the southern border.

Americans know the truth. Our southern border remains open for one reason and one reason only: because President Biden refuses to shut it down.

If only the congressman would spend less time watching (and appearing on) Fox News and read any analysis about the increase in global migration.  He might learn the “flood” of migrants at our southern border is the result of lingering economic impacts from the pandemic, climate change and political persecution.  And as he tends to do, he once again equated talk with action.  Here are the three actions he took in response to what he calls an “invasion.”

• Made a speech on the House floor.
• Sent a letter to New York City mayor Eric Adams.
• Appeared on Fox News to “discuss [Homeland Security] Secretary Mayorka’s dereliction of duty.”

What he did not do was propose an alternative to the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to address the issue, a compromise he opposes.

There is no question the border situation needs attention, but the real issue becomes clearer when viewed through a historical perspective.  Although the number of immigrants seeking entry into the United States may be at an all-time high, the total is a significantly lower percentage of the current U.S. population.  In 1907, 1,004,756 immigrants were processed through Ellis Island at a time when the total U.S. population was only 87 million.  In other words, America absorbed immigrants who made up an increase of 1.15 percent of its current population.  In contrast, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports just over 2.5 million migrants sought entry at the southern border in 2023 when the total U.S. population was 335.9 million for what would amount to an absorption rate of 0.74 percent.

On a more personal note, both my paternal and maternal grandparents came through Ellis Island during the early 1900s.  They were seeking refuge from the pogroms, organized efforts to eliminate or expel ethic and religious minorities, particularly Jews, from Russia and eastern Europe.  They did not speak English.  As documented by Lesley Kennedy on HISTORY.COM, over 80 percent of the arrivals at Ellis Island were processed and released within a few hours.  And less than two percent were denied entry.  Which raises some obvious questions.

• What is so different about the aspiring immigrants  at the southern border versus those, like my ancestors, who entered the U.S. via Ellis Island?
• What criteria were used to determine eligibility that resulted in only two percent being denied entry?
• How could processing, without the benefit of modern technology, take only hours when today there is a backlog which can delay disposition of asylum requests for weeks, months and even years?

Kennedy suggests efficiencies were gained by a staggered system of sorting and screening.  First, immigrants arriving by boat provided basic information to officials when boarding the ship in Europe.  Upon arrival, two lines were formed, one with women and children, the other with men.  Medical examinations for communicable diseases were performed by military surgeons and individuals with health issues were quarantined.   The others were then questioned to verify the information provided on the ship manifest.  Only those with red flags were detained pending appeals.

This is not rocket science.  A similar system could be built with cooperation by the Mexican and other Latin American countries.  Screening of immigrants for disease, criminal background and drug smuggling (issues that are frequently raised by fearmongers) could be addressed before asylum seekers reach the border.  It would cost money, but that too could be addressed with a little creativity.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, no bastion of liberal orthodoxy, claims on its website: 

America has grown and thrived because we attract and welcome the hardest working and most talented people to our shores. They come here to pursue their dreams and build their lives. However, today’s immigration system falls far short of meeting the needs of our society, our economy, our businesses, and our workers. The U.S. Chamber works for smart immigration policy reforms so the U.S. can boost economic growth, create jobs, and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship.

If this is true, one can imagine the Chamber and pro-business Republicans supporting an annual fee for each non-citizen employee a company hires who holds a green card or work visa to create an Ellis Island like system to expedite processing of aspiring immigrants.  This is, of course, if they really want to solve the problem, unlike House members like Aaron Bean who just want to bitch about it.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

On New Year’s Eve, I received the following email from my congressman Aaron Bean who just completed his first year in Washington.

This exercise in “Bean counting” might be considered “historic,” if and only if, the role of a U.S. representative was just responding to letters, holding town halls and conducting Zoom conference calls.  Kudos to instances where his office intervened in financial disputes that resulted in positive outcomes for his constituents, but that number represents an average return of $1.28 for each resident of Florida’s 4th congressional district (851,000 according to the 2020 census).

 Even Mr. Bean does not believe this is why he ran for Congress.  When he entered the race in June 2022, he promised to reverse the Democratic policies of Joe Biden’s first two years in office which he claimed stifled economic growth and silenced family values (whatever that means).  His top priorities?

• Rising inflation.
• Gas prices that crippled hardworking Americans.
• Unprotected borders.
• Loss of respect for law and order.
• Federal overreach by a government attempting to us that they know what is best.

This is laughable on multiple counts.  How have all the newsletters, meetings, phone calls, etc. impacted a single one of these issues?  More importantly, Mr. Bean does not offer a single piece of legislative enacted during his first “historic” year in Washington that achieved his policy goals.  When it comes to priorities #1 and #2, the U.S. economy continues to grow beyond expectations while inflation this year declined by 67 percent, no thanks to Bean and his GOP colleagues.  (Congressman, can you say Bidenomics?  I know you could.) 

