Hell Is Too Good for Some People

We don’t speak here a lot about fake news. One reason is because it is so pervasive that it carries a whiff of carrying coal to Newcastle about it. But in a world in which the US sells rice to China… And there is also this: Fake news maliciously hurts people. Witness those kids from Covington, who behaved better than many of us would, and whose lives and families are being threatened because, not in spite of, but because, they are better people than their detractors.

But it is not only the US as this from Bruce Bawer at FrontPage Magazine shows.

I heard the news last week during a quick headline break on Nigel Farage’s daily call-in show. Fifty-five men in West Yorkshire – fifty-five! – had been arrested and interrogated in connection with rape-gang allegations.

That was that. The story was summed up in a couple of sentences and lasted no more than a few seconds. Then it was back to the show.

Later I looked online for more details. Finally I found a 200-word item in the Mirror. But that seemed to be it. I couldn’t locate anything at all about the rape-gang arrests in the Daily Mail, Telegraph, or Guardian.

Think about that, a press so jaded that the story of 55 men arrested for organized gang rape of junior high girls over a period of years, and then trafficking them into prostitution and drugs, with the connivance of the (at least) local government and police, just like thousands of other men have been, leaving who knows how many families broken, is not worth a single word in Britain’s largest papers, left or (sort of) right, or on its state propaganda agency, the BBC . How many families hurt and girls destroyed by that conspiracy. By government and press acting together to suppress the law. Certainly an instance of fake news. Then there is this:

Take the case of Bailey McLaren, a 16-year-old working-class boy from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. In November, footage of him jumping Jamal, a 15-year-old Syrian-born classmate, in the schoolyard, apparently in October, went viral. Although nobody was seriously harmed in the fracas, the British media rushed to report at length on it. Because Bailey held Jamal down while pouring a bottle of water on his face, he was described as having committed an act of “waterboarding.” Because Jamal was Syrian, Bailey’s action was characterized as “racist.”

In fact no context whatsoever was provided along with the video; the reason why Bailey did what he did was unknown. In the video, he can be heard saying only two words – “You bastard!” – which suggest not prejudice but personal grievance. In any event, what Bailey did do, even though it was arguably uncivilized and even if it were to turn out to have been utterly unprovoked, was no worse than any number of other donnybrooks that occur every day in schoolyards around the world.

Yet the British press went bonkers over it. The Mail, the Standard, the Telegraph, and the Sun were only a few of the papers that ran long, highly charged accounts. The Mail called the video “distressing” and “sickening,” saying that it had “shocked the country.”

Naturally, the police brought Bailey up on charges. Top public officials, too, got into the act. A Member of Parliament named Nadine Dorries “called for ‘serious action’ over the bullying and added the UK should ‘open its arms’ to those facing persecution.” Another MP, Tobias Ellwood, tweeted: “This bully, his parents, the school where this occurs and the onlookers who fail to step in, all have big questions to answer.” Ellwood told BBC Newsnight: “I worry that we are becoming a ‘walk on by’ society where we’re allowing space for these things to happen.” […]

On December 5, Tommy Robinson, who in the midst of his own personal drama had admirably sought to uncover the facts of Bailey’s story, released a video in which he maintained that Jamal is not the innocent victim painted by the media. A woman told Tommy that her daughter, a pupil at the Huddersfield school, had sustained serious injuries as the result of an unprovoked attack by Jamal. In addition, Tommy interviewed the parent of a boy whom Jamal had also allegedly bullied. Tommy even spoke to Bailey himself, whose own testimony was persuasive and moving.

On January 18, Tommy provided a video update. Tommy said that Jamal had threatened Bailey in class just prior to their contretempts and that that, not racial or religious prejudice, was the motive for Bailey’s assault. Tommy accused police of seeking, after the schoolyard video went viral, to relocate the McLarens to a “Muslim ghetto,” specifically to a Muslim-owned B&B populated by drug addicts and prostitutes (an action reminiscent of Tommy’s own transfer, last summer, from a relatively safe prison to a more heavily Muslim one).

