Monday, July 21, 2014


Weekly Opinion Editorial
by Steve Fair
     An earmark is a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects. There are two types- Individual legislative earmarks and earmarks of specific funds by the legislature to fund specific projects.  Individual legislative earmarks are nothing more than ‘reelection tokens.’  An individual legislative earmark allows an incumbent elected official brags about how much taxpayer dollars he or she brought back to the district and the grateful constituents reward them with their votes.  It’s a disgusting practice that is unfortunately defended by conservatives and liberals alike.  One prominent Republican lawmaker argued with me about earmarks stating that elected officials were given the ‘power of the purse.’  The same elected official says the moratorium on earmarks has given more power to President Obama.  But the power of the purse is not given to legislators individually, but collectively.  No elected official should be given the absolute sovereign authority to determine a public project is worthy of funding or not worthy.  If a project deserves funding, let it go through the regular budgetary process.  Thankfully, earmarks at the federal level have lost their popularity because of lawmakers like Senator Coburn and others who refuse to take earmarks.
     Another type of earmark is one that directs revenue into a specific fund or to a specific project.  An example of this type of earmark in Oklahoma is HB # 1017.  Passed and signed into law in 1990, #1017 was challenged and Oklahoma voters rejected repealing the new law in a 1991 statewide vote (54% to 46%).  HB#1017 increased by ½ cent and directed the increase to common education.  #1017 also increased the state corporate income tax by 1% with the increase being earmarked for education.  It’s debatable as to how effective #1017 has been in improving education in the Sooner state.  Student test scores have certainly not risen as much as taxes since 1990 and classroom teachers still remain near the bottom in the U.S. in pay, but nevertheless #1017 is the will of the people. 
     Another earmark is one for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.  In 2006, ODOT came up with a plan that would allocate six billion dollars of state revenue- OFF THE TOP- for road and bridges in the state over an eight year period.  After Republicans took control of the legislature, they begin the task of addressing the state’s long neglected infrastructure(crumbling roads and bridges) and the eight year plan was passed and signed into law.  Good legislation and good policy for a state that had led the nation in diversion of federal highway funds to other uses.
     In a recent editorial, The Oklahoman attacked the ‘earmarks’ and advocated changing the legislative budgeting process in Oklahoma, but offered no details on what to change.  They wrote that Oklahoma tax revenue, ending June 30th, was up $469 million; however monies going into the state General Revenue account was up less than 1/3 of 1%.  The Oklahoman rightly said this gives the impression the state’s economy is flat, when in fact it is doing well. Their point is if a taxpayer is not paying attention, he might get the impression state government is broke when just the opposite is true.  Good points, but do we need to eliminate ‘earmarks?’  Two thoughts:
     First, what the numbers actually show is the 2014 state legislature had very little increased money to ‘appropriate,’ this year.  Oklahoma state government revenue is around $11 billion annually, but the legislature only gets to dole out $7 billion.   That is not necessarily a bad thing.  If we want state government to be ‘streamlined and efficient,’ then giving the legislature less money to operate state government has to be a good thing.  Forcing state agencies to find ways to do more with less is good policy.
     Second, not all earmarks are created equal.  Using the two examples cited above; #1017 is the will of the people and a part of the state constitution.  It must be funded.  The eight year ODOT plan is state law and would require legislative action to be changed.  How is setting aside money for a worthy cause- OFF THE TOP- a bad thing?  The Oklahoman was critical of these earmarks because, “they were outside the budgetary process.”  But both of these earmarks have not been a part of the budgetary process for several years.  Why question them now?  Are they proposing that #1017 be repealed?  Do they want the eight year ODOT and education funding be reviewed every year by the legislature? That would be a step backward in Oklahoma.  Taking money OFF THE TOP for priority spending is good policy. 
      The term ‘earmark’ has rightfully earned a bad reputation- think ‘bridge to nowhere,’ but these particular earmarks are ones that are the will of the people of Oklahoma. They aren’t reelection tokens.

