War by words

The final days of June and the first days of July have been the scrappiest political days of 2014, featuring angry Americans venting on foreign children, progressive women throwing fits and so-called “professional” news broadcasters telling whoppers on national news.

All in all, it was a fascinating week with the principal actors being left-wing progressives on one hand and right-wing extremists on the other. Their weapons: words; words that insult intelligence.

The Hobby Lobby decision by the U.S. Supreme Court decided religious freedom trumped some forms of contraception. It was quickly followed by an injunction issued on behalf of Wheaton College’s objection to an ObamaCare contraception provision (previously issued on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor).

{mosads}The decision unleashed an explosion of emotionally charged words, led by Hillary Clinton in London promoting her book Hard Choices. She called the Hobby Lobby decision “a serious breach of a woman’s right” to choose contraceptives, which of course it is not. She also followed up, after the court’s Wheaton order to hold off enforcing rules by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding signed waivers on contraceptives, that she was “bewildered and confused” by the court.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democratic National Committee chair, went farther and essentially accused the court of sticking its hands inside a woman’s body.

“Progressive women” like the infamous Georgetown Law graduate Sandra Fluke obviously didn’t read the decision; she claimed the court denied all contraception to all women. Same woman who claimed contraception costs women $3,000 a year, 25 times actual cost.

Fluke, Schultz, Clinton and other progressive women that commented or screamed about the decision insulted the intelligence of anyone who actually read the Hobby Lobby decision and understands English.

On the other extreme were those mostly Republican people who blocked roads in Murrieta, Calif. to prevent U.S. government buses from driving to a U.S. Border Patrol complex in the town to process their passengers caught in the U.S. without permission to be here. Despite the fact that these protestors violated a number of state and federal laws far more serious than those kids break crossing the border, they were not arrested.

Later, people packed a town hall meeting and demanded all sorts of illegal acts of the federal government that is bound by laws on how to handle such people — children. Protestors didn’t want the “illegal alien” children in their midst. National television viewers were exposed to hysterical cries about “illegal aliens” over and over again.

Others of their mindset flooded social media with “facts;” these “illegal aliens” were criminal males ages 14 to 18 and thus were a threat to the Murrieta community. Was that true? No. After processing, they were to be taken to bus stations in Perris and Riverside, Calif. for travel to where relatives live. None were to be released in Murrieta.

The average age of these illegally present children appears to be 9 years of age, not 14 to 18. So where did that allegation of community threat originate?

These children are also called “criminals” despite being unable to commit “crimes” as we know them. Can a 5-year-old commit a crime? No, because criminal intent is a prerequisite to a crime and 5-year-olds are not capable of that.

Reporters on the scene noted that many of the protesters were not Murrieta residents; another militia, vigilante collective action that reporters refuse to report about? Cliven Bundy, where are you now?

The “war by words” culminated on the Fourth of July when morning Fox News channel broadcasts were hosted by substitute news readers and writers who do not measure up to regular Fox standards.

Twice, once by a woman and once by a man, reference was made to President Obama presiding over White House Fourth of July naturalization ceremonies for “undocumented” American military men and women with the ceremony designed to “push” Obama’s immigration agenda.

“Undocumented” people are not sworn in as citizens. “Undocumented” men and women are not allowed by law in the military. Certainly some manage to get through, usually with documents that do not belong to them, but none of those would be sworn in as citizens by the president of the United States. No “undocumented” people are allowed in the White House. None are allowed to get close to the president of the United States.

Lastly, Obama has never issued a proposal for immigration reform of any sort in writing or by announcement in press conference or address to the nation like President George W. Bush did. Obama let the Senate produce a bill and he supported that, but he has no plan of his own.

Fact: President Obama has no immigration reform agenda. He only has a political agenda of making Republicans look bad; Republicans like those in Murrieta are cooperating with Obama’s political agenda beyond measure.

Contreras formerly wrote for the New America News Service of The New York Times.