I guess “law and order” does not include following the U.S. Constitution.  Bean voted three times for Jim Jordan and once for Mike Johnson, both of whom remain election deniers despite lack of evidence of any significant voter fraud, to be Speaker of the House.  Not to mention the new definition of the pot calling the kettle black, by someone who decries government overreach, yet fails to speak up about a woman’s right to reproductive health care without having to get the state’s permission.

The Florida 4th deserves better, yet no one has stepped up to prosecute the case against the incumbent’s inaction.  What are the local Democratic Party Committees doing to recruit a candidate?  Taking on Aaron Bean is an uphill fight in a district with a 3:1 Republican registration.  However, if there is not an opposing voice to challenge him on his performance to date, voters will never learn why it is not good enough.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Dr. ESP, this is the third post in a row referencing Nikki Haley.  And not in a positive light.  Are you afraid she really could win the election in November if she is the GOP nominee?

~Imaginary Subscriber

Dear Imaginary, thank you for your question.  In the tradition of my people, I will answer your question with a question.  Are you suggesting I share the Biden campaign’s assessment the best hope of victory in the 2024 contest is a rematch between the incumbent and Donald Trump?  If so, the answer is absolutely NOT.  I am pulling for Haley, knowing that Trump will not take a defeat lying down.  He will either run as an independent, start a write-in campaign or preemptively declare Haley cannot win and urge his voters to stay home (just to prove himself right).  He has to somehow stay in the race if he wants to continue arguing his indictments, trials and likely convictions are politically motivated.

Consider the following.  Every protest Trump vote will be one less for Haley.  Abraham Lincoln could not survive a defection of 15 to 30 percent of expected Republican ballots.  And imagine the chaos if down-ballot Republicans have to pick sides.  The civil war within the party will go from tepid to ultra-thermal overnight ensuring a Democratic house and senate in 2025.

So count me among the cheerleaders hoping Haley wins the nomination, but here is why she will not.  She may be the only person in America who could give Donald Trump an opportunity to tell the truth for once.  It began when a nine-year-old boy in Iowa asked Haley how her position on Trump could “flip-flop” so often in eight years.  Once accused of straddling the fence, the best way to make it stick is to provide more examples.  It did not take long.

During the second Republican debate, Haley proposed eliminating the federal gas tax.  On December 30, the Trump campaign released a statement citing Haley’s “troublesome record” when it came to an increase in the South Carolina gas tax during her governorship.  “She pushed for a WHOPPING 60% increase in the state gas tax in South Carolina after promising voters she would never do so.” In essence, Trump was asking potential Haley voters, “She reneged on a promise once before.  Why would you believe she won’t do it again?”

But the back story about the financing of South Carolina highways eclipses the current fray over any inconsistent messaging.  If you have ever driven through South Carolina on I-95, you notice gas prices are considerably lower than in the states to its north and south.  However, you also observe something else.  South Carolina is the only one of the three immediate states and most of the others along I-95 that is limited to two-lanes in each direction.  And maintenance is spotty at best.  Don’t take my word for it.  A May 2023 article by Forbes contributor Gary Stoller included the following on-line testimonials.

FITSNews: Traveling from Georgia, the highway narrows from six lanes to four lanes — with rusty guardrails flanking the roadside. Trash is everywhere, greeting visiting motorists as they pass through a 1990s-era stucco display that might as well be the entrance to a drug kingpin’s barn — or a trailer park…Worst of all is the pavement which resembles an Afghan airstrip following a sustained bombing barrage.

REDDIT: Seriously, just did Boston to Miami and then back, and the stretch through South Carolina feels like driving in a Third World country. What gives?

Therefore, the question is not whether Haley promises to eliminate the federal gas tax and then does not?  The issue is whether she is promising she will make the entire U.S. interstate system emulate South Carolina’s share of it.  Maybe it is a plank in her “bring down inflation now” campaign.  Except it will more likely apply to shredded tires than to the price of consumer goods and services.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

[BLOGGER’S NOTE:  On the Deprogramming101 home page, I warn readers not to take everything I write as gospel.  Today’s post is one for which I urge everyone to take that advice.]

In the runup to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the contenders for the Republican nomination for president have uttered words one would never expect from an individual seeking the highest office in the land.  However, Wednesday night, the unexpected took a hard turn to the left when former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley declared the South fought the Civil War to protect a woman’s choice when it comes to her reproductive health and LGBTQ+ rights..

I know, she did not use those exact words, but what else could she possibly mean when her response to the question, “What caused the American Civil War,” was the following.

I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And we will always stand by the fact that I think the government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people,  It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom.

To emphatically declare “government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life” must have been music to the ears of Americans who are part of the LGBTQ+ community.  If only there were paintings of the South Carolina confederate brigade being led into battle behind a flagbearer holding a rainbow version of the “Stars and Bars” to validate Ms. Haley’s assertion.  Imagine she had used her tenure as governor to educate Palmetto State citizens how their ancestors took up arms to ensure every South Carolinian could enjoy the same rights and privileges regardless of their sexual orientation.  One can even envision the Daughters of the Confederacy and SC United for Justice & Equality, a Charleston-based coalition of LGBTQ+ advocates, coming together to oppose removal of statues of Civil War generals and soldiers who gave their lives for gender equality.