According to Tommy, the McLarens wisely refused to move into that B&B; instead, Tommy and some friends helped set up them in a secret location. But what to do now? At this point, practically speaking, the boy and his family are refugees – only, as Tommy put it, they’re not receiving anything like the kind of sensitive, compassionate help that the British government routinely grants refugees (however dubious their refugee status) from other countries.

Bailey’s sisters, who are eleven years old, have been inundated with rape threats and haven’t been able to go to school for two months. (Tommy noted that they’re living in a city, Huddersfield, where “sixty Muslim men” have been put on trial in the past year for raping girls of around that age.) As for Bailey himself, he celebrated Christmas by trying to take his life with a drug overdose. After he spent several days in a hospital being nursed back to health, Tommy personally took him “to see mental-health teams” because the authorities hadn’t done so.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” is an aphorism almost always attributed to Voltaire, so we will too. In any case, it is very apt here, where we speak of a country where it is anathema (and a hate crime) to criticize anything a Muslim says or does.

And so we see a perfectly fine young man all but destroyed by the government, police, and press for a schoolboy brawl against a bully. While thousands of Muslims rape, drug, and sell underage English girls consistently and in an organized manner, without even publicity, let alone sanction by the authorities.

Who is in charge over there? Cause it sure as hell is not the people who are the same kind and decent people they’ve always been. And don’t even imagine that the American press is any better because it is not. Pitchforks are far too kind for people who cover up such things.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

Advertisements

The Battle for Britain

LONDON, UK – CIRCA JUNE 2017: Statue of Boadicea Boudicca Queen of the Iceni who died AD 61 after leading her people against the Roman invaders (high dynamic range)

Some of you may wonder why we speak so much here about Brexit. After all, this is primarily an American blog. Well part of the reason is President Trump, for the moment he’s doing a superlative job for us, and so other than laughing at the deranged Progressives (yes, I repeat myself) there really isn’t too much to say. A nice change, isn’t it? Yes, there are things he could improve on, such as China, perhaps, but overall, there’s little to complain about.

Britain is a different case. After the people clearly stated that they wanted to preserve British sovereignty and leave the European Union, they have met a wall of resistance from their own government, including elected officials, the bureaucracy, and the rent-seeking corporatists.

It’s a battle for the Britain which led the world into ordered liberty, the land of Locke, of Burke, of Nelson and Wellington, and yes, of Churchill and Thatcher. It’s also an existential battle, one that must be won, or the British government will lose all legitimacy. As usual, Melanie Philips put the issues squarely and well here.

[…]Westminster is currently heaving with plots aimed at reversing the 2016 referendum result – while purporting to honor it. So MPs are coming up with demands to delay the legal date for the UK’s departure, demands for a second referendum, demands for “compromise” departure terms that are, in effect, forms of Remain.

This is all to break what is widely reported as the parliamentary “deadlock” over the issue. But there’s no deadlock. The legally binding default position is that if no deal with the EU is struck, Britain will leave on March 29 without a deal.

This is enshrined in an act of parliament passed last year. So the way forward is in fact very clear. The problem is that MPs who passed this act of parliament now want to dump it. They claim that leaving with no deal is out of the question because it would plunge Britain into chaos and ruin.

Britain has been subjected to a blizzard of scare stories about starving to death, running out of medicines or being unable to fly to Europe if it leaves with no deal.

These are ludicrous exaggerations. Much more to the point, the EU itself has far too much to lose from having no deal. But it will only do a deal on Britain’s terms if its own back is to the wall. In other words, leaving with no deal is essential to get the deal that Britain wants.

Yet instead of helping bring that about, Remainer MPs are spitting in the eye of democracy by seeking to reverse the referendum result, thus setting parliament against the people. Why?

At the core of much Remain thinking lies a profound indifference toward or even contempt for the very idea of a sovereign nation. For people who take pride in their cosmopolitanism and who regard national ties as a form of bigoted atavism, democracy can be endlessly reinvented in their own image.

Such Remainers thus grossly underrated the depth of feeling behind the vote for Brexit because they grossly underrate Britain itself.

Britain is a very special country; which is why it’s the one country to leave the EU. The countries of mainland Europe, with their long histories of mutual invasion, permeable borders, shifting national boundaries and attachments to democracy that are fitful and tenuous, have a shallow understanding of national identity.

By contrast, Britain is an island nation with an unequivocally distinct and separate identity. It hasn’t been invaded for 1,000 years and has consistently repelled attackers from across the seas.

This history has created its national character: independent of mind, stoic under pressure, opposed to extremism but ferocious in defense of its liberties and very, very averse to being bullied or told what to do.

This is why Britain was the cradle of political liberty. And this is why it voted to leave the EU – because despite the cultural demoralization of its post-war elites which took it into the European project in 1973, it still knows itself to be special.

There are three nations which have this view of themselves as being uniquely blessed: Britain, America and Israel. All have played an outsized role in bringing the benefits of civilization to the world.

Yes, all have had their faults. The British Empire had episodes of great cruelty; America had vicious racial prejudice; Israel’s political system is corrupt and dysfunctional.

All three countries, however, are beset from within by an intelligentsia determined to distort their nation’s history, exaggerate its failings and prove it was born in original sin.

A nation cannot be defended unless its people love and admire it, and unless it is led by men and women who acknowledge it for what it is rather than what they want it to be.

People look for leaders who will defend their way of life, promote the historic culture that binds their society together into a nation they can call their own, and take all necessary measures to keep it safe and inviolate.

The failure by the political establishment to deliver that led directly to the Brexit vote, the election of US President Donald Trump and, in Israel, to the destruction of the Left as a political force.

Read it all, and you will likely have more understanding of why so many Americans, here in a country created by British liberty, are so fierce in our support of our cousins. Once again, as in 1940 and in 1916, and in 1805 they fight a battle that we both have and will have to again fight. I think they’ll win, but if they don’t things will be very dark in Europe.

I’m reminded of this, by A. P. Herbert.

Boadicea from the Bridge looked down,
And saw the Yankee tanks invade the town.
Boadicea held her head more high
To hail the Sherman and the proud G.I.
‘Eyes right!’ she said. ‘Fine fellows though you are,
You’re not the first to drive an armoured car.
Halt, soldiers, halt! For here is one can tell
A tale of fighting chariots as well.
Look up, brave girls. In a.d. 61
I led the lads, and saw the Roman run.
God speed you too against an alien mob:
God bless you all for joining in the job.
By Grant! By Sherman!’ said the queen of queens.
I wish I’d had such men, and such machines.’

They passed. And Parliament, across the way,
Discussed the principle of equal pay

GOPe and Corporatists

If you haven’t heard yet, Theresa May lost in Parliament, 432 to 202. Which should be a decisive, humiliating result, leading to a change in government, but probably won’t. She is supposed to present her ‘plan B’ to Parliament within three days, and Corbyn has called for a vote of no confidence. FUBAR, in other words. We’ll keep an eye on it.


John Daniel Davidson over at The Federalist wrote about the argument Tucker Carlson unleashed about conservatism, noting what that noted sorta conservative Russ Douthat has commented.

It is time, I think that we have this conversation, as I look around, I see lots of casualties, but let see what the article says.

Over the weekend, Ross Douthat of The New York Times weighed in on the ideological battle sparked by Tucker Carlson’s recent Fox News monologue excoriating GOP elites for slavish devotion to market capitalism and indifference to its negative effects, especially for working-class families.

Carlson’s fusillade provoked a host of reactions from conservatives, some who criticized Carlson for exaggerating the problems caused by capitalism while ignoring its benefits, some who argued he has a point about how capitalism has failed to protect families and create a prosperous working class. “If there is to be a healthy American right, after Donald Trump or ever, this is the argument that conservatives should be having,” writes Douthat, and he’s correct.

Douthat zeroes in on a line from David French of National Review, a critic of Carlson, who wrote: “There are wounds that public policy can’t heal.” Douthat concedes that this is true, but argues it can become “a trap, a cul-de-sac, an excuse for doing nothing.” Too often, conservatives have “leaped to despair without even trying policy.”

He cites a few examples, like the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the disappearance of wages that can support single-income households, but then pivots to censorship and prohibition. Douthat notes that the right was once comfortable using public policy to promote private virtue, “But in recent decades, the right’s elites have despaired of censoring pornography, acquiesced to the spread of casino gambling, made peace with the creeping commercialization of marijuana, and accepted the internet’s conquest of childhood and adolescence.”

Douthat’s point is that while public policy can’t cure every social ill, it can be a “corrective”—if conservatives don’t simply throw in the towel.

There is no doubt about it, we’ve taken a lot of losses in the last almost thirty years. Part of the trouble, not the solution, is the GOPe, which talks a good game, but if you don’t like their principles, well they’ll find others.

‘Market Capitalism’ is a good place to start, it ain’t; it’s corporatism, rent-seeking, whatever you’d like to call it. It is designed to benefit the rich, the large, often multi-national corporation at the expense of the citizen and the worker. It’s not an accident, it’s a feature. See Elon Musk, or Enron, or many other examples.

For most of this, remember that politics is downstream of culture. Culture is where we need to win the culture wars, not politics. And you know, I think the pendulum has nearly reached the end of its swing and is starting to return. Be prepared, the war has merely begun. Will we win? Nobody knows but does it really matter, as far as I can see, my duty is to do the right thing and do it to the best of my ability, and what will be, will be. And as always, God decides. But we have before, many times.

A Historic Vote in Parliament

And so, tomorrow UK time, Parliament will vote on May’s Withdrawal Agreement, which isn’t. It’s an amazing document, given that its existence is premised on the authority of a passed referendum that asked,  “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

That is very clear and unambiguous, remarkably so, in fact. And so were the results, 51.9% of the electorate (in the largest UK turnout ever) said: “Leave”.

But the British swamp (pretty much the same players as the American swamp, but with a British accent) disagreed with the people. Loudly, coarsely, contemptuously, and disgracefully they disagree. It hasn’t been edifying watching as they attempted to spin, lie and otherwise weasel out of what the sovereign people said. This attempt is the keystone of May’s Prime Ministership, to undermine the will of the people. It’s a hell of a mess, perhaps worse than what Trump is fighting, not least because the people have few allies in Parliament, the Civil Service, or the City (that square mile, mentioned in Magna Charta) that has had pretensions to know better than anybody what is good for the UK, ever since.

If the domestic enemies of the people were not enough, then there is the EU. They are already on a bumpy ride to oblivion and fighting a rearguard action to preserve what is increasingly seen as das Vierte Reich, the fourth incarnation of the German Empire.

What May’s agreement does not do is withdraw from the EU, in fact, what it does is even worse than staying in, it removes any influence Britain has in the EU (not much) and strips Britain of voting rights in the organization. It is literally worse than staying in the status quo. It was evidently dictated to May by second level officials of the EU, not surprisingly, German allies of Merkel’s.

The other option is, of course, a clear exit on WTO terms, and then as is proper, to negotiate trade deals with all and sundry. Rumor has it that the US has one waiting that is very favorable to the UK, and it is likely that the Commonwealth does as well.

Would there be disruption? Perhaps, but its hard to see why. Trade is in everybody’s interest. Germany is still a metal-bashing economy, what they do best is make cars. The UK is comparable, maybe superior, as a twenty-first century economy to the US, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and an end to the EU asset stripping of manufacturing to relocate in Eastern Europe would enhance employment for regular people, as we’ve seen here in the last two years.

Greg Hands, the MP for Chelsea and Fulham, and a former Minister of State at the Department of International Trade wrote this for Conservative Home a few days ago.

[…]But most Brussels commentators maintain that Brexit details are determined by their respective number twos: Martin Selmayr (Chief of Staff to Juncker since 2014, and – controversially – General Secretary of the European Commission since March 2018) and Sabine Weyand, deputy to Barnier.

Both happen to be German. Indeed, Die Welt, the leading German daily, early on in the negotiations did a feature titled‘The top German players in the Brexit poker game’, with a certain pride, on their central role in the coming talks.

Selmayr and Weyand – the well-connected German officials, behind the scenes […]

In September 2017, Selmayr was reported to have blasted Brexit as “stupid”.  “He is a theologian who regards the British as heretics,” was how a former British ambassador to Brussels described him to The Times.

It is Selmayr who stands accused of having leaked the details of two dinners between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Although he denies this. The accounts claimed May “begged for help” and described May as appearing “anxious”, “tormented”, “despondent and discouraged,” and cruelly described how our Prime Minister appeared to be having sleepless nights.

Juncker – or more likely Selmayr – vetoed greater transparency in the Brexit talks and specifically recommendations from the EU’s official watchdog that Weyand’s role be more scrutinised and her meetings published.

What they now say about the Brexit Agreement: and why that should warn us, British MPs, in advance of next week’s vote

Since the Withdrawal Agreement was finalised in November, Selmayr and Weyand have left most of the public words to their bosses Juncker and Barnier, but behind the scenes various reports have emerged of what these two officials think. And these officials are the ones who know the detail best. Both have been clear that the Agreement is overwhelmingly favourable to the European Union.

There are credible reports that the British armed forces have already been assigned roles in the so-called EU army, often said under German officers, and that intelligence functions will be extended. This last is important, the premier intelligence operation in the world is Five Eyes: Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Britain is, always has been, a key player in this. This agreement will end this, and possibly NATO as well.

So that is what this vote tomorrow is all about. Perhaps the most important vote in the entire Anglosphere since the British decided (without public approval) to join the EEC, the predecessor of the EU.

We’ll see if Parliament has the guts to legislate for the (not very) United Kingdom, or is content to throw away a thousand years of history for the satisfaction of surrendering British sovereignty to German bureaucrats.

A proper British Prime Minister would simply tell the EU to sod off.

The date today could just as well be 10 May 1940.

The Battle of Brexit

Theresa May’s bill to sell pay Brussels to take British sovereignty is supposed to be voted on the first of the week. If you have any interest at all, you’ll want to read this series, which has run on The Conservative Woman, the best conservative site in Britain. In it, we meet  Professor Gwythian Prins in his Briefings for Brexit podcast of November which you can listen to here.

Kathy’s introduction is instructive.

His is not a household name. But it should be. Few are more lucid or more knowledgeable, as Michael St George flagged up last week. MPs should listen to Prins before they vote.

A member of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel from 2009 to 2015, today an Emeritus Research Professor at the London School of Economics, academic board member of Veterans for Britain as well as founder member of Briefings for Brexit, he is half Dutch and a fluent French speaker who’s also the Senior Visiting Professor at France’s top military school, L’école Spéciale Militaire de St Cyr.

There’s a lot here, far too much to represent fairly in one post, it took TCW 4, and none of them were short. So what I’m giving you is simply a taste, that you can follow, and learn, I surely did.

On Tuesday we read this:

INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much indeed for talking to the Briefings for Brexit podcast series today. As you say, you are on the editorial board of B4B. Let’s begin with today. Theresa May is, as we speak, giving a statement to the House of Commons on her Brexit deal. Your reaction to it?

