Occasional-Cortex Attempts to Write About Human Rights

Occasional-Cortex Attempts to Write About Human Rights

Occasional-Cortex Attempts to Write About Human Rights

Scrolling through my Twitter feed this morning, I discovered that the herpes of the Democratic Party has inserted herself into the issue of immigration and is attempting to define our immigration policies as a matter of “human rights.” In response to an article on the liberal site Axios discussing the mid-term elections and asserting that immigration is less about policy this year and more about “making a cultural argument” to turn out base voters, Occasional-Cortex decided to demonstrate her lack of reading comprehension skills by citing various immigration policies currently in play and claiming that they are a matter of human rights.

In the process of demonstrating that Hooked on Phonics did not work for her, Occasional-Cortex surreptitiously (albeit probably not intentionally, because she’s got the intelligence of a house plant) noted a message that Democrats have been advancing for decades: that being here in the United States, immigrating here, taking advantage of opportunities here, working here, using our infrastructure, and taking advantage of our freedoms is somehow a right that belongs to every human being.

This isn’t anything new.

The Democratic Socialists, a group that proudly claims Occasional-Cortex as a supporter – have been espousing this hot garbage for years.

Democrats have been pulling new “rights” out of their blowholes for decades.

Health care? That’s a right. Let’s not mention that it needs to be provided by someone to someone at someone else’s expense whether funds, labor, or other resources.

Education? That’s a right. Never mind that once again someone needs to provide it to others.

Affordable housing? They’ve made that into a right as well. Forget about the fact that someone needs to produce the raw materials, that someone else needs to transport them, that yet someone else needs to design the housing and build it.

The liberals have no concept of human rights, and they believe – much like Occasional-Cortex – that need is a claim check on others’ efforts and resources.

The left has been messaging this abhorrent, twisted ideology for decades, and they have incorporated it into their platforms, positions, and everyday language, so what Occasional-Cortex has tweeted out is not unique.

Aside from completely misinterpreting the Axios article and having a fundamental lack of understanding about how the populace thinks and votes (the majority, unfortunately, don’t know what DACA stands for, don’t understand TPS, and have no idea why certain groups were granted temporary protections without using their Google machine) and why it votes the way it does, she also listed a few policy issues she claims touch upon “human rights.”

TPS – Temporary Protected Status – is a temporary benefit. It’s not a right. It’s something we grant out of the goodness of our hearts as a nation. The DHS Secretary may “designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.”

This does not mean that those who have received this benefit – a favor, really, because we’re just nice people – have the right to remain here. It does not entitle anyone to make demands and to remain here.

If I grant shelter to a homeless person in a storm out of the kindness of my heart, that person cannot just decide “I like your house, so I’m staying.” They do not have that right, and neither do individuals granted TPS.

DACA – or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – is once again a policy. It’s a kindness toward those who were brought here by their parents or guardians without having a choice in the matter. It allows certain folks who were brought here illegally to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit here.

Again, this is not a right but a kindness, and no one is entitled to our kindness or has the right to demand it.

And although, I do think that some kind of policy dispensations need to be made for kids who were brought here illegally, have known no other society or way of life, wouldn’t have any family or support system to which to return, and have spent nearly their entire lives working and going to school here, my sympathy wanes pretty quickly when I’m told that someone has the right to my kindness and that it must be given at the point of a government gun.

ICE child detention – Occasional-Cortex obviously lacks basic understanding of our border and national security policies, which is unsurprising, given her lack of comprehension on nearly every other subject that is critical in these mid-term elections. As I wrote previously in my attempt to separate fact from hysteria, in many cases DHS separates kids from their families is for their own protection, because some of them may actually be victims of drug cartels who steal children to give themselves cover when crossing the border or human traffickers. Human rights include children not being exploited by human detritus.

DREAM Act – it never became law and was replaced by DACA thanks to Obama, but Occasional-Cortex has shown her lack of comprehension about the very policies she claims are critical to the voters. And once again – remaining here and taking advantage of our kindness as a nation has nothing to do with human rights; it’s a privilege, and the moment you start claiming it as a right, most of us get turned off.

Muslim Ban? PLEASE! Muslims who aren’t citizens have no more a right to enter our country than anyone else. And since Muslims have not been banned from entry to the US, despite liberal histrionics, she’s once again vomiting word salad about issues she does not comprehend.

The wall? PLEASE! Once again Occasional-Cortex is twisting the concept of fundamental rights and using buzzwords like “human rights” to suit her purposes to do precisely what the Axios article she criticizes suggests – bring voters to the polls by playing on their emotions.

Most of them don’t care about TPS, DACA, the thankfully deceased DREAM Act, or other policies Occasional-Cortex is using to demonstrate how “informed” she is on domestic policy matters (read: how well she can spew legislative terms she found on Google), and they certainly won’t cast votes based on them. What they will vote on is their emotions and the Democrats’ insistence that they have the “human right” to other people’s means, resources, and work.

