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

As I write this article, the Electoral College is deciding the route of the American Presidency and of Donald Trump as President-Elect. The Russian ambassador has been shot and killed in Turkey by a fanatic. Another European terrorist attack has taken place in Berlin, Germany, killing at least 12 people and wounding dozens of others during the Christmas shopping season. Back in Aleppo, Syria, the Assad government is finishing off the horrific killings of its own people as well as rescue helpers and hundreds of Christians — many of whom are women and children.

Back in the U.S. protestors are carrying vulgar signs in front of the Nevada capitol building to protest the Trump election results. The past 8 years of the Obama administration have divided the country severely over nearly all issues that concern every American. Everyone seems to want to know how and why this administration became so entangled in so many divisive situations — at least that much is helping to unite us. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are all urging thorough and independent investigations to get to the answers. And the American public deserves nothing short of the truth in these matters.

It is obviously true that we live in a most unstable and unreliable world. Nothing is "for sure" on planet Earth when it comes to people, governments, politicians, politics, and pundits. No person, no country. no government, no political strategist, no laws can put the world, or our country, on a perfect path. We are flawed as individuals, as leaders, as governments, and as nations. But we can be and should be stewards of the world we live in, and that requires a morality from within all of us. And therein lies the problem perhaps. As citizens of a truly blessed nation here in America, a nation that has paid dearly with hundreds of thousands of American lives to preserve our unique American character and freedoms, why shouldn't we expect leaders with integrity to step forth to protect and defend what has been handed down to us through the generations? Why should we allow that inheritance to be wasted?

Are we not entitled as Americans to responsible and accountable leadership? Is our national security of vital interest to us all? Do we have a national identity as Americans? Do we have a right as citizens to expect that our new President will put American interests first when it comes to all of those questions? Yes, we do expect Donald Trump to serve this nation first and foremost when it comes to the safety of our homeland, our families, our businesses, our faith, and our future. This is a very tall order and we should not be hesitant, afraid, or ignorant of abuses that may arise in his administration. There has been too much of that in the past by both Democrats and Republicans. Enough is enough.

Vigilance is key to making our kind of government, a constitutional republic, work reasonably well. At least, that is what the voters seemed to be saying with this past presidential election. And perhaps nothing has provoked the ire of America's bipartisan political class as much as Donald Trump's recent proposal that the U.S. should suspend the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other terrorist-supporting nations until we find a way of perfecting the screening process to ensure that we are not admitting terrorists or terror sympathizers. Perfect process? Doubtful, but the creation of reasonable and effective efforts to combat illegal and dangerous entries into our nation is quite possible for the most part.

According to the intelligence agencies responsible for checking documentation (FBI, Homeland Security, Immigration agents, border patrol officers,etc.), most refugees do not have adequate documentation on file anywhere. And most importantly, these refugees do not have enough information with themselves or about themselves to determine whether or not they have terrorist connections or intend to engage in terrorism. The heads of our security agencies have warned that active terrorists will inevitably slip through screening cracks.

Does another alternative exist? Maybe. Mr. Trump and others have suggested to address the refugee crisis by setting up security zones in Syria or other Middle Eastern nations where refugees could find safety and where Muslim countries might feel obligated to help finance in the care for these desperate human beings. These "zones" would also be much better suited to the cultural background of the refugees...it does not put them into an alien way of life. One only has to look at the nations of France and Germany to see how the mistake of taking too many refugees, undocumented in particular, has led to civil discord and out right terror attacks.

Past policy during the Obama years and with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been to support and eventually put into effect borderless nations — an America without borders. This has been a "mantra" with the Left it seems, but to what common good to the American people? To their safety? How were San Bernardino, Orlando, or the N.Y. marathon good for America? A President Donald Trump is going to have to deal with this illegal immigration issue right away. Inexperience, immaturity, careless words, and lack of wisdom should not be the hallmark of any leadership position; therefore, a President Trump will need to learn quickly and carefully how to avoid looking or behaving like the aforementioned negative words. His opponents are setting traps to make him appear at every turn like a novice--unprepared and inappropriate for the office of U.S. president.

