Wyoming’s Pro-Life Democrats should be heard

Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) bought a full-page ad in last Sunday’s New York Times. It reprinted an August 14 letter from current and retired Democratic Party officials to the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). It pressed the committee to listen to the “voices of innumerable elected pro-life Democrats across the United States of America” and reject the radical departure from the platform of the 2000 convention.

According to the letter, one third of registered Democrats—21 million voters—are pro-life. These have been abandoned by their party. The Democratic Platform of 2000 wanted abortion to be “less necessary and more rare.” It also stated, “[W]e respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party.” This language has been stripped from the 2020 platform.

Instead, pro-life Democratic candidates and office holders have been driven from the party. The new platform supports the abortion of a full-term child without even the slightest qualification. This is so radical that 187 nations forbid it. The new platform keeps company with Communist China, Viet Nam and North Korea. The DNC even wants taxpayers to foot the bill both, at home and abroad.

The New York Times letter raises three major concerns. “1. We are concerned that many Democratic leaders support policies on abortion that are radically out of line with public opinion. Many Democratic leaders support abortion at any time, for any reason; this position is opposed by 79% of Americans… 2. We are concerned that, due to this wide disparity, the Democratic Party is alienating voters. In 389 out of 435 Congressional districts, a majority of voters support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. When Democratic leaders support late-term abortion, they push many voters into the arms of the Republican Party… 3. Finally, we are concerned about the betrayal of Democratic Party values. An extreme position on abortion rights violates our commitment to inclusivity and diversity.”

This letter was signed by four governors and lieutenant governors, nine members of congress, 56 state legislators and 32 local officials. According to the DFLA website, many more wanted to join the 109 signatories but were unable to do so, due to fear of “the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-choice America in the party.”

The letter echoed another sent on July 24 by over 100 faith leaders ranging from Dr. Gabriel Salguero, President of the National Latino Evangelical Association, who served on President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, to Deaconess Tiffany Manor, Director of Life Ministry, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. It noted “that the Bible calls on us to speak up in favor of those who do not have a voice… [and] that life begins at fertilization [according to both Scripture and biology; and]… that abortion takes the life of the innocent.”

The letter also reminded the committee that “denying personhood to the pre-born child has disturbing parallels to Dred Scott vs. Sandford [which denied the personhood of slaves; and that] …the US is just one of seven countries, alongside North Korea, to allow the horrific practice of elective late-term abortion after 20 weeks.”

These faith leaders urged the DNC, “to recognize the inviolable human dignity of the child, before and after birth… to reject a litmus test on pro-life people of faith seeking office... [and] to end the explicit support in your platform for abortion extremism, such as taxpayer-funded abortion in America and overseas, opposed by 60% and 76% of voters.”

Not a single Wyoming Democrat signed the letter in Sunday’s New York Times. What does this say about the Wyoming Democratic Party? Does it have no pro-life office holders on either a local or state level? If Senate File 97 is any indication, it would seem so.

SF 97 was titled “Born alive infant-means of care.” It clarified Wyoming law that requires “commonly accepted means of care” for children who have survived abortions. The clarification defined the commonly accepted means of care as what would be “rendered to any other infant born alive.” Absent this qualification, an abortionist can simply leave the born-alive infant unattended and call it “commonly accepted means.” SF 97 passed the senate 23-7 and the House 44-16. Not one of Wyoming’s three Democrat senators and six representatives supported it.

Despite supermajorities in both chambers, Governor Gordon vetoed the bill. One justification that he gave for the veto was that, “the child might still pass away.” This obviously implies that some children would live, given the proper care.

As if to highlight the extremism of denying equal care to survivors of abortion, President Trump announced last Wednesday that he was preparing an executive order “to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve.” The fact that such an executive order is even necessary reveals how extreme positions on abortion call into question even normal medical ethics for newborns delivered under the wrong circumstances.

For my part, I cannot believe that there are no pro-life Democrats in Wyoming. Those that I know, are appalled and ashamed both by their delegation’s unanimous opposition to SF 97 as well as the extremist platform adopted at the DNC. Many more may be unaware how far the goalposts have moved in the last 20 years.

