That Was Then, This Is Now

Amy Klobucher is the only candidate left in the Democrat primary who even seems to be a moderate. She’s not, but she is at least able to play the role well. However, there seems to be some distance between her current statements and her past statements.

Yesterday Breitbart posted a video of some remarks Amy Klobucher made in 2006.

The article reports what Ms. Klobucher said in 2006:

In 2006, while running for the U.S. Senate, Amy Klobuchar held the same positions on illegal immigration as President Donald Trump — supporting a physical barrier at the U.S.-Mexico border and mandatory E-Verify to ban employers from hiring illegal aliens.

Unearthed footage of a 2006 U.S. Senate candidate debate at the University of St. Thomas reveals Klobuchar once held similar views on illegal immigration as Trump, policies she now avidly opposes as she runs for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination.

“I do believe that we need more resources at the border and that includes a fence,” Klobuchar said. “What we have now, we have people waiting to come in legally. Thousands of people waiting to come in legally to this country, and we have people coming in illegally. That’s not right. We need to get order at the border.”

Klobuchar went even further, touting her support for nationwide mandatory E-Verify to open jobs for Americans and prohibit businesses from hiring illegal aliens:

But we also have to stop giving amnesty to companies that are hiring illegal immigrants. Under this administration, the number of prosecutions of companies [hiring illegal immigrants] has gone way down. That has to change. [Emphasis added]

That is a totally rational statement about immigration. However, things have evidently changed for Ms. Klobucher.

The article reports:

Today, Klobuchar has dropped all support for physical barriers along the southern border to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking, vowing on her campaign website to rescind all border wall funding that Trump has secured in recent months and end the national emergency declaration at the border.

“Stop the diversion of funds needed to modernize our military bases from being used for the border wall,” Klobuchar touts, continuing that she “will rescind President Trump’s national emergency declaration and return funding for its intended purpose.”

On mandatory E-Verify, Klobuchar has said explicitly that she will not support such a policy unless it is coupled with an amnesty for the majority of the 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living across the U.S.

How can anyone look at the deaths in America caused by illegal drugs smuggled across the southern border and the murders committed by people who are here illegally and not want to control who enters America? An open border is not a plan for our success as a nation–it is an invitation for people who want to come here to take advantage of our rapidly breaking safety net–not who want to come here to help build our country.


Why Civil Unions Make More Sense Than Gay Marriage

The idea of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that these documents protect the rights of all Americans. Theoretically no person or group has more or less rights than any other person or group. However, some recent decisions by courts and lawmakers have put the idea of protecting the rights of all Americans in danger. Britain is learning a lesson that I fear America will soon be learning.

On Saturday, the International Business Times reported the story of Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow.  In 1999, these two men were the first gay couple to be named as parents on a British birth certificate when they adopted a baby. The men entered a civil partnership in 2006. Now they are ready for the next step.

The article reports:

Now the pair, who entered a civil partnership in 2006, are planning to take another pivotal step forward for gay rights in the UK, after running out of options in their attempts to get married in church.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said: “I want to go into my church and marry my husband.

“The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.”

Although the government lifted the ban on same-sex marriages in July, David Cameron promised Britain’s religious institutions they will not be forced to conduct gay weddings.

So why am I bringing this up? If a church believes what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, doesn’t the Pastor have the right to refuse to perform gay weddings based on his right to practice his religion? The only way to avoid this dilemma is to put marriage under the jurisdiction of civil law and let church weddings be a private church issue. If a church chooses to perform a gay wedding, they should be free to do so, but it is wrong to use the law to coerce a Pastor to do something that is against a fundamental belief.

Civil unions for everyone is one way to protect everyone’s rights on the issue of gay marriage. We need to protect the rights of Americans to practice their religion.

Enhanced by Zemanta