Column: How Did All of This Happen? Part 2 (sponsored)

As I now conclude this particular article, it is just hours away from one of America's most revered events--if not the most. President-elect Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building at 12:00 noon on January 20, and Mike Pence will be duly sworn in as the Vice-President of the United States.

It is the historic transfer of power from one administration to another and it is supposed to be peaceful and respectful. This is a history lesson for the whole world to watch and to marvel at, especially for Americans and their families. The inauguration can be viewed via television, listened to on radio, watched on cell phone, or be there in person in Washington D.C.. No matter how one chooses to be there, it is emotional. American hearts can beat faster, tears can be and are shed, shouts of support can be heard from thousands of people, and a nation can breathe a grand sigh of relief that the "great experiment of people ruling themselves in a constitutional republic" can again forge ahead for another four years.

However, it was a divisive campaign and bitter in many ways. Protests and protesters were in full view during the past few months of the campaign which brought much angst to many communities and citizens/voters. It was "messy" to say the least! But it was Donald Trump who took the necessary electoral votes--370 to Clinton's 269--to clinch the legal win. Trump so far, under the Republican banner, has pretty much been his own man, listening to "gut" instinct rather than pundits. He is not a Progressive as is President Obama or as Hillary Clinton. He certainly is not Democrat although he respects some such as West Virginia's Governor Mike Manchin, Senator Heidi Heitkamp(D-Nd), Senator John Tester(D-WV), and Senator Tom Carper(D-Del). Trump vows to work effectively and willingly when possible with both sides of the aisle.

Given Trump's business success and his "knack" for getting things done by dealing with such diverse peoples and business endeavors all over the world, he very well could be an enormous asset in the Presidency. But he will have to score his first wins with national security, immigration, and health care. In order for the people and the voters of this country to regain some measure of confidence with the government and the promises that Trump made over and over to the voting public, the new president must not be nearly as reckless and feckless as the last. America's future is at stake. ALL OF IT.

As shared in Part 1 of this article, the last two paragraphs stated that there was a fundamental understanding by the founders of our Declaration of Independence in a morality that grounded our founding--liberty was understood to be rational liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was understood to be the rational pursuit of happiness. Please reread that section to grasp (if you missed it) the idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation that was essential to the success of our new government and our new nation. Over the past century and more, this morality has been carefully and successfully eroded by Progressivism.

This erosion is manifested today in the "new" morality of value-free relativism. According to this new morality, all value judgments are equal. Reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, because values are not capable of rational analysis; they are merely idiosyncratic preferences. Therefore, in this value-free universe, the only value that is "objectively" of higher rank is tolerance. This stands for equal tolerance for all values--what is also known today as commitment to diversity. And this is what Progressives prefer. This is what they want for the United States as well as for the world.

With respect to the commitment to diversity, the tolerance of those who are willing to tolerate you does not garner much, if any, credit because it doesn't require much of a sacrifice or commitment, does it? On the other hand, if YOU are willing to tolerate those who are pledged to kill YOU and to destroy YOUR way of life, tolerance represents a GENUINE commitment. In fact, it is a deadly commitment because it confirms that tolerance is the highest value in a universe of otherwise equal values. It also signifies a nation's single-minded devotion to tolerance as the highest value by its willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty as proof of its commitment.

This is insanity. No common-sense citizen believes that this makes any kind of sense and yet many of our political leaders are willing to risk our nation's security based on this train of thought that all values are to be accepted. This comes very close to national suicide when refugees are admitted without regard to their hostility to our way of life and their wish to destroy us as a nation. Are we willing to sacrifice ourselves in order to show the world that "this is who we are" and that this country and our leadership will vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance no matter what? Is Progressivism to be the "new normal", the "new reality" for the United States?

As of now, the administrative state has not extinguished America's love of liberty even though our citizens are bullied by bureaucrats from every stripe and color who desire and are ready to implement a constant monitoring of Americans in the name of detecting terrorists. Do we want a security state where liberties will be easily and casually sacrificed on the alter of protectionism against evil/terrorists? On the alter of political correctness?

What should be eye-opening to all of us is that many politicians and pundits argue that the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion prohibits Congress and the president from banning the emigration of people to the U.S. based on religion. Thus they characterize the proposal to suspend the entry of Syrian refugees and others from terrorist- supporting nations as a violation of the Constitution.

However, consider how those people who are not American citizens or legal residents--indeed, even those who have never been present in the United States at any time--can assert rights under the Constitution! Does that make one iota of sense? If one reads carefully this national document, by the terms of the Constitution, free exercise of religion is one of the privileges and immunities attached to CITIZENSHIP; it can hardly be said to be possessed by all those seeking refuge or wishing to emigrate to the U.S..As a sovereign nation, it is beyond dispute that the United States has plenary power to determine the conditions for immigration. Only in a " borderless world" can the right be claimed that exercise of religion is a right possessed by all persons inhabiting the globe or even those who are potentially asylum seekers. This is what Progressives are determined to seek and to have for America. Are the majority of Americans on board with this? What does the law say?

One condition for claiming refugee status in the Refugee Act of 1980 is religious persecution. The applicant must submit to questioning about his religious beliefs and the sincerity of those beliefs. A sovereign nation has the right to also inquire whether the religious beliefs of an asylum seeker are compatible with the American constitutional order. In other words, should asylum be extended to the adherents of religions that do not recognize the free exercise rights of other religions? ( Go back and read from Part 1 of this article what the Somalian groups from Minneapolis, MN, want for themselves in this country as reported from interviews by the Minneapolis Star Tribune.)

Should those religions whose adherents refuse to pledge or give evidence that they would support free exercise of religion be ineligible for asylum? Inquiry into religious belief has always been part of the asylum law, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars such inquiry on national security grounds. Article 1 of the Constitution reveals that Congress has plenary power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." This has always been understood--by a necessary rule of inference--to mean that Congress ALSO has plenary power to regulate immigration. Congress has wide latitude to choose the "necessary and proper" means to accomplish this end as long as it doesn't violate some specific prohibition of the Constitution.

Prior to the 1980 Refugee Act was the Immigration Act of 1965 which has been an overwhelming success in changing the ethnic and racial mix of America. Demographers predict that by 2040 whites of European descent will no longer be a majority, having been displaced by people of Asian, African, Latin American, and Hispanic descent. Along with our lax borders and the Obama's administration for a borderless world, these groups have supplied a significant clientele for the administrative state, and the Progressive agenda, as it seeks to extend its reach and magnify its power. As such, it has redounded to the benefit of the Democratic Party--the party that favors the growth and extension of the administrative state. However, both parties, Democrats and Republicans, have shared support for this Immigration Act. To be truthful, Republicans have benefited also--they have always favored the cheap and exploitable labor of illegal aliens. In the end however, the BIG winners have been the Democrats who have Latinos voting Democratic by more than a two-thirds majority. The Republicans have much "food for thought " here.

Before summing up, and most importantly, America's open-border policy has allowed some of the worst into our nation--terrorists and criminals of all violent natures. In addition to Islamic terror groups, MS-13--a vicious Latin American gang involved in murder for hire, drug trafficking, human smuggling, slavery, prostitution, and other manner of crime--operates openly in the U.S. The FBI has listed MS-13 (Maro Salvatrucha) as the most violent on the list of the top 10 gangs in the U.S.. Its immigrant membership comes from Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and other Central and South American countries. MS-13 has a distinctive quality according to the FBI: brutality. Even when illegal-alien criminals are deported, they return easily to commit further crimes-- a very notable statistic being Kate Steinle of San Fransisco who was shot and killed on pier 14 while walking with her father by a Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a FIVE TIMES deported illegal. Is this an immigration horror? Yes. And this kind of depravity goes on and on--the list is long. Check it out.

Ultimately, we as Americans have to decide how much we are going to tolerate in the names of Progressivism, tolerance, and diversity. Do we allow ideologues, different philosophies, and world values to define who we are? OR, do we stick to our "guns and to our Bible" (sorry, Mr. Obama)? Actually our Creator has given us this principle, promise, and sage advice--"Trust in the Lord with all of your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight." Proverbs 3:5-6 This is not only personal in nature, but it can apply nationally as well. Perhaps Mr. Trump and his advisors, many of whom are committed Christians, will begin their days with that promise.

Stay informed, and contact me via npazcar@aol.com. Please remember to like my writing AT THE TOP of each article. Thank you! ALL comments are welcomed if respectful.

Carol Paz's columns appear exclusively on CarsonNow.org. Please email comments to npazcar@aol.com or visit the Women to Women website at womentowomennv.com. She welcomes your comments at npazcar@aol.com.