If this describes you, it’s not too late to get involved and speak truth to power. A Chinese proverb says: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.” On September 20, 109 pro-life Democratic office holders stood up to those at the DNC who hijacked their party platform. Pro-life Democrats in Wyoming should follow their lead and make their voices heard.

There are many ways this can be done. Write letters to the editor. Call your elected representatives and senators. Inform your fellow Democrats about the radical departure from the 2000 DNC platform. Show up at local precinct meetings and let them know how you feel. Run for precinct committeewoman or committeeman in the next election cycle. You represent a third of your party’s registered voters. There is no reason why your opinions should be so under-represented.

All politics are local. Unless we all work to bring our local institutions into line with our personal values, they will be coopted by international special interests that do not speak for us. They will exploit our good names to advance the very things that we abhor. It is the personal duty of every life-affirming Democrat to make sure that her voice is heard for the sake of those who cannot yet speak for themselves.

WTE: Wyoming’s Pro-Life Democrats should be heard

Last Sunday Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) published a full-page ad in the New York Times. It reprinted an August 14 letter from current and retired Democratic Party officials to the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). It pressed the committee to listen to the “voices of innumerable elected pro-life Democrats across the United States of America” and reject the radical departure from the platform of the 2000 convention.

The Democratic Platform of 2000 wanted abortion to be “less necessary and more rare.” It also stated, “[W]e respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party.” This language has been stripped from the 2020 platform.

Instead, pro-life Democrats have been driven from the party. The new platform supports the abortion of a full-term child without even the slightest qualification.  This is so radical that 187 nations forbid it. The new platform keeps company with Communist China, Viet Nam and North Korea. The DNC even wants taxpayers to foot the bill both at home and abroad.

The letter opposing these radical policies was signed by four governors and lieutenant governors, nine members of congress, 56 state legislators and 32 local officials. Dozens more wanted to join the 109 signatories but were unable, due to fear of “the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-choice America in the party,” according to the DFLA website.

The letter echoed another sent on July 24 by over 100 faith leaders ranging from Dr. Gabriel Salguero, President of the National Latino Evangelical Association, who served on President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, to Deaconess Tiffany Manor, Director of Life Ministry, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. It noted “that the Bible calls on us to speak up in favor of those who do not have a voice… [and] that life begins at fertilization [according to both Scripture and biology; and]… that abortion takes the life of the innocent.” It also reminded the committee that “denying personhood to the pre-born child has disturbing parallels to Dred Scott vs. Sandford [which denied the personhood of slaves; and that] …the US is just one of seven countries, alongside North Korea, to allow the horrific practice of elective late-term abortion after 20 weeks.”

These faith leaders urged the DNC, “to recognize the inviolable human dignity of the child, before and after birth… to reject a litmus test on pro-life people of faith seeking office... [and] to end the explicit support in your platform for abortion extremism, such as taxpayer-funded abortion in America and overseas, opposed by 60% and 76% of voters.”

While these faith leaders represent denominations working in Wyoming, not a single Wyoming Democrat signed the letter in Sunday’s New York Times. What does this say about the Wyoming Democratic Party? Does it have no pro-life office holders on either a local or state level? If Senate File 97 is any indication, it would seem so.

SF 97 was titled “Born alive infant-means of care.” It clarified Wyoming law to require care for children who survived abortions, passing the senate 23-7 and the House 44-16. Governor Gordon vetoed it stating, “[T]he child might still pass away.” Thus, he made plain that the child might also live. Not one of Wyoming’s nine Democrats supported it. To deny care to a child born-alive with a chance to live is as radical as it gets.

For my part, I cannot believe that there are no pro-life Democrats in Wyoming. Those that I know are appalled both by their delegation’s stance on SF 97 as well as the extremist platform adopted at the DNC. Many more may be unaware how far from the 2000 platform the national party has strayed.

If this describes you, it’s not too late to get involved and speak truth to power. Just as 109 pro-life Democrats stood up to those at the DNC who hijacked their party platform, pro-life Democrats in Wyoming should also stand up and be heard.

Write letters to the editor. Talk with your fellow Democrats about the radical departure from the 2000 DNC platform. Show up at local precinct meetings and let them know how you feel. Run for precinct committeewoman or committeeman in the next election cycle.

All politics are local. Unless we all work to bring our local institutions into line with our personal values, they will be coopted by international special interests that do not speak for us. They will exploit our good names to advance the very things that we abhor. It is the personal duty of every life-affirming Democrat to make sure that her voice is heard for the sake of those who cannot yet speak for themselves.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on September 25, 2020.

WTE: The First Amendment had a good ten days

In a letter dated August 31, 2020, Peter Kirsanow, member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote to Jenny Durkan, Mayor of Seattle, Washington. He was following up on an August 26 inquiry sent from the US Department of Justice’s Employment Litigation Section to Seattle’s city attorney.

Both letters were concerned with a June, 2020 training for the city’s 10,000 employees titled, “Internalized Racial Superiority for White People.” Employees were segregated by race and told that “all white people are racist.” This dogma was presented as an undisputable article of faith.

The commissioner reminded Durkin that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it “unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It makes no exceptions for this religion called “critical race theory” (CRT).

Only days later, Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a memorandum that read, “Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars… ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda.” The memo directed agencies to “identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on ‘critical race theory.’”

While the president continues “to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed,” it continued, “[t]he divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.” Vought’s memo promised that the OMB “will shortly issue more detailed guidance.” Both actions prevent the government from establishing the religion of CRT.

Then, on September 9, the Department of Education (DOE) secretary, Betsy DeVos announced the finalization of rules to “Protect Free Inquiry and Religious Liberty” in educational settings. “This administration is committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions,” she wrote. “Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.”

As is clear from this statement, the rules cover two distinct and complementary aspects of the First Amendment. Government-run schools must not infringe on a student’s freedom to speak and exercise religion on campus; and government must not pressure religious organizations into policies that contradict their educational mission.

In the U.S. Constitution, these complementary concerns are expressed by the “non-establishment clause,” and the “free exercise clause,” respectively. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two clauses are not in competition with one another, but mutually supportive.

This constitutional commitment stands in stark contrast to the ethos of the French Revolution. At the heart of that bloodbath was an atheistic impulse to expunge religion from public life by a strict “separation of church and state.” America’s founders, on the contrary, wanted the robust involvement of every religious person in making and framing America’s laws. The First Amendment protected free exercise and prohibited government-established religions so that believers themselves could debate in the public square.

Clearly the Department of Education understands this. That’s why it makes a sharp distinction between government-run schools and religiously controlled schools. Both may benefit from government education money without discrimination. Government-run schools, as agencies of the government itself, must strictly protect First Amendment rights. On the other hand, religiously controlled schools are required only to adhere to their own stated policies.

The government has no business dictating to a religious school what it may or may not teach. Those who teach there and those who attend there do so voluntarily and with the reasonable expectation that the doctrine of the religious body will be taught, defended and lived out on its campus.

Likewise, the government-run school has a responsibility under the First Amendment to allow all students, professors and student organizations to articulate, defend and live out their religion without penalty or disadvantages placed upon them in the classroom or in campus life.

For years, now, we have seen groups like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes banned from government campuses merely for articulating their beliefs. Meanwhile, we have also seen religious schools pressured into promoting teachings and practices that contradict their official doctrine as a condition of participating in government programs. The DOE rules are carefully balanced to stop both abuses.

President Trump’s departments of education, justice and the OMB, have been busy protecting your First Amendment rights. They deserve your thanks.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, September 18, 2020.

Two weeks of First Amendment victories

Recently, several federal agencies have acted to strengthen First Amendment protections dramatically. Actions taken have included both restrictions on the use of tax-payer dollars to fund specifically religious speech as well as guarantees that such funds will not be leveraged to silence the free speech of religious people.

In a letter dated August 31, Peter Kirsanow, member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote to Jenny Durkan, Mayor of Seattle, Washington. He was following up on an August 26 inquiry sent from the US Department of Justice’s Employment Litigation Section to Seattle’s city attorney. Both letters were concerned with a June 2020 training session for city employees.

That training was titled “Internalized Racial Superiority for White People.” In it employees were forcibly segregated by race and the trainer, Ashleigh Shackelford, told city employees that “all white people are racist.” This statement, printed on a placard in capital letters, was only one of several elements of the course that Kirsanow found objectionable.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act reads, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The commissioner’s letter reminds Durkin that Title VII contains no exceptions for Shackleford’s “critical race theory” (CRT). He concluded: “This is nothing more than singling out people of a particular race as class enemies and forcing them to abuse themselves before the reigning orthodoxy... I urge you to end such trainings immediately.”

Only days later, Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a memorandum to the heads of all executive departments of the federal government. Noting that “Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars… ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda.” It directed all agencies to “identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on ‘critical race theory.’”

Vought noted that while the president continues “to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.” CRT may be taught and believed by anyone who wishes to believe it, but this religion cannot be funded by taxpayers.

Several days later, the President announced that the Department of Education was examining California’s intent to promote the 1619 Project. This, he thinks, is an example of a religion being illegally funded by taxpayers.

Launched by Nichole Hannah-Jones in August of 2019. The 1619 Project is a deliberate and coordinated effort to rewrite American history. It denies that America was founded in 1776 on the foundational assertion that “all men are created equal.” It teaches, instead, that the Revolutionary War was declared to defend the slave trade.

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Gordon Wood, and many other scholars, have debunked numerous errors in the project, forcing Hannah-Jones to qualify some of her most radical statements. Still, the New York Times Magazine continues to promote its theories.

While the OMB was diligent to prevent public funding from promoting CRT as a state-established religion, the Department of Education (DOE) was clarifying rules so that the free exercise clause is not violated in the educational setting. On September 9, 2020, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos announced the finalization of rules to “Protect Free Inquiry and Religious Liberty.”

Her announcement is the culmination of work set in motion by Executive Order 13864, signed on March 26, 2019. The proposed rules were published last January and over 17,000 comments were considered before the amended and finalized rules were published last Wednesday.

“This administration is committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions,” she wrote. “Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.”

To accomplish this task, it is necessary to understand the constitutional relationship between religion and the government. While the constitutional convention was meeting in the summer of 1787, the French Revolution was poised to explode. At the heart of this bloodbath was a Marxist attempt to expunge religion from every aspect of public life. This was the so-called “separation of church and state.”

In America, however, the constitutional convention rejected this notion. The framers wanted the robust involvement of every religious person in making and framing America’s laws. In order to do this, it was necessary to protect the full and free exercise of religion not only in church buildings, but also in the public square. To make room for that freedom, they saw that it was also necessary that the government not weigh in on any of the distinctive tenets of the various religions.

This background accounts for the twin clauses of the First Amendment that speak of religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These clauses are not in competition with each other but are mutually supportive. Only by affirming their interdependence can the First Amendment be rightly understood.

The Department of Education understands this. That’s why it makes a sharp distinction between government-run schools and religiously controlled schools. Both may benefit from government education money without discrimination. Government-run schools, as agencies of the government itself, must strictly protect First Amendment rights. On the other hand, religiously controlled schools are required only to adhere to their own stated policies.

This makes clear that the government has no business dictating to a religious school what it may or may not teach. Those who teach there and those who attend there do so voluntarily and with the reasonable expectation that the doctrine of the religious body will be taught, defended and lived out on its campus.

Likewise, the government-run school has a responsibility under the First Amendment to allow all students, professors and student-organizations to articulate, defend and live-out their religion without penalty or disadvantages placed upon them in the classroom or in campus life.

For years, now, we have seen groups like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes banned from government campuses merely for articulating their beliefs. Meanwhile, we have also seen religious schools pressured into promoting teachings and practices that contradict their official doctrine as a condition of participating in government programs that are totally unrelated to worship or dogma. The DOE rules are carefully balanced to stop both abuses.

Education secretary, DeVos explained, “[t]hese regulations hold public institutions accountable for protecting the First Amendment rights of students and student organizations, and they require private colleges and universities that promise their students and faculty free expression, free inquiry, and diversity of thought to live up to those ideals.” 

President Trump deserves credit for his administration's vigilant defense of the First Amendment.

WTE: From Fuzhou to Evanston: family economics in our back yard

The Dragon Wall Chinese Buffet has been an Evanston tradition since 1997. The current owners, Don and Lin Li, immigrated from Fuzhou, China and bought it from relatives in 2000.

Fuzhou, located on the Taiwan Strait, is where the tradition of the Dragon Wall begins. Go into any Chinese buffet in America and ask the owners about their city of birth. Four out of five will likely be from Fuzhou. Families from there call America mei guo (the Beautiful Country). Many have come to raise their families here with a Chinese buffet as the family business.

The Li family has been an integral part of our Evanston community for more than two decades. They have fed us, raised their kids with ours, shopped in area stores, and helped build our community in countless ways. All this has been done in their typically quiet and unassuming way. If you haven’t gone out of your way to meet them, you might never have known their names. Don and Lin think nothing of working ten hours a day, seven days a week.

It is precisely this quiet industriousness that motivates me to tell their story. When the great shut-down of 2020 hit, the restaurant business was hit hard. We are now on the 11th continuation of a Statewide Public Health Order (#1) that has restricted businesses like the Dragon Wall even more severely than the rest. “No self-serve food service or buffet options shall be available…”

For now, and for the foreseeable future, self-serve restaurants are still unable to be self-serve restaurants. What does such an order do to a family whose only means of support is the self-serve restaurant business? With this question in mind, I went to the Dragon Wall and introduced myself.

I was surprised to find that they were open for business. This is a testament to their ingenuity and grit. Foreseeing that strictures on self-serve restaurants would continue long after other restaurants were allowed to open, the Dragon Wall changed its business model from self-serve to fast food.

They built Plexiglas dividers to separate diners from the food bar and spaced their tables to accommodate social distancing. This positioned then to be ready when the modifications of the May 15th Public Health Order went into effect.

After two months of complete shut-down, they reopened serving express Chinese food for takeout or dine in. For a set price, customers can receive a bed of fried rice or lo mein. Then, they can select two different entrees and an appetizer. For an additional dollar, they can add soup and a drink.

Upon reopening, they were serving only half the customers that they had serviced before the shutdown, but at least they were able to put food on the table. Sadly, they were forced to lay off their employee. This, too, was the common lot of businesses far and wide. But now that they have been opened for two and a half months, their customer base is slowly rising.

Despite the neon sign welcoming diners, there is still a substantial number of people who are unaware that many buffets have retooled their business model to enable reopening. But, open they are, and as terrific as ever.

While decision-makers continue to receive full salary and benefits, families like the Lis are affected by those decisions in an immediate way. Through creative thinking and hard work, they have not only found a way to keep body and soul together, but also to continue to serve the Evanston community as restaurateurs and neighbors.

No doubt, there are many thousands of family-owned businesses throughout the state and the nation that share a similar story. I wanted to write about the Li family to help us remember them all. Calls to lift unnecessary restrictions at the earliest moment feasible are not about restoring some faceless capitalistic economy. They are about people.

The word “economy” comes from the Greek word for managing a household. It is about families like the Li’s. It is about our neighbors, friends, school mates and fellow immigrants. To care about their needs and challenges is a part of being human.

I asked Don if there was anything special that he wanted the community to know. He was eager to tell me. With no worries at all for the future, he said, “No matter what happens next, we appreciate that the community has helped us to raise our kids in a peaceful life.”

The appreciation is mutual. Who knew that eating great Chinese food was anything more than a valued dining experience? Supporting a good family and a community partner simply came in the bargain. That is how the economy is supposed to work.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, September 11, 2020.

From Fuzhou to Evanston: family economics in our backyard

The Dragon Wall Chinese Buffet is an Evanston tradition. From its beginning in 1997 diners grew to appreciate the steady quality and the wide variety of dishes on the menu. From General Tsao’s Chicken to its delicate Egg Rolls, the buffet is always hot and fresh.

In 2000, the original owners sold the Dragon Wall to Don and Lin Li. They immigrated from Fuzhou, China to live in our community and continue the family tradition that is the Dragon Wall.

Fuzhou is a city of over seven million people in the Fujian province of the People’s Republic of China. It is almost a thousand miles south of Beijing, situated on the north bank of the Min River where it flows into the Taiwan Strait. From Fuzhou, it is only a short flight, 158 miles, to Taiwan.

Fuzhou is where the tradition of the Dragon Wall begins. Go into any Chinese buffet in America and ask the owners about their city of birth. Chances are your inquiries will lead back to the same place. Don tells me that Fuzhou restaurateurs have established 80% of the Chinese buffets in the U.S.A.

It’s not that Fuzhou is particularly known for the culinary arts. It is simply that some of its first emigres were successful in the buffet business and word filtered back home. Now, Fuzhou citizens who are seeking to make a fresh start in America have a well-established business model that affords them a great opportunity to raise their families in what they call mei guo (the Beautiful Country).

When I ponder the courage and grit that it would take to leave behind everything that you have ever known and travel 7,000 miles to make a new life, I am humbled. It hearkens back to the story of my German ancestors—and the ancestors of millions of Americans—who came from places as diverse as Prussia, Ireland, Mexico and Somalia to make this land their home.

The Lis have become an integral part of our Evanston community for more than two decades. They have fed us on special occasions and for business luncheons. They have raised their kids with ours, shopped in Evanston stores and helped us build our community in countless ways.

All this has been done in their typically quiet and unassuming way. If you haven’t gone out of your way to meet them, you might never have known their names. Don and Lin think nothing of working ten hours a day, seven days a week.

It is precisely this quiet industriousness that motivates me to tell their story. When the great shut-down of 2020 hit, the restaurant business was hit hardest of all. Last Wednesday, September 1, Governor Gordon issued the 11th continuation of Statewide Public Health Order #1. This order, covering bars, restaurants, theaters, gymnasiums, child-care and schools has now restricted businesses like the Dragon Wall for six straight months.

But of all the restaurants restricted, the most severely impacted are self-serve buffets. Every other business model has been allowed to return to some semblance of order. But Public Health Order #1 (2.j) decrees that “No self-serve food service or buffet options shall be available…” For now, and for the foreseeable future, self-serve restaurants are still unable to be self-serve restaurants.

What does such an order do to a family whose only means of support is the self-serve restaurant business that they have lovingly maintained for two decades? With this question in mind, I went to the Dragon Wall and introduced myself.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that they were open for business. This was a great improvement. Under the first order and three continuations, they were forced to close their doors completely. While major chains like McDonald’s were authorized to keep operating as “essential businesses” smaller “mom and pop” establishments like Dragon Wall were shut out of the economy.

Together with countless small restaurants across the country, their business provided no income for their family for two entire months. Had it not been for relief made available through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, their household could have fallen into bankruptcy.

During these months, they were not idle. Foreseeing that strictures on self-serve restaurants would continue long after those with a service model were reopened, they started making plans. The Dragon Wall purchased Plexiglas dividers to separate diners from the food bar and from the cashier. They spaced their tables to accommodate social distancing and bought cases of Styrofoam boxes.

Equipped with these provisions, they were ready when the modifications of the May 15th Public Health Order went into effect. Their new business model is similar to the Panda Express chain. For a set price, customers can receive a bed of fried rice or lo mein noodles. Then, they can select two different entrees and an appetizer. For an additional dollar, they can add soup and a drink.

Upon reopening, they were serving only half the customers that they had serviced before the shutdown, but at least they were able to put food on the table. Sadly, they were forced to lay off their employee. This, too, was the common lot of businesses far and wide. But now that they have been opened for two and a half months, their customer base is slowly rising.

Despite the neon sign welcoming diners, there are still a substantial number of people who are unaware that many buffets have retooled their business model to enable reopening. But, open they are, and as terrific as ever.

While those making public health decisions continue to receive full salary and benefits, families like the Lis are affected in a far more immediate way. Through ingenuity and grit they have not only found a way to keep body and soul together, but also to continue to serve the Evanston community as restaurateurs and neighbors.

No doubt, there are many thousands of family-owned businesses throughout the state and the nation that share a similar story. I wanted to write about the Li family to help us remember them all. Calls to lift unnecessary restrictions at the earliest moment feasible are not about restoring some faceless capitalistic economy. They are about people.

The word “economy” comes from the Greek word for managing a household. It is about families like the Li’s. It is about our neighbors, friends, school mates and fellow-immigrants. To care about their needs and challenges is a part of being human.

I asked Don if there was anything special that he wanted the community to know. He was eager to tell me. With no worries at all for the future, he said, “No matter what happens next, we appreciate that the community has helped us to raise our kids in a peaceful life.”

The appreciation is mutual. Who knew that eating great Chinese food was anything more than a valued dining experience? Supporting a good family and community partner simply came in the bargain. That is how the economy is supposed to work.

WTE: The most pro-life national convention in history

Physician-assisted suicide, discrimination against children with Down syndrome, adoption, born-alive infant protection and abortion together form a cluster of policy debates called “life issues.” Pundits consider these as the “third rail” of politics, to be avoided whenever possible.

In recent years, however, that has changed. Extremists on the left shout out support for abortion up through the moment of birth. Yet, even in the face of this vocal challenge, party leaders on both sides of the aisle work to silence the pro-life side.

Last week, however, this pattern was broken when cancer survivor, Natalie Harp, told her story. She exposed how the regime of physician assisted suicide poisons the medical profession.

“I was told I was a burden to my family and to my country, and that by choosing to die early, I’d actually be saving the lives of others by preserving resources for them, rather than wasting them on a lost cause like myself,” Harp recalled. This was the first time ever that a major party convention condemned physician- assisted suicide.

The following night, Abby Johnson, came to the podium. She spoke of the day when, as director of a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic, she first witnessed the procedure that earned her salary. “Nothing prepared me for what I saw on the screen, an unborn baby fighting back, desperate to move away from the suction,” she recalled. “And I’ll never forget what the doctor said next, ‘Beam me up Scotty.’ The last thing I saw was a spine twirling around in the mother’s womb before succumbing to the force of the suction.”

Words such as these had never before been spoken at a convention of either party. They broke through all the abstract euphemisms meant to hide the reality of abortion. “You see, for me, abortion is real. I know what it sounds like. I know what abortion smells like. Did you know abortion even had a smell?”

That final sentence resounded like a rifle shot. She was followed immediately by Nick Sandmann, the teenager who found himself in the crosshairs of the world’s most powerful media outlets. After participating in Washington’s March for Life, he was accosted by a professional agitator, targeted for his red MAGA hat.

This incident was then flipped on its head by irresponsible pundits. “The full war machine of the mainstream media revved up into attack mode,” he said. “They did so without researching the full video of the incident, without ever investigating Mr. Phillips’ motives, or without ever asking me for my side of the story. And do you know why? Because the truth was not important.”

So far, the lies of CNN and the Washington Post have forced them into settlements reportedly over $100 million. Other outlets are still in court. Taken together, the stories of Johnson and Sandmann spotlighted the silence and distortions that hide the truth about abortion and those who stand for life.

Later that night, Albuquerque police officer, Ryan Holets, told his story. It began with an encounter with two heroine users and ended with the protection of an unborn child, the rescue of a young woman from addiction and a loving adoption.

The following evening, Tera Lee Myers spoke of genetic discrimination. “Before Samuel was even born,” she related, “I was told his life wouldn’t be worth living. When early tests revealed he had Down syndrome, our doctor encouraged me to terminate the pregnancy.” Sadly, such blatant discrimination is not uncommon.

In America, approximately two-thirds of children with Down syndrome are terminated. Such discrimination also continued after birth when school officials did not want to waste resources in teaching Samuel properly. Her fight against Downs discrimination spotlighted the humanity of countless people.

Sister Deirdre Byrne, a medical doctor, spoke of how refugees are universally “marginalized, viewed as insignificant, powerless and voiceless.” Then she brought it home, saying, “While we tend to think of the marginalized as living beyond our borders, the truth is the largest marginalized group in the world can be found here in the United States. They are the unborn.”

Even the keynote speech of the entire convention was unabashedly pro-life. The presidential candidate condemned any party that “supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies, right up until the moment of birth.” He called out those that “talk about moral decency, but they have no problem with stopping a baby’s beating heart in the ninth month of pregnancy.” He spoke of the hypocrisy of those who “refuse to protect innocent life, and then…lecture us about morality and saving America’s soul.”

Every pro-life American should rejoice that the bi-partisan silence on life issues has been forever broken. The God-given right to life, that extends to all people, has been sounded on the national stage.

 

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, September 4, 2020.