Monday, July 14, 2014


Weekly Opinion Editorial
by Steve Fair

      President Obama has requested $3.7 billion dollars to spend on the immigration situation at our southern borders.   “Our view as House Republicans is that we're not going to write a blank check,” Congressman Mike McCaul, (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said.  The vast majority of the money the President is requesting would go for humanitarian needs with very little for border security and none for deportation. 
     Since April, over 250,000 underage children have made their way to the southern border and surrendered to U.S. Border Patrol agents.  Fort Sill is housing 1,200 of them.  American taxpayers are paying for their food, healthcare, and housing.  Congressman Tom Cole, (R-Oklahoma) has repeatedly said the military installation should not be used for housing illegal immigrations.  Cole tweeted last week; “HHS recently requested expanded & longer use of DoD facilities to house illegal minors swarming our borders.  As suspected, the president’s "temporary" plan to use military bases for housing illegals is looking permanent.“    
     On the other side of the aisle, the view is much different.  Democrat House leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calfornia) said this after visiting a facility housing the illegals: "This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity," Pelosi said. "If you believe as we do that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect -- what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling, array of God's children, worthy of respect."   Pelosi is a little off on her theology and obviously doesn’t subscribe to the ‘fallen nature’ of mankind.  For more on this critical issue- the depravity of man- go to  As I have often said, how an elected official views the nature of man will dictate how they will govern.  Pelosi is clearly has an unbiblical worldview if she believes that man has a 'spark of divinity' that merely needs fanning.  Man has a wicked sin nature and without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit will never seek to find God.  Any elementary student of scripture would know that, yet one of the most powerful members of Congress doesn't.  Pelosi also said this is an opportunity for the U.S. to address true immigration reform.  Pelosi and most Democrats favor unconditional amnesty for illegals.    
     Here are some points to ponder on the current immigration situation.
     First, this ‘crisis’ was created by President Obama and the Democrats.  Current U.S. policy allows Mexican child migrants to be sent back quickly across the border. However, under a 2008 bill meant to combat child trafficking, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, children from Central America must be given a court hearing before they are deported. Given the huge backlog of cases, they usually have to wait years for a hearing.  To add fuel to the fire, in 2012, five months before his 2012 re-election, President Obama announced that his administration would stop deportations of more than a half-million young adults, often referred to as "Dreamers," brought illegally to the U.S. as children.  Most were from Mexico.  Hispanics subsequently turned out to vote in record numbers and more than 70 percent marked their ballots for Obama — helping him win the popular vote and triumph in key battleground states.  Make no mistake about it- Democrats see the current immigration crisis as a political opportunity to gain the upper hand in future elections, especially in Texas and Arizona.  This is more about elections than anything else.
     Second, most of those crossing the southern border are in violation of published immigration policy.  The Department of Homeland Security website lists an array of restrictions on those wishing to enter the United States.  Among those barred are people with “a communicable disease of public health significance.”  HHS has admitted that many of those flooding our southern border have, or are suspected of having, such diseases.  The restrictions also include children who haven’t received vaccinations for certain types of diseases, including “mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and the flu.  Do you believe the kids pouring across our borders are carrying with them proof of vaccinations?  Yet they are being allowed to stay.  The Obama administration has no respect for the rule of law.
      Third, the first and best course of action to start to fix this mess is to secure our borders.  Peggy Noonan wisely wrote that ‘a nation is not a nation with a border.’  Currently we have no southern border.  Texas Governor Rick Perry has called for sending National Guardsmen to the border until more U.S. Border Patrol agents are trained and ready for action.  Congressman McCaul has said the House Republicans are hoping to pass a bill to change the 2008 law that has created this mess.  They hope to do it before the August recess.  But with the Ds in the charge of the Senate, its unlikely Harry Reid will give it a vote on the Senate floor.  Illegal is defined as; ‘contrary to or forbidden by law.’  America is a nation of laws and when an immigrate illegally enters our country, they are breaking the law.  No matter how sick or poor they are or how desperate their situation is, they are still breaking the law.  America is a land of opportunity and we are a nation of immigrates- LEGAL IMMIGRATES.  If any money is spent on this situation, it should be to send these lawbreakers back to their home country.