If Mr. Trump is inheriting a "mess", so are we as Americans. We need to do our part by staying WELL informed, by listening to many sides of issues, and then just do what we always do best as citizens — apply common sense, at the polls and in our conversations when possible. And one of the major reasons to stay well informed is with the new approach or the new argument of "America's commitment to diversity". It is being said by bipartisan backing from Paul Ryan, House Speaker, and by former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that the American character is defined by its unlimited openness to diversity. Speaker Ryan has also agreed to our refugee program of taking in as many peoples as possible seeking to come to America. In both cases, the clear implication is that America's commitment to diversity outweighs considerations of national security.

Indeed, in what can only be called a self-willed delusion, proponents of the current refugee program seem to believe that their commitment to diversity makes us stronger and more secure as a nation, and that any opposition to the program is racist, xenophobic, and most particularly Islamophobic. This confusing bipartisan presentation will be discussed in Part 2 shortly with the Minnesota paper, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, reporting in with the facts on the suburb, Cedar Riverside, just outside of Minneapolis. This community houses the largest number of Somalians in the United States who, according to the majority interviewed, wish to be governed by Sharia law. In addition, according to The Star Tribune, in the past 2 years more than 20 Somali-Americans from Minneapolis have left to fight alongside terrorists under the banner of ISIL/ISIS. This same Somalian concentration also wishs to adhere to their cultural practices which are antithetical to the Western culture.

Consider what this means. Germans have been warned that it is their duty to accommodate themselves to newly arrived refugees and not to place politically incorrect demands upon them--that is, not to demand that the refugees adapt to German ways. Some German authorities and media folks have advised German women in particular that if they do not wish to be harassed by male refugees, they should cover their heads and be accompanied outside of the home by a male. Will this be a part of America's politically correct future? Is this leading to the acceptance of Sharia law in Germany? Could this "advice" be proposed here in the States as a means of acceptable "diversity"? If Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Obama, an about to be ex-president, both view the world as a global economy and a global population to be the future of America, then indeed, we need to keep our eyes and ears open to a new president who might also propose a world without borders and a world without citizens. A world without citizens is a world without rights and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship. Rights and liberties exist only in separate and independent nations; they are the exclusive preserve of the nation-state.

Constitutional government only succeeds in the nation-state, where the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. By contrast, to see the globalist principle in practice, look at the European Union. The EU is NOT a constitutional government; it is an administrative state ruled by un-elected bureaucrats as the objects of administrative rule. Constitutional government--to say nothing of liberal democracy--will not be a part of the politically correct and, borderless world into which so many of our political leaders wish to usher us.

So to come back to the question: how did we get to this very messy situation? Simply said: competent thinkers have frequently observed that Americans have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The first principle in this document confidently proclaimed that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, "among them "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As part of a created (and therefore intelligible) universe, rights cannot be something private or subjective; they are part of an objective order.

The idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation was essential to the social compact understanding of the American founding. Thus what was destructive of the public good or public happiness, however much it might have contributed to an individual's private pleasures or imagined pleasures, was not a part of the "pursuit of happiness" and could be proscribed by society. Liberty was understood to be rational liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was understood to be the rational pursuit of happiness--that is to say, not only a natural right but a moral obligation as well. Where is this taught today in public schools or universities? As a whole, it is not. And thus every American generation is seemingly getting further and further away from a morality that is absolutely essential for our freedoms to remain intact.

Part 2 of this writing for my readers to consider is how Progressivism is carefully and deliberately eroding this necessary morality. It is happening all around the U.S. in the name of "tolerance". Stay informed. Carol Paz: npazcar@aol.com And please, remember to" like" at the top of my article...thank you!

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.