According to Ohio State psychology and political science professor Jon Krosnick, several factors predict how a particular individual will vote: the most common is party affiliation, and it is the single most powerful predictor of how someone will vote. Clearly this is why Axios writes that turnout is critical and cultural arguments that stoke the emotions of voters will bring them to the polls.

Democrats call to abolish ICE while Republicans claim Democrats want open borders and support MS-13 gangs.

According to Krosnick, party affiliation is not the only predictor of voting patterns.

Second, research has shown that voters’ perceptions of candidates’ personalities (their intelligence, their knowledge, their trustworthiness, and their ability to be strong leaders) also predict some people’s votes very well.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the voters in her district are apparently idiots possessing the intellectual depth of a teaspoon, Occasional-Cortex would be screwed. Her lack of knowledge about basic policies that impact our world, her derptastic economic claims that have no basis in reality, and her admitted lack of knowledge about international affairs, even though Boston University handed her diplomas in both economics and international studies, should disqualify her from ever holding a Congressional seat.

This is a woman who thinks she gets “inaugurated” as a newly-elected Congresswoman.

This is a woman who thinks she’ll be signing bills.

This is a woman who has zero understanding of how government works.

But turnip is as turnip does, and she is likely to win, judging from the fact that she faces no real competition in that district.

Featured photo courtesy of: Wikimedia Commons

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

10 Comments
  • Joe in PNG says:

    The House Idiot Caucus needs new blood, now that Maxine is getting old, and Corrine is in jail.
    She’ll fit right in.

  • GWB says:

    no one is entitled to our kindness
    Yep. If they’re entitled, then it isn’t kindness, but an obligation.

    I do think that some kind of policy dispensations need to be made
    Require their parents return home, and they can NEVER invoke any sort of chain migration. And that’s only if they’re not caught before they turn 18 – in that case, they should be deported with their parents. IMHO

    ICE child detention
    She prefers free-range toddlers. Just let them go on their own recognizance. Though maybe we should give the crawlers a safety vest so the cars (and 4-legged coyotes) can see them, and give the older ones a snickers bar.
    *smdh*

    her lack of comprehension on nearly every other subject that is critical
    FIFY

    If it wasn’t for the fact that the voters in her district are apparently idiots possessing the intellectual depth of a teaspoon, Occasional-Cortex would be screwed.
    Nice.
    But it’s not just their intellectual vacuity that will get them to vote for her – it’s that party loyalty thing again. (Which, in this case, can probably be ascribed to mentioned vacuity, so……)

    Sadly, politicians playing to the lowest common denominator among the electorate are seldom disappointed with poor results. We really need to work on pulling people’s brains out of the black hole into which modern public education drops them.

  • Robin H says:

    She won the primary with 16,000 votes out of a district with over 500,000 residents. Joe Crowely, who was the incumbent is running on the Worker’s Family party. If they’re smart enough not to just vote party line, he may have a chance of beating her. I don’t know what kind of ads or campaign he’s running. I know there’s not a chance the Republican will win that district but I would love to see her relegated to the trash heap of politics.

  • Ish says:

    Let’s end the illegal immigration problem once and for all AND erase the southern border, just like the Democrats want: Annex Mexico.

  • geokstr says:

    Party loyalty per se is no longer the determinant. Ideology is.

    I vote straight Republican not because they are so inspiring and effective, but strictly because they are the only viable alternative to oppose the Marxists. If a Conservative or Constitution Party, with as much clout and infrastructure could be instantly formed, I and many tens of millions of others would jump in a NY mini-micro-nanosecond. If they had to start from scratch, by the time they had gained enough traction to make a difference, we’d just split the non-left vote, allowing the Marxists to take total control which they would never relinquish.

    That’s a big problem with conservatives already. We often have a number of solid conservatives running in many primaries against RINOS, and the quisling wins again with a plurality while the conservatives split the majority of the votes. That’s what happened in the 2016 primaries. Ted Cruz was the natural leader for the Tea Party movement, but there were a number of weaker conservative candidates and RINOs who split the majority of the vote, allowing Trump, with a couple billion dollars of free PR from the media, to take control with less than 40% of the vote. So once again, the media got to pick our candidate for us.

  • Mark says:

    Let’s remember that the Democrats excel at keeping inner-city black people in poverty, misery, illiteracy, and crime.

    Rights for me and not for the …

  • A. C. says:

    Ms. Hernandez wrote, in part:
    “TPS – Temporary Protected Status – is a temporary benefit. ”
    My response is: oh yeah? Can you name a group of people who were granted TPS and from which group TPS was later withdrawn? It appears to me that TPS is treated as a right not to be withdrawn both by the people under the status and by Federal judges. In fact, as of this writing, the first thing on your link is an ALERT! informing readers that a Federal judge has enjoined DHS from withdrawing TPS from several disparate (should I say, diverse?) groups of people. I recommend you find a link to another page that simply describes it, or accept that one of the legs of your argument just got kicked out from under you.

    Perhaps the US should simple stop using that status altogether.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram