Archive for the ‘Border Wall’ Category

Contrary to the Democrats’ paid spinmeisters statements, Democrats favor open borders as their immigration policy. Right after Democrats took control of the House, Democrat spinmeisters told the American people that everyone was for securing the US border with Mexico.

That spin was a total lie. There’s no way to hide the fact that Democrats aren’t interested in securing the border. There’s an old economic principle that’s applicable to this. The principle says that if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you incentivize it. Apply that principle to immigration, if you want lots of illegal immigration, change the risk/reward ratio to make the risk of getting caught minimal. Similarly, if you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it so that the cost of illegally crossing the border is extraordinarily high. Also, make the task extraordinarily difficult.

Put in practical terms, build a wall that’s difficult to climb to make the traffickers’ jobs difficult. (Also, it’s worth highlighting that building barriers forces those traffickers and cartels into chokepoints. That helps fewer agents protect more miles of border. That means the border patrol’s activities are significantly more efficient. I’d think increasing the CBP’s efficiency would be DHS’s highest priority.

At this point, it’s clear that this isn’t the Democrats’ highest priority. I’d argue that it isn’t a priority whatsoever. Katie Pavlich’s article offers proof that substantiates my hypothesis:

“Immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren’t a threat to national security. Migration shouldn’t be a criminal justice issue. It’s time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil, not a criminal, issue,” Democratic presidential candidate and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro wrote in an April op-ed on Medium.

Right. If you want fewer migrants to cross the US-Mexico border, tell the traffickers that the people will have to pay a tiny fine instead of getting deported. That should put the fear of God in those traffickers. Not.

“I agree with Secretary Castro. We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our Dreamers, and protects our borders,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) told HuffPost.

Notice Pocahontas’ wording:

We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home…

Sen. Warren, should we criminalize traffickers using purchased babies to get into the US? That’s happening with increasing frequency. Read this website if you want your stomach turning in a split-second. When Democrats vote against legitimate border security measures, they’re voting for continuing the status quo. What type of sick person would vote to continue such a disgusting industry? That’s what happens when Democrats vote against the Republicans’ border security proposals.

Right. Let’s make it easier for illegal aliens to reach the United States. Let’s make it inexpensive for cartels to put these children’s lives at risk during the trip. That’s what Castro’s plan would do.

The next time a Democrat tells you that they’re for securing the border, ask them what they’re doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they’re doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don’t include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.

After President Trump announced that he was declaring a national emergency, CNN and MSNBC went into full spin mode. Virtually immediately, we were told by pundits that most drugs came through ports of entry. Ditto with teenage girls that eventually get sold into child pornography, though they don’t talk much about that. The ‘pundit experts’ (I’m using that term very sarcastically) insist that the coyotes and cartels go through well-equipped ports of entry rather than through unprotected areas that aren’t fenced.

That’s insulting to our intelligence. Why should people think that these cartels and coyotes try smuggling drugs through well-protected ports of entry rather than through the porous parts of the border? Do these reporters think that the cartels want to get caught and their drugs confiscated?

These are the stories of some of the people whose lives have been forever changed by illegal aliens:

MaryAnn Mendoza tried meeting with Speaker Pelosi just a couple weeks ago. Pelosi’s staffer told Mrs. Mendoza that she wasn’t in the office. In fact, Ms. Pelosi consistently refuses to meet with Angel families. Suffice it to say that Ms. Pelosi is one of the coldest hearted bitches ever to serve in Congress. Even Jim Acosta met with Angel moms after yesterday’s presidential press conference:

The woman that Jim Acosta interviewed is Agnes Gibboney. I’ve interviewed her, too. She’s a legal immigrant who came here from Europe via South America. Acosta’s interview didn’t last long but at least he didn’t entirely avoid her like Ms. Pelosi always does.

What’s most aggravating is the fact that Ms. Pelosi totally ignores these Angel moms and that Democrats and their allies in the Agenda Media insist that there isn’t a crisis. (Yesterday, Ms. Pelosi called it a “challenge.”)

What I’m predicting is that President Trump will prevail. I’m basing that mostly off of this information:

It’s pretty obvious that Ilhan Omar is a serious threat to national security. Last Friday, Rep. Omar called for completely defunding DHS:


Seriously? What type of idiot would suggest that? Perhaps the better question is ‘what type of anti-Semitic America-hating person would propose this’? Watch how Rep. Omar ran away from a CNN camera:

Ilhan Omar sits on the House Foreign Relations Committee, where she can spread her anti-Semitic policies. What the hell is Pelosi thinking? Is Pelosi intent on alienating Jews from Democrats?

Finally, Rep. Omar deserves to be officially criticized by the full House for her racist statements.

PS- Omar might be further out there than Maxine Waters. (I never thought I’d say that.)

The question that will determine next year’s House races is a simple one. Will Democrats finally stand up to Nancy Pelosi, especially on the border barrier? Throughout the campaign, we were told that Democrats had recruited a bunch of moderates to challenge Republicans. Thus far, we haven’t seen proof that they recruited moderates. Thus far, nobody has challenged Nancy Pelosi.

Thus far, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn have voiced their opinions that they don’t object to funding President Trump’s wall. Thus far, they haven’t led a rebellion against Ms. Pelosi.

Byron York quotes a Republican this way:

“This is not a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats,” said one GOP lawmaker who is keeping close tabs on the process. “This is a negotiation between rank-and-file Democrats and Nancy Pelosi.”

Then there’s this:

“That is unmistakably true,” added a Republican who is taking part in the talks. “There are many reasonable voices within the Democratic conference who want to see a positive resolution here.” The speaker of the House’s “emboldened stance” — her decision to refuse to consider any funds for a border barrier — has been “very hurtful to the process,” the lawmaker added.

If so-called moderates won’t stand up to Ms. Pelosi, then they worthless.

Anyone that thinks that President Trump won’t get the wall built are either kidding themselves or they haven’t studied the tools at President Trump’s disposal. One guy who gets it is Bill O’Reilly. Check out this video and you’ll understand why I say this:

There’s a reason why President Trump doesn’t think they’ll reach a compromise. Actually, there’s multiple reasons why. The biggest reason in Ms. Pelosi. The next biggest reason are the Democrats negotiating on the conference committee. Any conference committee that’s got Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy, Nita Lowey and Barbara Lee (the only member in Congress to vote against the war right after 9/11) is far left and then some.

Apparently, Jim Clyburn didn’t get the memo:

I applaud the president’s reopening of the federal government and appreciate his recognition of the need for a “smart wall,” which I have defined as one that uses drones, scanners, and sensors to create a technological barrier too high to climb over, too wide to go around, and too deep to burrow under. Traditional walls are primitive and ineffective. They are expensive to build and to maintain. And throughout history—from the Wall of Jericho to the Great Wall of China to the Berlin Wall—they have ultimately failed to achieve their goals.

What a liar! The Berlin Wall kept Germans from experiencing freedom for almost 30 years. The wall in Israel has kept terrorists from killing Israelites for over a decade.

Further, if anyone thinks that smart walls stop caravans, then they’re either too stupid or too dishonest to serve in Congress.

Based on this op-ed, I’d argue that Clyburn’s statements to Chris Wallace this past Sunday were exceptionally slippery:

WALLACE: Yes, so, I just want to make sure bottom line, are you saying no negotiations until the president reopens the government, and are you saying, as Speaker Pelosi does, under no circumstances, no money — new money for the wall?
CLYBURN: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying yes to the first part. To the second part, it seemed as if the president started talking about barriers in a statement yesterday. And as you realize, I have been talking about barriers for a long time. A smart wall will be a barrier. A smart wall would be using drones, using sensors, using X-ray equipment to be an effective wall.
Not just something that would be a monument to one’s existence, but to be a deterrent at the border and to be an effective barrier for people who are trying to come in illegally. And while we’re doing that

This indicates that President Trump will have to use the Emergency Powers Act to get his wall. It’s clear that Pelosi won’t spend a dime.

After reading this article, the obvious question is whether Nancy Pelosi will accept this offer or if she’ll simple ignore these women. I’m betting that she’ll ignore them, even if they appear in the First Lady’s box during the SOTU Address.

A group of women whose husbands work as Border Patrol officers are inviting Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to come to McAllen, Texas, to see what’s taking place at the U.S.-Mexico border. “We would like to show you around!” Jill Demanski wrote in a Facebook post to Pelosi last Thursday, which marked the 34th day of the government shutdown. “You don’t need to bring any security detail. Our husbands/boyfriends/fiancés/wives/significant others are actually very good at their jobs, thank goodness! And since you see no threat here, I’m sure you can just make a quick flight down here alone.”

During the shutdown, I wrote President Trump with the suggestion that he include some of the Angel families in the FLOTUS box, as well as border patrol agents. I also suggested that President Trump blister Ms. Pelosi in the opening of his speech. With her sitting right behind him, its a golden opportunity to highlight the fact that she flew to Hawaii for Christmas while President Trump cancelled his Christmas plans. If he thinks that’s too harsh, he can dial it back a notch or 2.

Democrats might want to consider this:

The government shutdown is over — for now — but the political ramifications are still being sorted out. The media has been chortling that Donald Trump “caved,” and he may well have lost this battle with congressional Democrats. Their “victory,” such as it is, is to notify American voters that they are so opposed to a wall and a secure border that they were willing to keep the government shut down for four weeks to ensure it doesn’t happen.

Trump has thus exposed the Pelosi-Schumer Democrats as being hopelessly soft on illegal immigration. Some Democrats are starting to wonder whether they have dug their own political grave for 2020. This is why in recent days congressional Democrats are screaming from the rafters that they are for border security — just not the way Trump wants to do it.

The reality is far from this spin. At the start of the shutdown, the Pelosi crowd was saying that “there is no border crisis” and that “a wall is immoral.” But actions speak louder than words, and every response to illegal immigration over the past decade proves they don’t want it stopped. Democrats have instead openly encouraged illegal immigration.

There’s only one vote that matters on this or any other issue. That vote belongs to Nancy Pelosi. Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, don’t matter. That’s why I agree with President Trump that a deal won’t get reached. Pelosi is too dug in to let President Trump get credit for an important victory.

There’s no question that Nancy Pelosi is stubborn when it comes to building a physical wall on the US-Mexico border. That doesn’t mean there’s no chance of that wall crumbling. Steny Hoyer said that he isn’t opposed to having a strategically-placed wall:

Look, I think physical barriers are part of the solution… Look, I think it depends upon what a wall is used for whether its moral or immoral. If it’s protecting people, it’s moral. If it’s imprisoning people, it may well be immoral. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, we want border security. We want to make sure that people who come into the United States of America are authorized to do so, and we know that they have come in. We don’t want contraband. We don’t want drugs coming in. We don’t want dangerous people coming into the country. So, we’re for border security, and I think we can get there.

Bennie Thompson, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that Democrats aren’t ruling out walls or physical barriers.

The bottom line is that Pelosi’s Democrat opposition to the wall appears to be crumbling. She can’t stay belligerent while other Democrats modify their positions. Remember that she wasn’t that popular. I suspect that she still isn’t that popular.

After reading this Our View editorial, there’s no doubt that the SC Times is as far left as CNN. In talking about the shutdown, the Times’ editorial says “Republicans in Congress, especially the Senate, have the most clout in this political game — aside, of course, from the White House. While Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell remains entrenched in Trump’s camp, national political pundits generally agree it would take only about a half-dozen Republican senators to talk up Democratic proposals (or speak against Trump’s demand) and there would be progress toward a solution.”

I don’t even slightly agree. The Times should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting such stupidity. Since when have drones and sensors alone stopped caravans? The Democrats’ plan, as enunciated by Nancy Pelosi, calls for a high tech barrier. That’s worthless. Period. While that would end the government shutdown, it wouldn’t stop illegal immigration. That’s the gospel according to experts like Brandon Judd, Bryan Dean Wright and Thomas Homan. Homan is the former acting director of ICE, Judd is the former president of the Border Patrol Union while Wright is a former CIA operations officer and a Democrat. Here’s what he said in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson:

“between 1,000 and 3,000 people who cross the southern border every day. Now that should be a starting point to say ‘what we’re doing now isn’t working.’ Now the Democrats are proposing spending $1.3 billion, just like they did last year and years prior. What that tells me is that my party is saying ‘look, let’s keep doing business-as-usual’ even though business-as-usual is getting us 1,000-3,000 people across the border every day. Now that’s just crazy. Everybody watching this program, the most reasonable people, will say ‘why are we doubling down on stupid? Why are we doubling down on broken.’ That doesn’t make any sense.

Here’s the interview:

Nothing in the Democrats’ plan is a solution. Period. That means that nothing in the Times’ editorial provides a solution, either. The Democrats’ goal is to re-open the government while letting tons of illegal aliens into the country. That isn’t a solution. That’s the opposite of a solution.

Democrats in Congress need to keep pushing proposals that end the shutdown and seek to bolster border security. They started down the right track upon taking power in the House by approving (with some Republican support) measures partially reopened government and put $1.3 billion toward border security. Now up those antes by allowing some money to pay for new or improved walls where security experts say they make sense.

Until Sunday, Democrats hadn’t proposed anything substantive. Pelosi started by saying she wouldn’t spend a penny on Trump’s wall. The next time they met, she said she’d offer Trump $1. That isn’t a typo. She didn’t offer $1,000,000,000. Pelosi offered a dollar.

The upside to the Times’ plan is that it’ll remove the gavel from Ms. Pelosi’s hand. The downside is that it’ll take 2 years to happen.

This SCTimes Our View editorial would be right at home on CNN’s Reliable Sources.

A couple paragraphs in, the editorial states “America’s voters have a couple of options. They certainly can directly engage their members of Congress. Demand to know their positions not about the border wall, but about what it would take to reach a deal that reopens government and crafts a more effective border-security solution than a wall many security experts say would be ineffective.”

I’ve read dozens of articles about border security. I’ve heard tons of quotes saying that ‘security experts say the wall would be ineffective.’ None of those articles name the security experts. Here’s my question to the SC Times: do these security experts exist? Here’s another question I might ask: are they real or are they as fictional as the ‘sources’ in Buzzfeed’s article claiming that President Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress?

If the Times’ editorial was sold in a bookstore, it’d be best placed with fantasies. Here’s why:

President Trump and the White House are best positioned to end the impasse quickly. Of course, that would mean the president would have to compromise — something he’s seldom done since being elected, especially with Democrats.

Democrats in Congress need to keep pushing proposals that end the shutdown and seek to bolster border security.

What planet are these idiots living on? What proposals have Democrats proposed that contained anything faintly resembling a compromise? To the best of my knowledge, the Democrats’ next proposal that includes a compromise will be their first compromise.

Further, President Trump has offered 2 compromise proposals, including this one yesterday:

Then there’s this:

Common-sense congressional Republicans can publicly embrace them, which just might be enough of an opening to allow this president to claim a symbolic victory — one not worth even close to $5.7 billion but certainly money well spent to reopen the government.

How about the Times actually doing its research? Better yet, how about the Democrats doing the right thing for once? Who am I kidding? That’s as likely to happen as Cormier’s and Leopold’s anonymous sources coming forward.

This Saturday, I wrote this post highlighting President Trump’s offer intended to bring both sides to the negotiating table. It failed. In fact, it failed before President Trump offered it. According to Bloomberg’s article, “Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the proposal on Saturday, hours before Trump outlined it in a White House speech to the nation.”

What’s interesting is that this isn’t the only ‘efficiency’ that Democrats display. Notice how Democrats vote in lock-step with leadership. Notice how Democrat members of the Problem Solvers Caucus issued a statement exactly reflecting Ms. Pelosi’s views that they wouldn’t negotiate until the government was re-opened? Translation: We won’t negotiate until Republicans forfeit their leverage. Right.

Mitch McConnell weighed in on the situation:

This bill takes a bipartisan approach to re-opening the closed portions of the federal government. It pairs the border security investment that our nation needs with additional immigration measures that both Democrat and Republican members of Congress believe are necessary. Unlike the bills that have come from the House over the past few weeks, this proposal could actually resolve this impasse. It has the full support of the President and could be signed into law to quickly reopen the government.

Everyone has made their point—now it’s time to make a law. I intend to move to this legislation this week. With bipartisan cooperation, the Senate can send a bill to the House quickly so that they can take action as well. The situation for furloughed employees isn’t getting any brighter and the crisis at the border isn’t improved by show votes.

Let’s get this impasse resolved. That means my-way-or-the-highway proposals don’t fly.