Is Trump a Nazi monster for separating illegal alien children and parents?

Obama deliberately encouraged an influx of illegal alien children as a means of circumventing immigration law. Trump is merely reinstating the rule of law.

Immigration Illegal Alien Children

Children detained under Barack Obama, 2014 (Credit: Breitbart Texas)

I should have known that the weekend would explode into talk about Trump’s policies towards illegal aliens when I had an . . . ahem . . . “interesting” conversation with a very Proggie neighbor on Thursday at an end-of-the-school-year get together. He opened by telling me that “Your president Trump is destroying my business.”

“Well, hello to you too, neighbor.”

Here’s the story: This guy has for years been running a network of odd job people who do everything from power-washing decks to detailing cars to gardening. He relies primarily on illegal aliens to do this work. I have nothing personal against his team. He’s been working with many of them for years, and I’m sure they’re hardworking, solid people who simply want to give their families a better chance. Nevertheless, they are here illegally — and, importantly, my neighbor’s entire business model is dependent on their illegality.

Because of labor shortages in Marin (housing is too expensive for blue-collar and day labor people), he still has to pay these guys almost twice minimum wage. Nevertheless, I’m guessing that he doesn’t bother with things like employment taxes, benefits, etc. I don’t know for sure, but let’s just say that I have my suspicions.

When the neighbor greeted me by saying that Trump is destroying his business, the first thing I wanted to say was, “If your business is built on illegality, you must have known from the beginning that there was a chance law enforcement would catch up with you or at least force a change in your business model.” Indeed, as I see it, he’s quite lucky because his business is so diffuse that he hasn’t been on the receiving end of an ICE raid. His problem is that it appears that some of his employees have decided to self-deport — which is what one can predict will happen if our existing laws are actually enforced.

However, because this was a party, I wasn’t going to match my neighbor’s rudeness with my own. Instead, I just told him, “Trump’s enforcing the laws as written. If you don’t like the laws, get them changed. Obama had two years during which he could have changed the laws to grant amnesty and increase the number of Latin American immigrants . . . but he didn’t, so please don’t come crying to me.”

After a few more pointless ad hominem attacks on Trump, which I ignored, my excitable neighbor drifted away. I was no fun.

That confrontation, though, primed me for what happened over the weekend, which was the complete explosion of the “Trump is a Nazi for putting children in cages” meme led by (of course) a former CIA head (because we’re learning that many are crazy, anti-American, Deep State sociopaths):

Hayden is an ignorant man. A really, really ignorant man, not to mention intellectually shallow and manifestly stupid. Here’s what happened with the Nazis:

Starting in the 1930s, the Nazis starting enacting laws based, not on conduct, but on race. They declared that German citizens, people whose families had often been in Germany for centuries, were illegal simply by virtue of being Jewish. Then, for having committed the crime of just being, the Nazis hunted down these German Jewish citizens, stripped them of their possessions, tossed them into sadistically run, slave-labor concentration camps (splitting parents from children), and then killed as many of them as possible, both parents and children.

Beginning in 1939, the Nazis exported this practice. They violently invaded other countries and, once in power, declared that anyone who was Jewish was an illegal being simply by virtue of being Jewish. Then, for having committed the crime of just being, the Nazis hunted down Jews, stripped them of their possessions, tossed them into sadistically run, slave-labor concentration camps (splitting parents from children), and then killed as many of them as possible, both parents and children.

That’s the Nazis. What’s happening here, in Trump’s United States?

We have borders. We also have laws saying that it is illegal to cross into the United States over those borders without prior permission. Two segments of America hate those laws: the Proggies, who want as many votes as possible, giving them an incentive to bring in people whose votes can be bought. They also need bodies for census purposes. In the Leftist states to which the illegal aliens flock, counting those bodies in the census allows for more Leftist representatives in the House. That’s why Leftists are hysterical that Trump wants to exclude illegal aliens from the 2020 census. California, for example, isn’t quite so populous when you don’t count the almost 3,000,000 illegal aliens living in the state. And of course, as part of all the intersectional, white-male-hating Leftist craziness, Proggies simply want to drown out whites.

