Staff Reports
In a recent discussion, Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna brought to light some surprising—and frankly, outrageous—stances taken by some Democrats. The context? The deployment of National Guard troops and the subsequent security of Washington. Some Democrats have been suggesting that these troops somehow “had it coming” simply because President Trump sent them out in the first place. This sort of thinking disregards the very role of the National Guard, which many clearly do not understand. These servicemen and women, often hailing from various states, are tasked with safeguarding areas that need it most. And while many might not admit it, Washington was once one of these areas, suffering from rampant crime and necessitating additional security measures.
Now, here’s where it gets truly comical, if not hypocritical. Luna pointed out that many members of Congress, Democrats very much included, are concealed carry permit holders in Washington D.C. Why, you ask? Because of the dire security situation—at least until Trump increased security measures. So, while some continue to push their anti-gun agenda, they fast-tracked their own permits to protect themselves. The irony here is palpable. It’s as if they’re saying, “Guns for me, but not for thee!”
Take a moment to digest the situation Luna highlighted—a Democrat Congress member getting mugged for his sushi. If it weren’t so sad, it would be downright laughable. This same city, once among the most crime-ridden worldwide, benefitted immensely from the increased security presence. The attempt by some to justify recent tragic events, such as the murder of Sarah Beckstrom, only underscores a deeper inability or unwillingness to understand the protective role played by these forces.
And speaking of security and protection, let’s pivot to President Trump’s steps on immigration—specifically, halting immigration from certain countries. Luna backs these measures, highlighting the essential need for codification by Congress. Current systems are overwhelmed, she argues, bogged down by unchecked and unvetted arrivals under the previous administration. It’s a common-sense approach that shouldn’t be controversial. Pausing to let the system catch up seems logical, right? Yet, some simply refuse to acknowledge the chaos and strain on resources that unchecked immigration can cause.
Critically, Luna points out that the legal pathways for those wanting to immigrate properly are clogged due to the current disarray. It stands to reason that the U.S., like any country, should prioritize those who are both willing and able to contribute meaningfully to society. But, alas, some appear more interested in maintaining chaos rather than instituting effective reform.
In wrapping up, it’s clear that these issues demand serious attention, not the dismissive rhetoric and ideological stubbornness we see from some on the left. It’s time for practical solutions, not more of the same political games. It seems Luna and others are quite willing to lead that charge, much to the dismay of those who might prefer the status quo—a status quo that clearly isn’t working.