Monday, July 7, 2014


Weekly Opinion Editorial
by Steve Fair

   The Common Core battle continues.  Last week a lawsuit was filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court naming the state of Oklahoma, the state legislature and the Oklahoma Department of Education as defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that HB # 3399, which repealed Common Core in Oklahoma, violated the state constitution (Section 8- Article5) because the legislature doesn’t have the authority to set school standards. 
     The suit was filed by former U.S. Attorney Robert McCampbell on behalf of four state school board members who said HB #3399 violated the state constitution in two ways.  He said the first is, “When you’re constructing the new standards, the State Board of Education has the constitutional power to do that. However, House Bill 3399 would have the legislature encroaching on that authority and taking control of that process.”  McCampbell also said the bill violated the state constitution’s ‘separation of powers,’ provision.  He said he believed the legislature can ‘make recommendations’ or ‘disapprove’ of curriculum, but they can’t get down to the details like HB #3399 does. 
     McCampbell said, “Will students learn double-digit arithmetic spring of first grade or fall of second grade? When students are writing their first research paper are they going to be taught Chicago style footnotes or APA style footnotes? Those kind of decisions need to be made by educators not the legislature.”
     Representative Jason Nelson, (R-OKC), who co-authored the original Common Core bill said, “All the things that he (McCampbell) said we can’t do, we did in 2010 and now we are repealing it. So nobody complained then and I don’t understand why they are complaining now.”  Four observations:
     First, Oklahoma parents don’t want Common Core!  During the fight over the repeal of Common Core, state legislators reported calls to their offices ran 10-1 in favor of repealing Common Core.  HB#3399 was the clear will of the people.  What some members of the state school board fail to grasp is parents don’t oppose standards, but they don’t want the federal Department of Education imposing the standards on local school districts in Oklahoma.  And Oklahoma parents are not alone.  In Louisiana, Governor Jindel just signed an executive order repealing Common Core.  As more and more information about Common Core becomes known to parents, they have rejected it throughout the U.S.  It took a while for the Oklahoma legislators to get it, but finally they also understand the people don’t want Common Core- period. 
     Second, Oklahoma parents want standards!  The state school board does have the right and responsibility for establishing standards in Oklahoma’s public schools.  Those standards should be enforced and children shouldn’t just be promoted to the next grade when they can’t do the work.  I have not spoken to one parent who opposes Common Core that wants no standards in Oklahoma public schools.  What they don’t want is the federal government doing it.  HB #3399 directs the state school board and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish Oklahoma standards.
     Third, the Oklahoma Supreme Court is wildly unpredictable!  In the past year, they have ruled in a very inconsistent matter on similar ‘logrolling’cases.  A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Democrat Governors and therefore lean to the left.  The court could very well rule HB#3399 unconstitutional, but if that happens, they are ‘legislating from the bench.’  That is why we need judicial term limits in Oklahoma.  Another subject for another time. 
     Fourth, the suit will hinge on what are the prescribed “powers and duties,” of the state school board.  The state constitution says in Section 8, Article 5, The supervision of instructions in the public schools shall be vested in a Board of Education whose powers and duties shall be prescribed by law.  So where does the state school board get their authority?  The constitution says from ‘law.’  Who makes laws? The legislature.  Who in their right mind thinks an appointed board should have more authority than a body of elected officials?  Evidently, some misguided state school board members.
     Most Oklahomans thought their local school board and school administration ran their local district, but with the passage of the Oklahoma School Code of 1971, the state school board was established.  There are seven members of the state school board; the State Superintendent(who serves as Chair and is the only elected official on the board, five members from the five Congressional districts and one at-large member.  SIX OF THE SEVEN STATE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE!
     The state Supreme Court is expected to make their decision next week.  The battle continues for the hearts and minds of our young people.  Common Core has less to do about standards and much to do about control.

