I always worry I won’t find Stupid Leftists posters, but every week, whether it’s abortion, borders, race, gender, guns, etc. they keep outdoing themselves.
I always worry I won’t find Stupid Leftists posters, but every week, whether it’s abortion, borders, race, gender, guns, etc. they keep outdoing themselves.
Evidence, if you need it, that Trump’s cement or steel border wall is a country’s best friend when it comes to arrogant, illegal fence runners.
Mexico’s human smugglers are having a grand old time, ramming through the corrugated junk metal fencing that’s there with heavy smuggling vehicles, terrorist-style.
With my trip ending, I’m reacquainting myself with news and have a couple of things to say about borders, budgets and Smolletts
For those of you who (thank God!) waited patiently for my return, I’m back. I’m at my computer this morning, catching up on the news. I did try to stay current during my trip, but it was difficult, to say the least.
There are only two comments I want to make now as I assimilate all the information that piled up while I was away from the news:
First, I know this is so last week, but I wanted to talk briefly about the claims that, when Trump was offered only $1.75 billion for the border wall, he “lost,” because the Dems didn’t offer him anything more than they had offered before the shut-down. In making this argument, conservatives are using the wrong tactic and should, instead, be listening to Scott Adams.
Adams pointed out in a podcast last week that, if the negotiation had been only about money then, yes, Trump would have lost. But that’s not how the Democrats framed it. They said that walls are “immoral” and “evil” and “racist.” With that framing, any penny for the wall is a capitulation on their part. After all, if walls are immoral, evil, and racist, how can decent people volunteer any funds, no matter how meager, for a wall? By giving Trump funding, Democrats conceded that there is no substance to their “moral” argument. [Read more…]
Abortion extremism, not a 35 year old disgusting racist photo, is what should drive Ralph Northam out of office — posters on that point, plus many more.
Progressive unanimity can seem enviable because of the strength it projects, but it can also lead the way to madness and systemic collapse.
If you’re old enough, you can remember back to 1981 when the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City suffered America’s deadliest, non-terrorist caused structural collapse, which killed 114 people and injured another 216. The disaster occurred when the hotel was holding a tea dance in the lobby and two walkways suspended above the lobby collapsed on the dancers.
Subsequent investigation showed that the design plan was horribly flawed and would support only 60% of the minimum load requirement under Kansas City building codes. The contractor noted the flaw . . . and proposed an alternative that was even worse because it didn’t correct the original problem but, instead, melded with and augmented it. The problem — as is the case with so many horrific disasters — was failed communications between the parties responsible.
I remember the disaster, not just because it was awful, but because it introduced me to a new concept. Before the investigation revealed the myriad engineering and communication failures, a lot of people speculated that the dancer’s feet, all tripping lightly to the beat, caused the collapse. You see, it’s long been known that, if soldiers march in step across a bridge and trigger the bridge’s natural frequency, the bridge can collapse:
In April 1831, a brigade of soldiers marched in step across England’s Broughton Suspension Bridge. According to accounts of the time, the bridge broke apart beneath the soldiers, throwing dozens of men into the water.
After this happened, the British Army reportedly sent new orders: Soldiers crossing a long bridge must “break stride,” or not march in unison, to stop such a situation from occurring again.
Structures like bridges and buildings, although they appear to be solid and immovable, have a natural frequency of vibration within them. A force that’s applied to an object at the same frequency as the object’s natural frequency will amplify the vibration of the object in an occurrence called mechanical resonance.
Sometimes your car shakes hard when you hit a certain speed, and a girl on a swing can go higher with little effort just by swinging her legs. The same principle of mechanical resonance that makes these incidents happen also works when people walk in lockstep across a bridge.
If soldiers march in unison across the structure, they apply a force at the frequency of their step.
If their frequency is closely matched to the bridge’s frequency, the soldiers’ rhythmic marching will amplify the vibrational frequency of the bridge. If the mechanical resonance is strong enough, the bridge can vibrate until it collapses from the movement.
So — I’ve now offered you a little physics and a little engineering, but what does this have to do with politics and, more specifically, with Progressives?
As I see it, we conservatives often have cause to complain about our lack of unanimity. While Leftists/Progressives will almost invariably present a united front, getting conservatives to agree on things is like herding cats. [Read more…]
The government shutdown, anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party, abortion, and a mad, bad media — no matter I busy my day is, I must blog about them.
Did you know that a chicken without a head made it into an early edition of Ripley’s Believe It or Not? It’s true. The story goes back to 1945:
In a task he had done countless times before [i.e., lopping chickens’ heads off], [Farmer] Lloyd was caught completely off guard. Rather than succumbing to the fate of the cooking pot, this rooster without a head continued to “peck” the farm grounds for food.
And so, farmer Llyod began feeding this rooster who he named Mike. He fed him grain and gave him water through an eyedropper.
Over the next 18 months, Mike grew to an incredible size. He started out at as a solid two-and-a-half-pounds and flourished into a hefty eight-pound rooster.
Poor Mike died when he choked on some food but it is rather inspiring that, even without his head, he kept going and going, kind of like a headless chicken Energizer Bunny.
I don’t know whether people use the expression “running around like a chicken without a head” nowadays, but it’s definitely how I felt today. I’m planning for a trip and there’s so much I need to do before I leave. If I think about everything I need to do, I get a little panicky, but if I just put my head down (and yes, I do still have a head) and do one task after another, I can actually see myself make headway (if you’ll pardon the pun).
Anyway, that’s why I haven’t blogged today before now.
Headless chicken or not, I have been thinking about President Trump’s decision to suspend the government shutdown for three weeks. The usual members of the conservative chattering class (aka NeverTrumpers and their weak sisters) are saying “We told you he’s a poseur,” while the usual members of the hard Left Proggie class are saying, “Pelosi’s the real alpha in America and Trump’s a weak, pathetic moron.” I think they’re both wrong.
Trump doesn’t look like a loser; he looks like a reasonable man trying to strengthen American security without destroying federal workers. Never mind that the Proggies had no tears for the coal miners whose lives they gleefully destroyed nor do they ever have compassion for private sector people whose lives Big Government destroys.
Incidentally, with Buzzfeed and HuffPo laying off pathetically whining Proggies, many conservatives are engaging in pleasurable schadenfreude by suggesting that these newly unemployed workers learn computer coding. One of the thin-skinned Lefties who got laid off was so upset with my pointing out that she was a bathetic whiner that she blocked me. Woo-hoo!
Optimally, despite Pelosi ignoring the Constitution to say she really doesn’t see why there has to be a State of the Union speech, during the next three weeks Trump will (I hope) stand before the House and make his pitch to the American public. If there’s no deal in three weeks, Trump can then more freely than he would now exercise his emergency powers to build the wall. After all, if Obama could fund the murderous Mullahs, Trump can build a wall. Alternatively, if there is a deal, that’s good too, although I suspect the DACA kids will be here permanently. I hate that fact, but I’d still rather have a wall — and a deal would probably preclude years of litigation in the Ninth Circuit.
Also, remember that blame — and blame there is — doesn’t fall on Trump. It falls on lying Leftists who once ostensibly supported a wall, but walked away from the idea when they realized that, having abandoned America’s middle class and blue collar voters, they need votes from illegal aliens. Also, blame Paul Ryan who worked hard to keep the wall from coming to a vote during his tenure as Speaker. Ryan is a real piece of work, and there’s nothing good about that.
A few other points: [Read more…]
On the border wall, a surprisingly uncharismatic Trump showed he loved America and Americans, while Democrats succeeded only in showing they despise Trump.
Having had some time to think about Trump’s address, as well as the official and unofficial rebuttals, I have a few thoughts, none particularly deep or meaningful. I therefore offer them for what they’re worth:
Trump spoke about the American people. He made it plain that he is working to benefit them, especially those in the front lines of dealing with the harm wrought by people who ought never to have been here in the first place.
Pelosi and Schumer spoke about Trump. Their hatred was manifest and should cause people to wonder whether their working for the good of Americans or simply to import voters, along with attendant drugs and violence.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke about garble-gooble fizwitz aliens blumpf Americans karpoffez deelywhop clum Marx shcniszzsle open borders. It continues to behoove us to take her seriously and to make sure that Americans understand that she represents the up-and-coming generation of young Democrats.
Trump did not say a single word about race. Nevertheless, he was instantly attacked for being racist. There is nothing racist about insisting that people who enter the country do so after knocking on the front door and asking for permission, rather than by leaping over the back fence, breaking through the kitchen window and, in some cases, poisoning the food, raping the women and children, and killing a family member or two. This is about behavior, not race.
CBS was so busy “fact checking” Trump that it inadvertently and absolutely proved that he understated the horrific attacks on Latin American women inveigled into making the march to the American border. CBS then did the only thing a modern mainstream media outlet could do, which was to delete its inadvertently pro-Trump, anti-illegal immigration fact-check. [Read more…]
I called this the “Trump wall illustrated edition” but it’s also about Stupid Leftists, the Second Amendment, Gender Madness, and Silly Stuff in our world.
When I heard Dems promote drones to increase national security on the Southern border, I was confused. Now, though, I understand how those drones will work.
When Trump shifted his rhetoric from demanding a wall to talking about the need for border security, he forced the Democrats to talk about border security too. For example, a week or so ago, Democrat Sen. Mark Warner spelled out the way Democrats envision handling border security:
Well, I saw the picture and if this wasn’t the President of the United States, if the stakes weren’t so high, if this man had any kind of willingness to stick to his word, you know, it would almost be comical. The fact is, I think you could find the vast majority of Democrats who were willing to increase border security, but let’s use 21st century technology, drones, electronic surveillance, additional border guards. Not 14th century technology, a wall, whether he calls it steel-plated or not, which I’ve not heard a single security expert said would increase border security and we’ve now heard earlier today that these were the views that the President’s current Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had as well a few years back, saying the wall was an absurd idea. (Emphasis mine.)
At first I was unclear how Warner’s 21st century technology would work. I imagined a camera-equipped drone or a fixed security camera capturing images of illegal aliens crossing the border somewhere near an isolated farmer’s ranch in Arizona. Then, somewhere in an underground room deep below Washington, D.C., an agent manning the monitors spots that incursion and puts in a call to the border guards working in Arizona.
The border patrol agents get in their truck and race to the border to intercept the illegal aliens. However, when they arrive at the border two hours later, they are chagrined to find that the aliens have long since dispersed into the surrounding country side and vanished.
To give a little context to my imaginings, think about England. In Britain, which has more close circuit cameras than any other major country in the world, the benefits from the cameras have been mixed at best. What’s noteworthy is that these cameras are most effective in closed spaces that allow cameras to capture every angle — in other words, they work effectively in circumstances that are the complete opposite of a long border — especially a border where the human element may be hours away from whatever event the cameras (whether drones or mounted on the wall) catch.
And then it occurred to me that I’d been thinking about it all wrong. Of course the drones can be effective. They just have to be utilized properly to catch the criminals in the act and neutralizing them as only airborne technology can: [Read more…]
I went overboard in this Bookworm Beat, covering the border wall, Syria, Antisemitism, Europe’s fall, science, Michelle and Melania, media bias, and much more.
Good walls make good neighbors. Trump did it — he got the House to include $5 billion in the budget bill to build the border wall. I was actually worried that he wouldn’t fulfill a core promise he made both to get elected and to put Chuck and Nancy in their place by saying he’d shut down the government before walking away from the wall.
Yay, Trump! Of course, now I’m worried what the execrable Jeff Flake will do in the Senate.
If you want a reminder about why the Left is fighting the wall with everything it has, despite voting for it some years ago, and strongly criticizing illegal immigration at the same time, Victor Davis Hanson explains: Put simply, a wall destroys the Democrats’ base.
Federal judge opens borders. It’s great that Trump got funding for the border wall. It’s not so great that, just yesterday, Judge Emmet Sullivan, the same guy who erroneously excoriated Lieut. Gen’l Flynn as a “traitor,” decided that America has no borders:
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan — who a day earlier had excoriated former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — ordered the government to allow migrants with iffy claims to be given a full chance to make their case for asylum.
And he ordered the U.S. to un-deport plaintiffs in the case who already had been ousted under the new policy, saying they deserve to be brought back and allowed to claim asylum.
His decision overturns a move by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had tried to block asylum claims of migrants who said they faced gang violence or domestic abuse back home.
I am sorry that, for so many people, the world is a terrible place. I know that I’m singularly fortunate that sixty years ago my parents, after waiting patiently for years to get visas, legally immigrated to America allowing me to be a citizen of and grow up in this great country.
I also know that life is unfair and that we don’t make it more fair by destroying ourselves. The Leftists are demanding that we import into America the pathologies that have plagued Latin America for hundreds of years. I’m not willing to be a part of that suicide pact — although I don’t know what I, personally, can do to take away the gun the Left is figuratively placing in America’s mouth, with its finger on the trigger.
On withdrawal from Syria, I’m conflicted. Although I suspect a lot of Americans didn’t even realize we still had around 2,000 troops in Syria, it’s proving to be a hot button issue now that Trump has announced a troop withdrawal. His stated reason is that he promised we’d be in Syria to defeat ISIS and, having defeated ISIS, it’s now time to leave.
I think this was a good decision for a few reasons. First, Trump did what we keep asking our leaders to do, which is to state a clear objective and then, when that objective is achieved, to announce “victory!” and to withdraw. No quagmires for President Trump.
Second, as I noted, I bet a lot of Americans didn’t realize we even had troops in Syria. In other words, this was not a war that the nation supported. It was an “action,” the purpose of which was not obvious to most Americans. I firmly believe that you cannot endlessly demand that a nation send its blood and treasure to foreign shores without being able to articulate why. Without ISIS, no one was articulating a why, so Trump did the right thing by pulling our troops out.
Third, as long as the Western world refuses to tackle the problem of Islam head on, and without an imminent threat from a concerted non-government army such as al Qaeda or ISIS, these far-away battlefields are just band-aids. It makes no sense to send young men to die in Syria or Afghanistan to kill people who our leaders refuse to acknowledge are terribly dangerous. Again, without a clearly articulated purpose, why are our boys and men being sent to die?
Fourth, outside of Israel, which is a beacon of light, freedom, and innovation in a backwards, benighted region, I think the whole of the Middle East can go to Hell. I want them to leave us alone and I want them to leave Israel alone, but otherwise I don’t think we should be doing business there. Trump, by unleashing America’s energy sector, has cut the tie that bound us — namely, oil dependency.
Fifth, to the extent Iran is a threat, let the Sunni nations fight it. We can provide support for those nations (weapons, advice, etc.), but they should be their own front line. Making them the front line also forces them to make nice with Israel, because, as the Muslims say, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Trump turned the debate over funding a Southern border wall into a brilliant reality show, with Pelosi and Schumer as his hapless foils . . . and much more.
Funny day today, with a lot of people who are important to me needing me. That’s not to say that they are needy people. It’s just that, I found myself spending several hours on the phone with people who were looking to me for specific things, practical or emotional, that they felt only I could provide.
Overall, it was flattering, and I neither regret nor resent the time spent, but it was also a bit tiring and definitely time-consuming. I’ll try to pack as much as I can into this Bookworm Beat, but no promises.
The Trump border reality show. The consensus from conservatives and savvy Leftists seems to be that, when Trump insisted on televising his meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer regarding border wall funding, he was the winner and undisputed champion. My friend Thomas Lifson (one of the smartest people I know) started his post about Trump’s three traps thusly:
President Trump clearly shocked House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday with his televising of the Oval Office sit-down over his demand for $5 billion in funding for border security, including funding of critical mileage for his border wall. Knowing well that Pelosi had already vowed publicly that “transparency and openness” would characterize the Democrat-run House starting next month, her plaintive request to speak in private scored points for Trump and revealed her hypocrisy before any substance at all was considered.
John Nolte was also impressed by Trump’s dominance:
The point is that the very first thing Schumer said during this meeting, the key message he wanted to send, is that Trump is weak on the border and lying about it.
Think about that
No seriously, think about that.
As the 17-minute made-for-TV spectacle progressed, Trump boldly pledged to shut down part of the government — the part we can all live without that should be closed permanently anyway — if he does not receive adequate border security funding. Meaning, he would not sign on to continue funding the government.
All of this was a calculated set up on Trump’s part, and a successful one.
Pelosi had no idea she was being set up, which is why, like a prim schoolmarm always caught off guard, she chose to lecture Trump about the legislative process.
Schumer, though, is nobody’s stupe, and knew exactly what Trump was up to.
This is what Trump knows… Between now and Election Day 2020, there will be an organized effort to separate Trump from his base, and the best way to do that is to make Trump look weak on border security, and the best way to do that is for leftists to continue to organize and fund illegal immigration, especially through these caravans.
Trump can see the future and he knows it is going to be plagued with an orchestrated and well-funded campaign to create border chaos, to make him look feckless.
But what he did yesterday was flip the script.
Following his unexpected victory, Trump is quickly becoming America’s most consequential conservative president, making him a one-man flock of Black Swans.
A “Black Swan Event” is one that:
A year and a half ago, pundits and pollsters gave Trump virtually no chance of winning the Republican nomination for President. Indeed, over half of America thought it was a joke when Trump entered the GOP primary in 2016. Feel free to raise your hand if you were one of the many.
Our country was in dire straits at that point. Obama, through regulatory overreach, new taxation, and Obamacare, had shackled our economy. Worse, Obama had taken our nation so far past the point of a constitutional crisis that it threatened a de facto end to our American experiment. As the November 2016 election approached, we were (and still very much are), to quote Victor Davis Hanson, in an “existential war for the soul of America.”
That war needed to be fought at multiple levels. Congress needed to have its Art. I Sec. I power restored. Only Congress has the power to pass and amend laws. But during the Obama era, we suddenly had “laws” from the President through executive orders (a constitutional violation so egregious even Saturday Night Live spoofed it); the regulatory bureaucracy, the FCC, the Courts, the DOJ, and even the Sec. of Education.
Our Supreme Court system, with its unelected justices, was poised to sit as a Politburo, subject to the addition of just one more Proggie justice. It badly needed to be reformed in line with Art. III.
Obama had entered into oppressive so-called foreign “treaties” — i.e., the Paris Accord and the Iran Deal — without Article II approval from the Senate. Those Frankenstein’s monsters needed to be revoked.
The list of necessary domestic battles at the end of Obama’s eight years went on and on: The economy had to be unleashed by rolling back the regulatory explosion under Obama. Rule of law and equality of justice for all — Hildabeast included — needed to be reestablished.
None of the above even touches upon Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments (or, more accurately, disasters), which left us with a Middle East in flames, ISIS ascendant, Iran on a glide path towards developing a nuclear arsenal, and North Korea building out its nuclear arsenal. Our new President would have to deal with a far more dangerous world than the one Obama had inherited in 2009.
As the 2016 primaries heated up, sixteen of the seventeen candidates, all of those not named Trump, seemed to be up to the task of righting at least some of the above. Then came the first of Trump’s Black Swan Events: he clinched the Republican nomination. Every aspect of that moment ticked off an item on the Black Swans checklist:
Then came the second Black Swan event, when Trump won the Presidency on November 8, 2016. Again, the Black Swans checklist plays out:
And now we come to question of the moment. Was Trump’s first year in office so surprising and consequential as to itself rise to the level of a Black Swan event? This post says “yes”:
With that as preamble, let’s examine the specifics of Trump’s first year accomplishments: [Read more…]
In a world in which Leftism and Islam have joined in battle for ascendancy, lies are the coin of the realm and truth is a rare and precious commodity.
Law written in stone versus law written on sand. The Gorsuch nomination process revealed more clearly than usual how devoted the Left is to a “living” Constitution — that is, they dream of a Constitution the meaning of which is determined, not by its actual words and principles, but by whatever their current needs are. You can call it a Narcissists’ Constitution.
Jonah Goldberg has points out with exceptional clarity something point I should have seen a long time ago, which is that the Left does have its own immutable founding document. It’s just not the Constitution:
Consider Dianne Feinstein’s performance during the Gorsuch hearings in the Senate. “I firmly believe that our American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves,” Feinstein said. “So, I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an ‘originalist’ and ‘strict constructionist.’”
Yeah, okay. But at the same time, Feinstein prattled on about how Roe v. Wade is a “super-precedent,” which I assume is a version of what Senator Arlen Specter (D., R. & I., Republic of Jackassistan) called a “super-duper precedent” — which actually sounds more intelligent when sung by Young Frankenstein.
After noting a bunch of court cases that reaffirmed Roe, Feinstein went on to make an additional point: “Importantly, the dozens of cases affirming Roe are not only about precedent, they are also about a woman’s fundamental and constitutional rights.”
I’m a bit fuzzy about what she sees as the distinction between fundamental and constitutional rights, but that doesn’t matter. Clearly her bedrock belief is that the process of constitutional evolution stopped with Roe v. Wade. One might say that instead of being a 1789 originalist, she’s an originalist of 1973.
Lies from the British police. The Metropolitan Police in London sent out this typically Leftist, entirely disingenuous tweet:
“We need to establish why Khalid Masood did these unspeakable acts to provide answers & closure for families affected” #WestminsterAttack
— Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) March 26, 2017
Why? Really? Why?
The Left cannot acknowledge the straight-line connection between Islam and death. Bruce Bawer can and does:
To disguise that they’re opening our country to people who should not be here, Progressives conflate distinct doctrines and hide behind the confusion.
The problem with Progressives is that they tend to combine entirely different things in a single argument and then, having intentionally muddled distinct issues, thereby perverting the data, they reach an erroneous conclusion that has a logical gloss but is, in fact, quite wrong. The two big arguments as to which they use this deceitful practice are illegal border crossers from Latin America and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees.
With regard to the Southern border wall, they conflate a fence meant to keep people out with a fence meant to keep people in. The former is a legitimate way to protect people in their rightful place from dangers lurking outside.
Hollywood stars, former Progressive politicians, and Silicon Valley bazillionaires are all really big on using fences to keep “the wrong kind” of people away from them. It’s okay when they do it because they’re rich and famous. It’s not okay when you do it, because you’re a racist pig.
The other kind of fence, the fence that keeps people locked in, is the one we associate with toddlers (got to keep them safe); prisoners (got to keep us safe from them); and nations that are so horrible that, if people are not trapped within them, they will leave (e.g., the Berlin Wall and both the DMZ separating North Korea from South Korea and the border between North Korea and China). For the last mentioned reason, border fences can get a bad rap if someone is dumb enough or deceitful enough to claim that a fence manifestly meant to keep people out is, instead, a fence meant to trap people inside a bad place.
Progressives treat Trump’s proposed Southern border fence (the fence that a bipartisan vote in Congress already passed into law back in 2006) as if it’s the second type of fence, the evil prison fence, meant to imprison people, rather than protect them. If you ask a Progress which people are being imprisoned where, you will not get a straight answer. Instead, you will be told that you’re a racist.
Whenever a Leftist tells you that you’re a racist, you know you’ve won the argument. Of course, winning the argument is scant consolation if they keep winning the larger wars.
The really big conflation scam, though, is pretending that what’s happening in Syria is the same as what happened in Germany in the 1930s. That’s the argument used to try to shame conservatives and Trump supporters into opening America’s gates to Muslim “refugees.” I put the word “refugees” in quotations because another dishonest conflating thing the Progressives do is jumbling those who’ve left Syria, who have a legitimate claim to being war refugees, with those who are leaving the Middle East and North Africa because, thanks in large part to Islam, outside of Israel those are really sh*tty places in which to live.
Progressives essentially contend that every Syrian refugee is a Anne Frank. That’s false on so many levels.
The Progressives’ current dream — declaring Trump crazy and therefore unfit for office under the 25th Amendment — is a scary replay of a Soviet nightmare.
The latest Progressive idea for destroying Donald Trump is rely on the 25th Amendment. That’s the one that authorizing removing a president from office because he “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Because Progressives do not like the way in which Trump is governing (I beg to differ), they’re trying to conflate that dislike with his being constitutionally unfit to serve.
The problem for the Progressives is that the American people are not getting on that bandwagon. Indeed, while they’re not always thrilled with Trump’s habit of seemingly saying whatever he thinks, they’re on board with his policies and plans. An even greater problem, as I’ll explain below, is that the Progressives are lapsing into dangerous political behavior last ascendant in the former Soviet Bloc.
The American people do not believe that a president is manifestly unfit to serve when he declares that he’s going to use his executive authority to build a border wall that Congress mandated in 2006. Since that time, the American people have seen how well Israel’s fence worked, not to keep people trapped inside a prison nation a la the Berlin Wall, but to keep bad people outside of a democratic nation. They’ve also seen the bad effects that uncontrolled immigration has had in Europe. And of course, here at home, many Americans are not thrilled when people who have no permission to be here in the first place get welfare, take jobs, fill up academic slots, weigh down the healthcare system, commit crimes, and cause accidents. Building a wall does not prove you’re unfit.
The American people do not believe that freezing federal wages and slowing hiring is a sign that the president is unfit to lead. They’ve noticed that the burgeoning federal bureaucracy, rather than improving their lives, has come to the point at which it’s a serious drag on economic growth and a threat to individual liberty. They’ve also noticed that federal employees, who are theoretically the people’s servants, have wages and benefits far in excess of those the taxpayers — their employers — often receive. Americans aren’t mad at most individual government employees — only those waging war on a democratically elected government– but they understand that the madness needs to stop.