You have no doubt heard about the latest Donald Trump Outrage. It is reported that Trump, during negotiations over the immigration deal, referred to certain African countries and Haiti as "s***hole countries." He then asked, allegedly, "why we need more Haitians" to come here as immigrants.

The White House rather noticeably refused to deny these reports at first. Finally, this morning, Trump issued a vague denial, claiming that he used "tough language" but "this was not the language used." So it seems apparent that he either said "s***hole" or something similar to it.

Predictably, the Left, the media, and some on the Right have been, shall we say, extremely displeased with the president. CNN went to full on Apocalyptic Freak Out Mode, calling Trump a "s***hole" on air, and declaring him racist. These were news anchors, by the way, making these unbiased proclamations. A law professor at Yale even suggested that Trump could be impeached for his salty language because he committed "an offense against the spirit animating the Reconstruction Amendments." And on and on it goes. You know the drill by now.

Here is what I'll say about the whole thing. Three points:

1) The Left obviously is in no position to lecture anyone for "vulgar and offensive" language. These are the same people who spent eight years calling their political opponents "teabaggers." "S***hole" is a PG-13 term. "Teabagger" is X-rated. It's also a personal attack on actual people, as opposed to an attack on the general conditions of a country. And let's not forget the time they donned vagina hats and marched through the streets with signs referring rather explicitly to their "p*ssies." I could go on at great length citing examples of the gleeful vulgarity that has spewed from the mouths of the people now so scandalized by the "s" word.

I've seen many on the Left lament that Trump has "coarsened the culture" to such an extent that our children can't even watch the news anymore. A reporter for the Washington Post worried that "s***hole" will be "all over the schoolyard tomorrow" because our kids will have learned of the term, for the first time, from Donald Trump.

I agree that the culture is too coarse and our children are too exposed to it. But "s**t" is the least of our problems, I'm afraid to say. Your child is far more scandalized by the pop songs you let her listen to all day than she is by the words the president uses in a closed door meeting at the White House. Yet if I were to point out that pop music is inappropriate, you'd scoff at me and call me a Puritan. Something doesn't add up here.

I grew up during the Clinton years. I was not allowed to be in the room when my Dad watched the news; precautions that, sadly, had little effect. I still heard all about Clinton's vulgar exploits in school the next day. Before I graduated elementary school I had learned about dress stains and creative uses for cigars, among other tidbits. "S***hole" would have been laughably tame compared to the moral corruption I suffered as a young boy thanks to the degenerates these Leftists, with their virgin ears, placed in the White House.

2) I don't think Trump's comments were racist, and I don't think the point he was making was particularly incredible or shocking. In his untactful way, he seemed to be communicating two facts: First, that third world countries are dilapidated and miserable. "S***hole" is an uncharitable way of referring to them, but there is no pleasant way to describe a nation like Haiti. Would "hellhole" be better? Whatever word you use, the point remains. These are awful places.

Second, our immigration system should favor those immigrants who will add something useful to society. The media can faint like wilting flowers all they want, but a great many people in the United States agree with the president. They see that we are deep in debt, the Welfare State is bankrupting our children, our cities are overrun with crime and poverty, and they do not want to import immigrants who will contribute to any of those problems. White or black or in between. The race is not the concern here. The concern is far more practical and logical, and it's exactly the concern that should be primary for the President of the United States.

I believe that we should reach out and help the poor and unfortunate. But we cannot invite all of them here to live with us, because, after a while, we will become just like the places they left. My family does what it can to help the homeless in our community, but we have never welcomed them into our house to sleep in the guest bedroom. That's because our first job is to protect our own children. We must help the less fortunate in a way that does not jeopardize our ability to perform our first and most essential duty. This really is not a radical concept.

3) With all of this said, the real issue still remains: the immigration deal itself. The irony is that liberals may well get an immigration deal they want, but they'll still be angry because of the language Trump used. And conservatives may be backstabbed in the deal, but they won't notice because they'll be too busy defending Trump's language. Both parties would do well to keep their eyes on the real prize. And conservatives should not allow themselves to be so swept off their feet by Trump's un-PC approach that they let him get away with betraying his campaign promises.