Monday, June 30, 2014


Weekly Opinion Editorial
by Steve Fair

     The dust has settled after last Tuesday’s primary election.  The voters have spoken and with the exception of a few run-offs GOP voters in Oklahoma selected the nominees for the general election November 4th.  In the aftermath of an election, there is no shortage of self proclaimed political experts who dissect the election and offer their analysis of the who, what and why.  I am no different- here are my observations:
     The voter turnout in the primary was shameful.  Only about 25% of those eligible bothered to vote.  31.2% of Republicans voted- 18.9% of Democrats.  The races on the GOP side were certainly more exciting, but regardless of your Party affiliation, you should show up to vote.  As George Allen said, “The world is run by those who show up.” 
     All candidates, whether they won or lost, deserve our admiration and respect.  It takes courage to sign up to run for office.  Many of them spent their time, talent and treasure to run and fall short.  That doesn’t mean they are losers- it only means they lost.  Giving the citizens a choice is important.  Having candidates in a race that raise the level of dialogue to one of issues is critical if we are to be effectively self governed.  Incumbents often say, “it’s my seat,” but it’s not.  The seat belongs to the people and sometimes it takes a challenge to jar an incumbent back into the proper mindset.
     The U.S. Senate race in Oklahoma never got that negative.  If you want to see negative, there were several races across the country where personal attacks on opponents were relentless and brutal.  To be sure, there were some ads that ‘caricatured’  a candidate’s stance, but for the most part the race was conducted in a civil manner.  To be clear, pointing out how a person voted is not ‘going negative.’  The public has a right to know and a candidate should be willing to defend their voting record.  Negative campaigning is when attacks are personal in nature and irrelevant to the race.  Often its not the voting record that becomes the focus of an ad, but the ‘spin’ on the voting record.  It’s the job of the voting public to sift through the rhetoric and find the truth. 
     T.W. Shannon has a bright political future.  Shannon is a fine young man with strong convictions.  If T.W. chooses to return to the political arena in two years, he will do well.       He is intelligent, articulate, and principled. His concession speech was done with class and humility.  I don’t know what his plans are, but I doubt the voters of Oklahoma have heard the last of T.W. Shannon.
     Common core was Janet Barresi’s downfall.  The incumbent Superintendent of Public Instruction finished third in a three person race.  In recent memory, no incumbent has ever been defeated by this wide of margin.  To her credit, Janet Barresi has courage.  She struck by her decision on Common Core well after it was apparent it was not popular with the GOP base.  We should always admire elected officials who are willing to take a stand, even when they disagree with us.  Barresi attempted to get back into the good graces of the GOP primary voters when it became apparent she was in jeopardy of losing, but it was too late.  Opposition to Common Core is in the platforms of the Republican Party at both the state and national level.  The results of the Superintendent’s race just goes to show you the ‘folks’ pay attention. 
     The Oklahoma Democrat Party is in trouble.  Nearly 100,000 more Republicans showed up to vote in the statewide primary than Democrats.  Democrats didn’t even bother to field a candidate in four statewide races.  A perennial candidate who never campaigns- Jim Rogers- is in a run-off with State Senator Connie Johnson for the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate.   Not only are Democrats not showing up to vote, they are obviously uninformed when they get there.  Johnson is a viable candidate- Rogers is not.  For there to be a run-off in that race sadly defines the state of the Oklahoma Democrat Party- disarray. 
    The statewide run-off is on Tuesday August 26th.  Republicans do not have a statewide race in the run-off, Democrats have two.  Steve Russell and Patrice Douglas will square off in the 5th Congressional district run-off for the GOP nomination.  Check with your local county election board for primary run-off races in your precinct.