GWYTHIAN PRINS: Well my reaction is that the date of today is not actually the 15th November 2018. It is the 10th May 1940 because I think that the collapse which has begun in this government with the resignation of Dominic Raab will be very difficult to stop and I hope that it will not stop, because what is now important is that we have a prime minister manifestly in office but not in power, who must now be replaced with somebody who can deliver the will of the people. We need now to do what should always have happened in the first place, which is not negotiate with the EU, because we cannot negotiate with the EU as we will discuss in just a moment, it’s in the nature of the EU that it cannot negotiate. What we will do is that we will leave to trade with the EU as we do with the rest of the world on standard WTO terms

From: Before they vote, MPs must listen to this man.

On Wednesday, this:

INTERVIEWER: If we look back, you, as one of the founders and editorial directors behind Briefings for Brexit, wrote about why you thought the EU was destined to break up: […]

GWYTHIAN PRINS: You’re quite right. That first piece, which I wrote when the website was new, I think still remains its most heavily-downloaded piece. It’s certainly the piece which has attracted the most hostile trolling, which is a new word that I’ve learned, from Remainiacs who hated my analysis. And let me briefly just say what I explained. I’m a historian by origins and an anthropologist and I’m familiar with many other of my cognate disciplines, one of which is particularly relevant to this issue and funnily enough it’s archaeology.

Keep reading Professor Prins on why the EU is doomed.

And so, On Thursday, he explained that the EU is not an artefact of the Second World War, but the First, and how this capitulation will affect British defenses and alliances. It ain’t pretty, by the way.

Isn’t that an argument to remain – our defence policy? I’ve heard what you’ve said but aren’t we destined outside of Europe to become an island with nukes? […]

[…]The key alliances upon which we depend – and let me be very clear about this – do not have anything to do with the European Union. They do have to do with some European countries who are members of NATO, but our primary relationships are with Anglosphere countries, English-speaking countries around the world like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Countries that are not English-speaking which are close allies like Japan, for example. This is the world with which we do most of our trade. This is the world of the future. This is the world to which the British economy is supremely well-attuned because we are an economy unlike the Germans who are very much a 20th Century economy that bashes metal and makes motorcars. We make ideas; we make services; we are attuned to the future, not to the past. […]

He’ correct, of course, and in fact we, as Americans depend far more than we publically admit on the British, especially the navy. From Prins on defence, and why May’s WA must be voted down.

And then, yesterday, we were treated to an accurate description of Great Britain’s place in the world, which is far different than the media would have you believe.

INTERVIEWER: An island with nukes?

[…]In November of last year the Henry Jackson Society, which is one of the London think tanks, did a geopolitical audit of the top eight powers in the world – geopolitical audit means not just looking at guns, not just looking at so-called soft power, not just looking at any one metric, but a whole basket of metrics. And when you look at all of those metrics together and they’re all calculated out and you can look it up on their website, you find of course that the United States is by a long margin the world’s dominant geopolitical power. But when you look in the rank ordering of the eight main powers in the world, who comes number two? It’s not China, it’s not Russia, it’s not Germany, it’s not France, it’s not India, it’s not Japan. It is the United Kingdom. We are the second most geopolitically competent power in the world. Now let’s be a little bit grown-up about recognising that we have these strengths. Let us banish the declinism of this frame of mind which has infected the creation of the document which was presented so contentiously to Cabinet yesterday. It is based on the premise that Brexit is a damage limitation exercise, that nothing could be better than to be in the EU nothing, therefore . . . given that, reluctantly, we have to leave the EU, that what we have to do is to try and mitigate damage. This is completely back to front. Staying in the EU would have chained us to a collapsing structure. We, through the good sense of what Edmund Burke so beautifully called The Wisdom of Unlettered Men, people like the people who put up my wife’s greenhouse, coming down from Manchester, they know in their guts what the interests, the patriotic interests of this country are. They don’t need to have degrees from the University of Cambridge to be able to know that, and they certainly don’t need to be members of the civil service. In fact that’s a disqualification – that seems to be something which blinds you, because it creates this declinist miasma that descends upon your eyes.

Read it all in Prins on Britain’s true place in the worldDo read the series. Here is the stalwart voice of the Britain who stood alone against Hitler for a year, who fought the Kaiser to a standstill, who almost alone defeated Napoleon, and who built the world we live in.

But don’t take my word for it. Take Rapscallion’s. He is my friend, he was one of Her Majesty’s submariners, and he knows whereof he speaks. He says this, in a comment on the last article in the series. He is a man I’d follow anywhere.

[…]This country has, as the Professor has pointed out, huge impact on the world, be it through our soft power, our history and our language. We are not some middling, grey, misty island off the NW coast of the Eurasian continent, no, we are not just that, We are members of G7, G20, NATO, Five Eyes, and Head of the Commonwealth. Our language is the most widely spoken in the world. We gave the world Magna Carta and the Rule of Law, Our judicial, legislative and parliamentary systems have been copied by all the world’s most successful democracies. We were amongst the first to behead a monarch and impose a parliamentary system. We have a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, our Armed Forces, thought small are amongst the very best in the world, and we are a nuclear power. If it were not for us, the entire continent of Europe would be under the Nazi jackboot. Only we stood alone. That’s right, Us, the Great British People, and those in “government” would do well to remember that.

As I replied to him yesterday, Bravo Zulu and Amen.

Of Presidents, Knaves, and Memes

So the President talked officially to us the other night, about illegal immigration, the wall, and Democratic obstruction of the government’s mission to defend the people of the United States. He is right on all counts. And he hit the nail squarely on the head.

Schumer and Pelosi gave the Democrat’s response, and while it was a self-seeking partisan one, surprising no one, their delivery was incredibly bad. In fact, their appearance became an instant meme, which is never a good thing for your cause. Dov Fischer says this:

[I]n their every press conference and interview rejecting President Trump’s call for a wall along our southern border to help prevent and protect against human trafficking of women and children, the unbridled import of opioids, and the entry of criminals and terrorists into our country, the Democrats maintain that they oppose only the Wall but otherwise strongly support border security. Thus, they state that they prefer drones and hi-tech equipment instead of a wall because, they say, those more modern approaches will do an even better job than will an old-fashioned wall at guarding the border. In other words, they claim to be as concerned as is the President over the chaos transpiring along our porous southern border.

There are two ways to demonstrate they are lying. One way is by sitting and arguing back-and-forth with the other side endlessly, as in a cable news panel discussion. I have come to hate wasting my time watching those. When I have a few moments each day to grab some news on Fox, the only value-added from Marie Harf, Chris Hahn, and Jessica Tarlov is that, while muting them, they offer a few moments for me to check the channel guide or pay a bill or two. But there is a much quicker alternative way to cut through the muck and prove Pelosi, Schumer, and their gang a bunch of liars on border security: […]

So it all is a game. A joke, a lie. When they say they are for border security in every which way — everything, everything except for a wall — there is the truth, the proof. No need for a cable television-news panel debate. This does not take rocket science. If you install a home protection system, but then a crook evades the front-door camera or the home alarm or just defiantly smashes your front window and breaks into your home anyway, do you take the position that you will not shoot the invader or call the police — or first call the police and then shoot the invader — because, well, they got past the alarm, so…SANCTUARY! If you employ an insect exterminator — and, no, we are not comparing illegal immigrants other than MS-13 and opioid smugglers and human traffickers to insects — and if that exterminator does a great job, but you later see an ant or spider or silverfish that got past him, would you not squish it? Or do you look at that centipede and proclaim liberty throughout the land: SANCTUARY!

He’s right, the Democrats don’t give a damn about you, your personal security, that of your family, or anything else. The only thing they care about is their power. That is the ONLY thing that matters to them. That is why their response looked like a drug-induced meme.

“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”.

And, no doubt, the constant lying to us, and who knows, perhaps themselves, is how they have turned themselves into a joke, an automatic meme generator, of no real account, in governing the country.

%d bloggers like this: