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.

Shut it the Hell Down!

If there is one issue the base elected Donald Trump on it is immigration, especially illegal immigration.  For many of us, it is the key. It is key to election fraud, it is key to bankrupting the government, it may even have bearing on prison overcrowding, it is the key to making wages pay the bills for working class people, and many other tertiary issues.,including the drug wars. It is, in sum, why Donald Trump is President. Dov Fischer writes in The American Spectator.

So go ahead and close down the cockamamie Government. If only!

Let’s call a spade a spade: Donald J. Trump, private public citizen (oxymoron?), descended on an escalator (an oxymoron that!), and he said that Mexico is sending us their worst, not their best. Was he right? Did he speak elegantly? That is open to fair debate, but one thing is clear: From the moment he began his quixotic campaign for the Presidency, his signature issue was that he would regain control over our broken immigration system.

And so the campaign went: “I am going to build a big beautiful Wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it.” It honestly became as much his meme as Obama’s “If you like your plan, you will keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.”

Obama was a liar. He always was a liar. Who knows whether his name even is Obama? What we would give to read the application forms he submitted to get into Columbia and later into Harvard Law, and later to get hired as a part-time untenured law professor with no academic publications to his name! Given Elizabeth Warren’s tribal heritage, if only to read Obama’s “Lies My Father Told Me— and the Even Better Ones I Made Up All Myself.” Half the country pegged him as a liar from the day we met him, as the oceans stopped rising and the planet started healing. Another twenty percent have figured it out since. That is why, whenever the Republicans face a tough election and have run out of strategies, their final “nuclear option” is to convince the opponent to bring Obama to campaign for the Democrats. It worked for the GOP in 2010, in 2014, and just the other day in Georgia.

By contrast, for those who really “get” Trump, he is not a liar. He is a showman, a promoter, a kibbitzer, and a shrewd negotiator. He engages in what business law calls “puffery.” No one who voted for Trump takes his specific words literally; rather, Trump supporters take his core beliefs and end-goals seriously. By contrast, his haters in the Left Media consume themselves with counting “Pinocchios.” Meantime, Trump has fulfilled more campaign promises since almost any other American political figure in the past century or two, and his percentage of fulfilled  promises is stratospheric.

So he pulled out of the Paris Climate nonsense, the disastrous and myopic Iran Deal, crushed ISIS in Raqqa, has been deregulating Obama rules to their point of disappearance, approved the Keystone XL pipeline, opened ANWR to oil exploration, moved our Israel embassy to Jerusalem, pulled us out of the blood-lusting UN “Human Rights Council,” stared down Western European leaders of NATO and actually told them to their faces that they have to start ponying up their Euros, Francs, Deutsche Marks, Pounds, Liras, and whatever other kind of play money they use (because we don’t let them print the faces of their queens and counts and kaisers on our real money). Our economy erupted. Unemployment hit record lows, propelling welfare and food stamp recipients to pay into the system with income taxes instead of draining it. The guy keeps his promises unbelievably, even if the Washington Post gives him more Pinocchios than Gepetto would have had if the tree-huggers and spotted-owl protectors had let him carve more wood.

But Trump has not yet fulfilled on immigration. When report cards come, he gets an “A” for “Effort” on Immigration and a “B-” for “Works Well with Others.” There is no pride in showing that “B- ” to Mom and Dad. He would have done himself much prouder and everyone else much better if instead he had worked a bit harder to earn an “F” in “Works Well with Others” on Immigration.

Read the rest, as is normal, it is excellent, and a good part of why I read the Speccie.  But here’s the thing, if Trump wants to get reelected, he needs to build the damned wall, that is what, above all, he was elected to do. The rest is nice, and we’re basically pleased, but caving on immigration is the rotten apple in the barrel.  It will mark the victory of Washington of the people, just as May’s agreement will mark the victory of Westminster over the British people.

Both are potentially existential victories, marking the end of the respective nations as we knew them. Rush said this yesterday (via Ace).

Meanwhile, over here, $5 billion, a rounding error in the federal budget, is enough for the Democrats to say, “Shut down the government. We’re not gonna let this happen.” ‘Cause it isn’t about the $5 billion. It’s about choking off the continuing supply of prospective Democrat voters, a permanent underclass.

For that reason — since it’s not about the $5 billion and since it’s not about the budget and it doesn’t bust the budget and it doesn’t do anything — I think the president ought to veto this. This is why he got elected. This is why people stick with him. This is why his support base has not abandoned him during this full-frontal effort of the Democrats and the media to destroy him. They’ve hung with him because of this. This issue predated Trump.

The American people have been telling Washington for 25 years they don’t want this, and the American people have continued to triumph. Washington continues to try to thwart the will of the people on this. Finally, the people elected somebody who actually said he meant what he was talking about regarding this, and they have stuck with him. The president should veto this thing, tell ’em he’s not signing it and leave for Mar-a-Lago today. He’s not supposed to leave until the 21st. Somebody in the White House tell him I’ll meet him on the first tee tomorrow.

Rush is spot on. This bill, if he signs it, has the potential to end his presidency. This is the last ditch, he can do diverse wonderful things for America, if he can NOT control illegal immigration, it doesn’t matter a damn, and the support of the base will be gone, because we know this, and have for decades.

Your call, Mr. President.

Sanctuary Cities and the ‘Rule of Law’

English: U.S. Sanctuary Cities Map: cities tha...

English: U.S. Sanctuary Cities Map: cities that have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We have had much to say in the last few years about the “Rule through and under the law”. It is the very basis of why our society works. Without the security of our property, there is no valid reason to build a small business, invest, or in truth do almost any of the things that have made America.  David Harsanyi over at The Federalist had some thoughts the other day, as well.

So let me get this straight: America is thrown into an overwrought political debate about the Confederate battle flag—a relic that has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting in Charleston—but is unwilling to engage in a conversation about the deliberate disregard of federal law that directly leads to the murder of at least one young woman?

That’s basically where we stand. After sending mixed signals, The Hill reports that Democrats will be making a concerted effort to defend San Francisco’s sanctuary laws and killing of Kathryn Steinle along the city’s famous waterfront.  Most Republicans will avoid the matter altogether for the sake of political expediency. Soon enough, I imagine, it’ll be xenophobic to bring it up at all.  One of these conversations, after all, is risk-free, jammed with self-satisfying preening about the right sort of evils. The other, morally complex—especially for the supporters of immigration reform (like myself) [and me, Neo]—and fraught with electoral consequences.

But let’s set aside immigration politics for a moment and consider a detail that’s often lost in this debate: Fact is, some people in America are free to ignore laws they don’t like, while others are not.  Hundreds of jurisdictions nullify federal immigration law, not because they question the constitutionality of law, but because they find those laws ideologically problematic and immoral.  And when I say “some” jurisdictions, I mean entirely liberal ones.

One of my British friends, yesterday, commented to me in an email that they didn’t understand how Hillary Clinton wasn’t in jail, instead of standing for president. I wish I had an answer myself.

Generally speaking, the Tenth Amendment is viewed as an artifact of a regressive time that is only used to advance racism and impede progress. So 1990s! So when Jan Brewer signs an Arizona law requiring police to determine whether a person was in the country legally critics claim it will mean an explosion of racial profiling by the state, and the Obama administration does everything it can to stop it. Immigration law is a federal matter, as you all know.

And when the administration is unsatisfied with Texas and other states enforcing the same federal law, Obama unilaterally, and without any of the oversight from the democratic process he pretends to cherish, exempts undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from the law. Now, immigration is a matter ofWashington edict, not something for the states or, perhaps, even Congress, to worry about.

But San Francisco, well, it’s the purview of the city council to decide what happens—as long as those decisions comport with long-term liberal goals.

When cities—more than 200 of them—decide to pass their own laws “protecting” illegal immigrants, we are not talking about some calibration or prioritization of “enforcement” levels. The media often use a euphemism about a “lack of cooperation” between cites and DC when, in fact, jurisdictions are simply invalidating federal law. Can you imagine the reaction from the administration if Dallas passed an ordinance allowing local police to free criminals who had broken federal gun laws or hate-crime laws?  Can you imagine what would happen if 200 cities did the same?

Sanctuary Cities Represent The Worst Kind Of Liberal Lawlessness.

It seems to me, that one of the most pernicious effects of this entire thing, not excluding what appears to be the politicization of the Supreme Court, is the very obvious fact that it undermines the respect for the law. So many of us love Who Shot Liberty Valance not least because we have an instinctual knowledge that the rule of the law is preferable to the rule of the gun. Even when the gun is carried by a good man, it is always better to be under the rule of objective law. increasingly, we are not, and because of that very fact, our society is disintegrating, and becoming little more than a well equipped jungle.

When Ransom Stoddard is judicially murdered, we will have to go back to Tom Doniphan. It’s that simple, and that terrible.

%d bloggers like this: