Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 201: ‘Send her back!’ is the rallying cry of the politically suppressed

Trump Rally
“Send her back! Send her back!”

The high-spirited North Carolina crowd chanted the slogan over and over as President Donald Trump spoke to an assemblage of thousands of enthusiastic and dedicated supporters last week. Much of Trump’s rally was carried live by Fox News, with millions more likely joining the fray (and perhaps vocalizing along) from the comfort of their home environments.

Almost like a fire raging out of control the president’s fanned the flames of passion in the center-right core of the country, with some on the left mustering to defend the four freshman Democrat “Squad” members and most of the rest flocking to Trump’s side for having pointed out how congressmen and congresswomen should unhesitatingly love the country they represent -- or perhaps voluntarily return to the blighted places from which they came… if they hate it here so much.

Among the swamp class, appreciation for the good American life isn’t always in evidence these days. And this certainly includes charter members of the Republican establishment. Alexander Bolton reported at The Hill last Friday, “Republican lawmakers are feeling rattled after a long week capped by a raucous presidential rally where thousands chanted ‘send her back’ at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali refugee who became a U.S. citizen and one of the first Muslim women to serve in Congress.

“President Trump distanced himself from the chant on Thursday, saying it made him unhappy and that he disagreed with it.

“But he also did not seek to tamp down the chant when it happened on Wednesday night, and the crowd was clearly responding to Trump’s attacks on Omar and three other minority congresswomen he earlier in the week had said should go back to their home counties.”

The “rattled” Republican lawmakers Bolton referred to are the usual suspects from the blueblood party establishment, perhaps best typified by Sen. Mitt Romney, who labeled the crowd’s chants “offensive” and surmised the party’s image would take a hit because of the audience’s zeal. “Very unfortunate for my party but also for our country,” Romney grumbled.

Really? For the country, Mitt? I saw a good portion of Trump’s address and viewed things a little differently. While it’s probably not a net positive for frenzied crowds to single out a person who came here as a child for forceable deportation, she’s (Rep. Ilhan Omar) an American citizen now and managed to get herself elected to Congress…so we shouldn’t feel too much pity for her. The crowd’s reaction was an instinctive response to the strong patriotic pride they’re often forced to suppress (through constant shaming by the ruling elites like himself and silencing by the media and thought police).

The chants were hardly “offensive” except to those already inclined to take offense to such raw but nontoxic emotion. Were they harmful to the Republican Party? Yet to be determined. But today’s political environment is already so noxious it’s hard to imagine anything altering it in a meaningful way. Rather than gripe about Trump’s “rhetoric”, the GOP’s ruling class senators could actually try something new -- to take a page from the Democrats’ own book and actually rush to get behind their president and party leader and what he represents -- good ‘ol fashioned loyalty.

Trump’s strategy is debatable, but his sentiments are correct. The fact is, Omar was born in the hell-hole that is Mogadishu, Somalia and emigrated to America as a little girl as part of previous administrations’ generous open-door policies. If anyone should be grateful to the U.S.A., it’s her. Instead, time and again she’s criticized politicians who back Israel, defended Al Qaeda, bashed ordinary Americans as “racists” and done everything within her power to advance a disastrous socialist agenda that undermines the liberty principles this nation was founded upon.

If a collection of North Carolina citizens thinks we should “send her back,” they have a pretty good case for believing it. Meanwhile, everyone who knows how the system works understands Omar isn’t going anywhere -- and this includes Mitt Romney. Are good folks no longer free to assemble and speak? What if the colonists were afraid of “offending” loyalists when they opted to “send” the occupying British army back to Great Britain…or spoke ill of the king?

Didn’t these same jelly-spine detractors think it was equally inappropriate to chant “lock her up” during the 2016 campaign? Didn’t they similarly predict Trump would suffer at the ballot box because his crowds were so unruly?

Perspective is in short supply these days. And the eagerness of certain establishmentarians to (sometimes) anonymously savage their president isn’t helping things. As was amply pointed out last week, Trump merely articulated what people feel in their hearts. The four congresswomen in question didn’t shy away from the situation either, using it as a platform to conduct a news conference to further draw focus to themselves. Trump’s said he regrets the chants… shouldn’t the elites accept it and move on?

Imagine if a pale-skinned male congressman who was born in Moscow defended Vladimir Putin and his seemingly good relationship with President Trump? Or if an Anglo descendant heralded Great Britain’s 19th century occupation of Africa and its subjugated populations? Why the hypocrisy?

My family includes someone who was born in Ukraine and we’ve never heard him say seditious things about the country. Why should Omar (and the other members of the “Squad”) receive a pass because she’s “of color” and from Africa? There’s plenty of reason to doubt her sincerity and oath to preserve the Constitution. Her statements alone provide obvious clues as to her belief system. If the crowd chanted “Send her back,” it’s neither offensive nor harmful.

Practicing what you preach isn’t exactly a Democrat strong point these days. 2020 Democrats are promising a lot of things, but do they always follow their own dictates? Bernie Sanders apparently doesn’t. Stephen Kruiser reported at PJ Media, “It would seem that Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), that tireless champion of the poor, downtrodden, and underpaid is kind of full of it.

“The Washington Post reports that the field hires on Sanders' presidential campaign aren't happy with what their socialist overlords are paying them...

“Sanders is an insufferable blowhard when pretending to care about others from one of his three houses. He routinely publicly shames corporations like McDonald's about their profits, and demands they pay their employees more. Never mind that most McDonald's restaurants are owned by franchisees and not the corporation; Sanders never lets business reality interfere with his redistribution rants.”

It’s got to be embarrassing to the Bern. Here he is on the campaign trail lecturing corporate America for oppressing the poor underrepresented American workforce and he’s not even following his own dictates. Kruiser indicated Sanders effectively asked for the backlash by allowing his campaign grunts to unionize -- which is absurd since everyone who’s ever worked for a grassroots political organization knows most of the money goes to the “biggie” expenses -- consultants, polls, advertising, etc.

Quite frankly, Bernie’s not getting his money’s worth if he’s shelling out $15 an hour for his entry-level staff. Such exorbitant wages eat the money up fast since fundraising (and merchandising) is the only way to bring in “revenue” to a campaign. If Bernie’s such a hot commodity with the leftist “burn-it-down” redistributionist crowd, shouldn’t they be volunteering their time in the first place?

Finite resources only go so far, something the good men and women of the border patrol have discovered. With the current emphasis on tracking the incoming waves of illegal migrants, the agents have less opportunity to monitor other pressing concerns like drug smuggling activity. Anna Giaritelli reported at The Washington Examiner, “Border Patrol highway checkpoints in the southern New Mexico region that normally seize seven figures worth of drugs annually have not seized a dollar in nearly four months after being shuttered in late March, allowing drugs to flood into the country. Meantime, with the added supply, prices for illicit drugs are dropping precipitously.

“Those seven checkpoints have sat unattended after Border Patrol closed them to move all personnel to the border to assist with apprehending, processing, and caring for the high number of migrant families arriving.”

It makes sense. If there are only so many agents -- and so much time -- then something will get missed. The media chooses to concentrate on the show quality of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “The Squad” while completely ignoring the palpable problems involved with too much border to watch and not enough eyes, guns and drug sniffing canines. Those drugs will eventually end up in neighborhoods and impact poor people the most.

The Democrats’ obsession with maintaining open borders shows up in more places than just sanctuary cities and ultimately, at the ballot box. Officers quoted in Giaritelli’s article said all of the tribulations that go along with drugs -- homelessness, car theft, petty crimes -- will almost certainly increase if there’s a drop in enforcement at the source.

Or, in the alternative, smugglers are dropping drugs and working on human migrant trafficking -- it makes them more money.

Among the multitude of problems the establishment media chooses to ignore is the border patrol’s inability to adequately control drug and human smuggling due to lack of manpower and resources. Rather than report facts, media members sensationalize “Send her Back!” chants. Who loses here?

Share this