The other group that hates our immigration laws is the Chamber of Commerce cohort, to the extent it is composed of people desperate for cheap labor. The cheapest labor, as my neighbor knows, is to pay illegal immigrants under the table, while avoiding all the other required payments for legal employees, such as social security matching, unemployment, disability, taxes, etc. The next cheapest labor is to pay immigrants legitimately, but paying only minimum wage, because illegals are not always in a position to demand more. Were the illegals not around, these businesses would have to pay more to American-born laborers, including the blacks and American-born Hispanics against him the illegals compete. Continue reading →

The core flaw in the IG Report is its pretense that bias is meaningless

The IG Report ignores that the Clinton investigation was completely and irreparably compromised by agents whose biases went to the heart of the case.

The IG Report on HillaryThe IG Report is a strange beast. To begin with, it’s a rather ironic companion piece to Comey’s July 5, 2016 press conference. Back then, Comey laid out facts that ought to have sent Hillary to prison for 100 years. Just as we were all expecting him to say, “So we’re going to arrest her,” though, he abruptly announced a nonexistent legal standard, assured us that Hillary didn’t mean to do something naughty under this new standard, and gave her a get out of jail free.

What jumps out is that the IG Report does the same thing. Horowitz blandly dismisses any FBI actual wrongdoing affecting the outcome of the Hillary investigation, but lays out facts that ought to send all of the FBI’s upper management for 100 years. The only exception to that bland dismissal on those ugly facts is . . . Comey. There’s irony for you.

Thus, the IG Report fails for the same reason that the Comey report did, which is that there’s a gaping chasm between facts and conclusion. Only the media and Democrat party operatives (but I repeat myself) could look at that chasm and pronounce that it’s nothing more than a tiny hole in a smooth, coherent narrative.

The indispensable Andy McCarthy appropriately slams the IG Report for its weaseling approach to facts and conclusions:

The trick here is the premise the IG establishes from the start: It’s not my job to draw firm conclusions about why things happened the way they did. In fact, it’s not even my job to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong. The cop-out is that we are dealing here with “discretionary” calls; therefore, the IG rationalizes, the investigators must be given very broad latitude. Consequently, the IG says his job is not to determine whether any particular decision was correct; just whether, on some otherworldly scale of reasonableness, the decision was defensible. And he makes that determination by looking at every decision in isolation.

But is that the way we evaluate decisions in the real world?

[snip]

For all his assiduous attention to detail, IG Horowitz has weaved a no-common-sense report.

[snip]

How does the IG pull this off? Two ways.

The first, as mentioned above, is methodology. By disavowing any intention to pass judgment on the rightness of any particular investigative decision, by announcing upfront that he is confining himself to an assessment of whether the decisions were rational, Horowitz reads motivation out of the equation. If there were two investigative options — e.g., (1) give immunity to Paul Combetta (the service technician for Clinton’s server who lied to the FBI and destroyed evidence) or (2) prosecute him for false statements — the IG says his analysis is limited to whether the option chosen was objectively defensible.

[snip]

The IG’s second tack involves the facts he chooses to present. The report is truly half-baked because it omits half the story — all Clinton emails, no Trump-Russia. Of course, that’s neither how the cases evolved, nor how the investigators looked at them.

When Ted Cruz dropped out of the GOP presidential race, making Trump the de facto nominee, the very first thing Strzok said upon hearing the news from Page was, “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE” — i.e., “Mid Year Exam,” the code name for the Clinton caper. The best way to “stop” Trump was to free Hillary to beat him. So, the bureau simultaneously labored to close the case on her and invent a case on him.

Everything McCarthy says is absolutely true. I’m going to add one point, which is that we don’t even need to analyze the facts as McCarthy does. Continue reading →

A work-in-progress book on the Revolution proves Romans is applicable

The usual suspects went ballistic when AG Sessions cited Romans 13 to support Trump’s immigration policy; history shows that, as usual, they were wrong.

Paul's letter to RomansJeff Sessions shocked the progressive left by citing the letter of the Apostle Paul at Romans 13 in support of enforcing immigration policy. According to the Daily Caller:

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday. Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Specifically, Fea and the Wapo are referring to this statement by Sessions:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

It is true that politics and religion meet at Romans 13. It was used by the Apostle Paul to admonish Christians to be good citizens on earth. But it is a section of the Bible misused by tyrants to support unlimited submission to government and it was misused by proponents of slavery in the run up to the Civil War. But virtually all of the Biblical admonitions towards government was to obey “good” government. A good government is one that respects everyone’s natural rights to life, liberty and property. Such rights are completely destroyed in the institution of chattel slavery. Thus Fea’s criticism of the Bible because it was misused is a slander.

I find all of this fascinating because, as many of you know, I am writing a book on life in the American colonies leading up to the American Revolution. Book 1 runs from 1760 to 1761, ending on two critical events. The first, the “morning gun of the revolution,” was Thomas Mayhew’s sermon on government given in 1750 that dealt explicitly with Romans 13. The second is the intersection between a biblical “good” government, Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, and chattel slavery, all of which came together in a legal argument made by James Otis, Jr before a Massachusetts Colonial Court in 1761.

I include four chapters of the book below (exponentially shorter than the first half of the book I put up here). Feel free to comment. [Note from Bookworm: You’re getting the very first look at the latest installment in Wolf Howling’s work, so we haven’t corrected any typos or done any really deep editing yet. This is all about substance, not style. For that reason, you also shouldn’t worry about footnotes, some of which are included here, and some of which are not. This material, drafty though it may be, is copyrighted, with all rights reserved to D. Wolf (2018).] Continue reading →

Obama’s Marxist predestination v. Trump’s free will future

The video that Trump showed to Kim Jong Un is a direct challenge to Obama’s Marxist predestination; it promises the triumph of great men with free will.

Trump peace North Korea PredestinationPresident Obama always had a lot to say about history. More specifically, he had a lot to say about future history.

As Obama made repeatedly clear, he believed that has a “right” side that will inevitably unfold if the world implements Obama’s policies. History also has a “wrong” side, which means doing anything counter to President Obama’s beliefs about how the world should be run. I won’t bore you with his “wrong” side critiques, but I find it quite instructive to see assembled in one place all his “right side of history” statements he made during his presidency:

  • “Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.” The President’s News Conference, June 23, 2009 (remarks about those who died in Iran protesting the mullahs, a protest Obama refused to support).
  • “I think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history.” The President’s News Conference, February 15, 2011 (speaking of the Obama administration’s support for the radically Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, a political leadership so vile that millions of Egyptians later turned out to overthrow it).
  • “Those around him have to understand that violence that they perpetrate against innocent civilians will be monitored and they will be held accountable for it. And so to the extent that they are making calculations in their own minds about which way history is moving, they should know history is moving against Colonel Qadhafi and that their support for him and their willingness to carry out orders that are direct violence against citizens is something that ultimately they will be held accountable for.” The President’s News Conference With President Felipe de Jesus Calderon Hinojosa of Mexico, March 3, 2011 (justifying his decision to betray an ally — admittedly an ugly ally, but still an ally — during the Iraq War).
  • “And I think that the region [the Arab Middle East] will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history, but also that we are doing so as a member of the world community and being willing to act on behalf of these values, but doing so in a way that takes all the various equities into account.” The President’s News Conference With President Felipe de Jesus Calderon Hinojosa of Mexico, March 3, 2011 (justifying, again, the decision to throw American weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood).
  • “And whether it’s helping the people of Haiti or it’s helping the people of Japan, whether it is being on the right side of history in the Middle East and North Africa or making sure that innocents who are seeking their freedom aren’t slaughtered by tyranny, what we’ve been able to do is to once again form the kind of American leadership that brings people together, as opposed to drives them apart, and that renews old alliances and creates new coalitions.” Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in New York City, March 29, 2011 (justifying yet once more his decision to throw America’s weight behind the Islamists during the Arab Spring).
  • “That’s why we’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East, because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and we believe in human rights for all people.” Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in Chicago, April 14, 2011 (Obama seems to be getting a tad defensive about allying himself with the Islamists).
  • “And as Clay has said, nothing is going to stop us from getting this done, because we’re on the right side of history. It is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our economy, our businesses, and our families.” Remarks at Temple Emanu-El in Dallas, Texas, November 6, 2013 (after the disastrous Obamacare launch, trying to get people to sign up).
  • “But we’re on the right side of history on that issue.” Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Reception in San Jose, California, May 8, 2014 (expressing befuddlement at people who don’t like Obamacare).
  • “We’re on the right side of history.” Remarks on Signing an Executive Order on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Employment Discrimination, July 21, 2014.
  • “What gives me confidence is that we’re on the right side of history here.” Remarks at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Fundraiser in Baltimore, Maryland, September 12, 2014 (commenting about the fight against ISIS, a fight, incidentally, that he barely waged for, as he later told Americans, it was enough to contain it. Trump, of course, thought it was enough to destroy it completely).
  • “We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth. And we call upon others to join us on the right side of history.” Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, September 24, 2014 (offering bold criticisms about Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, a situation about which Obama ultimately did . . . nothing).
  • “America is leading the effort to rally the world against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Along with our allies, we will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy. And this week, I called upon even more nations to join us on the right side of history.” The President’s Weekly Address, September 27, 2014 (see comment above).
  • “My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history.” Address to the Nation on United States Counterterrorism Strategy, December 6, 2015 (speaking about counterterrorism efforts after the San Bernardino attack — efforts that expressly included refraining from conflating Islam with terrorism, while conceding delicately that a subsection of Muslims are not nice people).
  • “If we don’t do what’s required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course—the right side of history and of justice and our best American traditions—was clear.” Remarks on Closing the Detention Facilities at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, February 23, 2016.
  • “And so it’s important for the U.S. President—and the U.S. Government—to be able to work with people who are building and who are creating things and creating jobs and trying to solve major problems like climate change and setting up educational exchanges for young people who are going to create the next new, great invention or scientific breakthrough that can cure diseases. We have to make sure that we lift up, and stay focused, as well, on the things that are most important to us. Because we’re on the right side of history.” The President’s News Conference With President Mauricio Macri of Argentina in Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 23, 2016.
  • “By the way, what’s happening with respect to her position on refugees here in Europe, she is on the right side of history on this.” The President’s News Conference With Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in Hannover, Germany, April 24, 2016 (proving to his own satisfaction that Merkel was right to open Europe’s gates to millions of Muslims, a policy that has not turned out well, both because it turned the 1683 Battle of Vienna to save Europe from Islamic imperialism into a delayed defeat and it led to a populist uprising that horrifies Obama and his fellow ideologues).
  • “You will never be strong enough to destroy America or our way of life. You are going to lose. But part of that is because we’re on the right side of history, and part of it is because we can mobilize others to work with us.” Commencement Address at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, June 2, 2016 (applauding his ineffective anti-ISIS policy).
  • “In every position he held, Ab’s integrity and wisdom consistently put him on the right side of history, from fighting against prejudice and discrimination and for free speech and civil liberties. He reformed Illinois’s criminal code, defended consumers’ rights, and although his decision striking down the ban on gay Americans serving in our military was overturned, history proved him right.” Statement on the Death of Former White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva, July 5, 2016.
  • “Standing here now, in retrospect, I think what I can say is that the United States was on the right side of history when it came to the cold war.” The President’s News Conference in Vientiane, Laos, September 8, 2016 (Finally! Something about which Obama and I can agree, although he seems strangely disappointed in being forced to make that statement).

It’s easy to lead from behind if you already know where the parade is going to end. Continue reading →

One Time Payment Options