Monday, June 23, 2014


Weekly Opinion Editorial

By Steve Fair

     In 1989, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission voted on a proposal for Southwestern Bell Telephone to refund $30 million to their Oklahoma customers.   The overcharges resulted when the corporate income tax in Oklahoma was reduced by 25%.  Back in 1989, the members of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission were Jim Townsend, a former state legislator and three term member of the commission, Bob Hopkins, another former state legislator, and newly elected Commissioner Bob Anthony, a department store executive who had served as an OKC city council member for a decade.  Anthony was the only Republican.  The phone company argued that refunding the money to the customers wasn’t necessary and instead proposed they upgrade their infrastructure instead.  The vote was 2-1 to not refund back to the customers with Anthony casting the lone nay vote.
     Anthony, who had been approached by the lobbyist for Southwestern Bell and offered a bribe to vote their way, went to the FBI and told them of the possible corruption at the Commission.  He wore a wire and both the lobbyist for Southwestern Bell and Hopkins went to jail.  For his efforts, Bob Anthony was awarded the FBI’s highest civilian award.  Anthony continues to serve as a Corporation Commissioner.  He won his fifth six year term in 2012. 
     In 1992, when the members of the Commission were Cody Graves, J.C. Watts, and Anthony, they voted unanimously that the actual overcharge to Oklahomans by Southwestern Bell in 1989 was $100 million dollars, not $30 million.  As to why the $100 million wasn’t refunded at that time is the $64 dollar question, but it wasn’t.  Instead the phone company was once again allowed to keep the ‘excess revenue.’
     Last week, two Oklahoma consumers- Sody Clements, the Mayor of Nichols Hills, and Richard Burpee, the former commander of Tinker AFB- filed a $14 billion dollar lawsuit on behalf of Oklahoma Southwestern Bell customers.  The suit states the ruling by the Commission in 1989 was null and void because Hopkins had taken a bribe for his vote.  They believe the phone giant (now AT&T) owes Oklahomans billions of dollars, after interest, and should be held accountable.   “Although the facts in this case may seem complex, it is really just about doing the right thing for the customers in Oklahoma,” Clements says. 
     Clements, who served as Anthony’s Executive Assistant for two years after his election, is a close friend of the Commissioner.  Burpee is also a close friend of Anthony.  Basically, Burpee and Clements want a do-over vote by the current Commission.  They want the 1989 ruling to be declared unconstitutional and voided.  "If you were in a murder trial and found out that one of jurors had been bribed, they would throw the verdict out," Clements said. 
     AT&T obviously doesn’t agree.  According to Marty Richter, an AT&T spokesperson, "This issue has been thoroughly reviewed and resolved numerous times by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This should be a closed issue." Three observations:
     First, this only involves land lines.  It doesn’t involve cellular phones.  So if you didn’t have a land line in 1989 in Oklahoma, this suit doesn’t involve you.
      Second, determining who is entitled to the refund will be difficult.  Many of those land line customers from 1989 have moved or died.  Locating those who were overcharged will be a difficult task, but it should be attempted.  With compound interest AT&T will owe many Oklahoma consumers over $1,000.   
     Third, this suit reveals a larger problem.  Oklahomans have no way of knowing how much they have been overcharged for utilities through the years.  How many millions of dollars were Oklahomans overcharged by utility providers in the years before 1990 because some corrupt politician was brought off?  There shouldn’t be a statue of limitations on overcharging rate payers.  Why can’t other decisions that were made by previous commissions be revisited?  The legislature should take the initiative to investigate.  Contact your legislator and ask them to support such action.  Public corruption, fraud and consumer overcharging shouldn’t just result in a short jail sentence- it should result in giving the money back to those who were overcharged.
     The Corporation Commission bribery scandal resulted in the obvious overcharge of every Oklahoman with a Southwestern Bell land line telephone in 1989.  It should be finally resolved.  I want MY money back, with interest!

Monday, June 16, 2014


Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

     Former first lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released a new book entitled, “Hard Choices.”  In the book, she claims to give a behind the scenes look at the Benghazi situation and other matters during her tenure as Secretary of State.  The title implies she had to make some ‘hard choices.’ as the nation’s highest diplomat.  She also claims when former President Clinton left office, they were broke.  She has since attempted to retract that absurdity.  Even her supporters found it laughable.  She ends the book by saying she is still ‘undecided’ as to whether she will run for the Democrat nomination in 2016. 

     Four thoughts:

     First, the book, “Hard Choices,” is bland and boring.  Clinton wrote this book to enhance her image- nothing more or less.  According to the New York Post, Clinton wrote “a careful book” – reviewer code for boring.  “Judged as a political document, the book will probably serve Clinton well. It includes a forceful defense of her role in Benghazi, along with many believable passages about her enduring love for her sometimes faithless husband, Bill. There’s nothing here that seems likely to get her in trouble with anyone, which is doubtless good politics but a bad thing to say about a memoir,” The Post concluded.  Even the NY Times, a bastion of liberalism, said the book contained, “nothing new.”   

     Second, Clinton is running for President.  In fact, she has never stopped.  Every move she has made in the past ten years has been to enhance her electability- either for the Senate or the nation’s highest office.  She is a politico- that is her career.  She doesn’t even attempt to hide her ambition.  This book and every speech she makes and every book signing she is doing is focused with the goal of getting her the Democrat nomination in 2016.  She’s running- make no mistake about it.  If there is one choice she has every made that wasn’t hard for her, it was running for President.

     Third, Hillary is much more liberal than Bill.  Bill Clinton was more obsessed with power than he was policy.  He could (and did) change his position on policy to stay in power.  Bill could be a liberal or a conservative, depending on which way the winds were blowing that day.  Strong convictions are not his strength.  Bill could work with Republicans.  He actually did some things that would be considered more conservative than either of the President Bushs, but Hillary is not Bill.  She believes the liberal agenda is the right one for the country.  Hillary met the radical socialist Saul Alinsky when she was only fourteen.  Alinksy, who wrote, ‘Rules for Radical,” is also a favorite of President Obama, but Clinton idealized Alinksy.  In fact her senior thesis in college was entitled,  There Is Only the Fight . .  An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”  Hillary believes government is the answer for everything.  She was attempting to push socialized medicine down the nation’s throats years before ObamaCare.    I’m not sure our country could survive back-to-back socialist leaders.

     Fourth, Hillary is electable.  To my conservative friends who disagree, I merely point out that she has a base of support among women no Republican has at this point.  Hillary Clinton could be our next President.  There are almost enough people who believe that government needs to be bigger and that we are not taxed enough, for her to win.  She is not likable, but she is electable, make no mistake about it.

     The 2016 election is not just about leadership of our country- it’s about surviving as America.  I’m talking about the America the founders envisioned, not the America that has evolved after a century of government growth and giveaways.  We need a ‘risk taker’ in the Republican ranks who is willing to tell the truth about our fiscal condition and our failed foreign policy.  We need a leader who will stress personal responsibility and not government intervention.  Pray that God will raise up such a leader.  If He doesn’t we are doomed. 

Monday, June 9, 2014


Weekly Opinion/Editorial
by Steve Fair

     It appears the Obama administration plans to house young illegal immigrant children at Fort Sill.  It’s unclear exactly how many kids are involved, but 600 were supposedly placed at Sill yesterday.  Most of the minors are 13 to 17 years old and generally come from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala.  Many are here because they already have a parent in the U.S. — and who also crossed the border illegally. 
     Congressman Tom Cole, (R-Moore), is opposed to the idea as is U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, (R-Tulsa).  Neither of the two lawmakers was given advance notice by the Department of Homeland Security of the plan to bring illegals to Fort Sill. 
     Cole said he was "astonished and upset” with the lack of communication from the Obama administration.  "The manner in which we have been informed of this decision allows almost no time to protest its implementation, to consider alternative solutions or to prepare for the arrival of hundreds of illegal aliens at a facility that is neither intended nor designed for their use," Cole said. "This is incredibly unfair to the American military."
     Senator Inhofe said, "America has an immigration problem and a national security crisis, but I don't believe the answer is for our military facilities to be transformed into a center that houses, feeds, and cares for illegal immigrants."
     In a bizarre twist to this story, Attorney General Eric Holder announced late last week a joint project between the Justice Department and AmeriCorps to recruit 100 lawyers and paralegals to help the minor children through the immigration system.   Think of that- your tax dollars are being used to provide legal advice for someone who has zero respect for our laws.

     Four observations:

     First, America has to secure our borders!  This issue has been debated for years and frankly nothing has been done.  There needs to be a wall built and those who scale it are sent back immediately.  When we accommodate those who enter our country illegally we encourage more illegal immigration.  If the Obama administration wants to use the military for a legitimate purpose, have them secure the border. 
     Second, Fort Sill- and every other military installation’s- mission is to defend the country!  Being babysitters to kids who have crossed the border illegally is not the mission of the American soldier.  A military installation is a highly secure area that has a specific purpose and it’s not housing illegal aliens.  This President has done everything in his power to transform the American military mission from one of a fighting force to one similar to the Peace Corp. 
     Third, what type of person would send minor children across the desert in a foreign country?  If a parent or grandparent will send their kid across the border to travel hundreds of miles alone, they must either not really love the child or they are desperate.   It’s clear that America has something the world wants, but the amount of illegal immigration is placing a strain on our economy.  The American taxpayer can’t pay for everyone in the world to come here for free food, clothing and shelter.      
     Fourth, not immediately deporting these kids who come here illegally is really ‘de facto’ amnesty.  America should return these kids to their homeland as quickly and humanely as we can.  If we don’t we will be encouraging more minors to cross the border illegally.  In just the last year, it is estimated that over 100,000 minor children have illegally crossed the southern border.  That is just over ten fold in just three years. 
      Some argue America has a moral obligation to accept those seeking asylum in our country, no matter what?  Really?  That has not always been the case.  In 1939, the MS St. Louis, a German ocean liner loaded with 1,000 Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany, sailed to Florida, but the passengers were not allowed to immigrate to the United States.  They hadn’t properly applied to immigrate to the U.S. FDR said they had to apply legally, just like everyone else.  He wouldn’t make an exception.  The father of the New Deal said no deal.    Even a liberal like FDR understood the importance of securing the border.