Furthermore, has there ever been a more forceful argument for a woman’s right to choose, than Haley’s declaration, “They [government] don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do.”  But she did not stop there, doubling down by adding, “They don’t need to be part of your life.”  One has to assume that includes judges, politicians and (in Texas) anti-abortion bounty hunters having a seat at the table during a patient’s consultation with her physician.  Women, and the men who love them, living in states where legislatures dominated by old, white males enacted laws limiting reproductive choice, greeted Haley’s change of heart with a rousing chorus of “hosannas.”

Rumor has it (not really) Christian F. Nunes, president of the National Organization of Women, was preparing a statement welcoming Haley into the “sisterhood.”  However, before she could deliver her remarks, Haley realized she now faced a “Hobson’s Choice,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectional alternatives.”  Based on an overnight analysis of GOP polling data that would make a sabermetrician blush, Haley picked her poison.  Turns out, MAGA World is more offended by her echoing the words of pro-choice and LGBTQ+ advocates than they are by acknowledging slavery’s role in the Civil War.  Less than 12 hours following her New Hampshire trial by fire, Haley had a second change of heart.  During a Thursday morning radio interview, the penitent candidate declared, “Of course the Civil War was about slavery.”  Welcome back to Earth One.

Her flip-flopping did not go unappreciated.  I hear (again, not really) the owner of Waffle House #233 at 2229 Savannah Highway in Charleston, South Carolina has roped off a counter-side table perpetually reserved for the former governor.  And if this presidential thing does not pan out for her, he hopes she will become the establishment’s official spokesperson.

[NOTE: For an excellent, non-fictional assessment of Nikki Haley’s 24 hours in what some are calling her introduction to the “GOP Thunderdome,” check out Politico senior columnist Matt Lewis’ op-ed, “Nikki Haley’s Slavery Gaffe Shows How Scared She Is of MAGA Republicans.“]

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

More revealing than yesterday’s decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate for President in the state’s primary was the reaction of the other contenders for the Republican nomination.  Let’s begin with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and whatever Vivek Ramaswamy.  Remember all three raised their hand when asked if they would support Trump even if he was convicted of a felony crime.  Here is what each said about the Colorado decision.

DeSantis:  The Left invokes ‘democracy’ to justify its use of power, even if it means abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal grounds.

Haley:  The last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can’t be on the ballot.

Ramaswamy:  This is what an actual attack on democracy looks like.

In contrast, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he would not support Trump if he was convicted of a felony.  However, his support of the American judicial system ended last night with his response to the Colorado ruling.

Christie:  I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court.

Ironically, Christie harbored no similar opinion concerning court intervention when it came to Gore v. Bush following the 2000 election.  In fact, he uses Gore’s concession to contrast Trump’s behavior when it comes to respect for the judicial process.

Sadly, the only candidate for the Republican nomination who said he would not vote for a convicted felon and agreed with the Colorado ruling was former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who remains in the race although he is polling at less than one percent and has not qualified for the last two debates.

Hutchinson: The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling barring Donald Trump from the presidential ballot is what I raised as a concern in the first presidential debate in Milwaukee. The factual finding that he supported insurrection will haunt his candidacy.

So we now have five candidates, including Trump, who might as well be running on a platform to repeal Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  For you strict constructionists out there, it contains some of the clearest possible language in any of the founding documents.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on the Colorado disqualification.  On today’s edition of “Morning Joe,” conservative and former Republican attorney George Conway admitted he had been skeptical of the case for disqualification until he read the dissenting opinions of the three Colorado judges who voted against banning Trump from the March 5 primary ballot.  He found them to be logically weak and did not refute the facts.  Trump engaged in insurrection and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars people who engage in insurrection from holding any public office.

He made another observation which undermined the argument that Trump had not physically participated in the January 6 insurrection.  Conway noted that the phrase in the 14th amendment which reads, “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,” especially the phrase “the same” refers specifically to “the Constitution of the United States” in the previous clause.  Therefore insurrection in Section 3 need not be a physical act.  Insurrection, in this case, requires only a failure to follow the Constitution.

Conway concluded that, if the Supreme Court takes up the appeal, Trump’s lawyers will need to make much better arguments (not that such exist) and hope enough justices can tie themselves in knots coming up with a valid rationale to subvert the constitutional language.

One can only imagine Trump’s wrath if “my justices” uphold the Colorado decision.  Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett should hope their benefactor did not keep a copy of Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2 on his bedstand next to “The New Order,” a collection of Adolf Hitler’s speeches.  Otherwise he might get ideas from Act IV, Scene 2 for his Day One dictatorship.  “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the [judges].”

POSTSCRIPT:  PARENTING LESSON

If your children have any interest in becoming conservative Republican politicians or working for one, there is a sure fire way to ensure that do not abandon their moral compasses.  Change their last name to Hutchinson.  If it’s a girl call her Cassidy.  If it’s a boy, Asa seems appropriate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP