Refugee Ban vs. Security?

So there are several thousand people that showed up at airports to protest Donald Trump’s temporary ban on refugees because it’s not the humane thing to do. Of course, these are the people that showed up to protest anything Donald Trump has done from the color of his tie, to the number of times he visits the oval office bathroom in the course of a day. The guy could give the Sermon on the Mount, and these people would protest.

Before we get started, let’s take a look at what was REALLY in that executive order. Trump has put a hold (not a ban) on refugees from seven countries for a specified time period while they sort out and improve the vetting process. The countries involved were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. And the hold is for a minimum of 30 days and ranges up to indefinite periods for those refugees from Syria. The move has been used twice before in recent history. George W. Bush used it after the 9/11 attacks, and Barack Obama used it against Iraqi’s coming here before he sent troops back into Iraq (after pulling them out pre-maturely causing the current chaos).

So what really is the big deal? Well, simply put, it becomes a question of free movement of people vs. the safety and security of a nation. The current vetting process, while long, is not effective. Case in point, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) was on one of the cable news shows yesterday railing at how we need to improve vetting and she’s all for it, but not for “banning” refugees. That line works fine until you learn that Minnesota accepted 2,340 Syrian refugees in 2016. 13 of them turned out to be members of ISIS. Now, Klobuchar responded that “wasn’t a big number when you look at the overall total”. Of course, it only took 19 terrorists to bring us the 9/11 production! Thanks Amy! With a thought process like that, we ought to send YOU to Syria! Let’s take one more look at something. When the Syrian refugee problem erupted, it was Europe that ended up taking the brunt of the refugees. What happened after that? They had multiple terror attacks in the countries that were so “nice” to accept them. It’s almost cost Angela Merkel her job! Do we want the same thing here? I think not!

Move on to two more cases in point. Over the weekend, this effected a grand total of 109 people that were detained in airports either at their embarkation point or when they arrived in the US…not that many when you think of it. Second, in a recent Rasmussen Poll, 57% of the people surveyed agreed with a temporary halt to travel to this country from the seven countries listed. While yes, the number isn’t overwhelming (is there really a number that is in this country anymore?) the main problem isn’t that Trump called for a temporary halt to travel. The problem really is that these people don’t like him, never will like him, and he could become the biggest leftist in the world, and they still wouldn’t cheer him. After all, he took away Hillary Clinton’s last chance to become our first woman president. These idiots (and yes…they ARE idiots) are going to use any excuse to protest for the next four years. If they weren’t showing up at airports to protest the travel halt, they’d be showing up at the XL Keystone Pipeline site, or they’d be showing up at a hospital somewhere to protest the dismantling of Obamacare. Now all of this is their right. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be smart in order to have the right to “peaceably” assemble. The problem is, they aren’t smart enough to know what the word “peaceably” means.

Personally, I think the US government needs to take out a contract with Eli Lily to give these idiots Prozac. It’s one way to quiet their loud asses down!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


How To Deal With “Sanctuary Cities”

Donald Trump and the mayors of cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and Austin, Texas are in the news getting ready to do battle over this whole “sanctuary city” label. Trump wants illegal aliens to not have a “sanctuary” in this country, and the liberal mayors disagree. So Trump has decided that he’s going to pull out federal funding for those cities that don’t fall in line. It’s pretty much the same old dodge the federal government uses anytime it doesn’t get what it wants.

The problem is, it’s not going to work this time.

The mayors have too much face to lose if they cave, and the money that we’re talking about here isn’t that great. Donald Trump needs to do what he normally does if he really is serious about getting the illegal alien criminals out of the country…think big.

There is a way to do it that would work, and it’s so easy, I can’t believe that anyone in the Trump administration hasn’t thought of it, with his cabinet having “the highest IQ ever assembled as a cabinet”. Instead of taking a few million dollars from Chicago or San Francisco that they can easily re-budget around, call up the governors of Illinois and California and say that you’re outlawing sanctuary cities, and any city in their state that doesn’t go along with it will put the state at risk of losing all of IT’S federal money. And not just some relief money, but ALL federal monies. No highway tax dollars, no education dollars, no block grant money, nothing. You put the decision in the state house and the governor’s mansion, not in some city hall somewhere. Let the governor’s make the cities the bad guys that are costing the state money.

If you do that, you are solving several problems in one shot. You do away with all of the liberal sanctuary cities in the state, instead of targeting each one…and you do it with fewer phone calls/orders/etc. And you dangle a MUCH bigger carrot in front of the state than you ever would the city. It’s easy to tell Chicago that you’re going to take millions from it. It’s a much bigger pill to swallow to tell Springfield (the Illinois capital) that you’re going to take billions!

There is where Donald Trump is making his mistake. He’s fighting a little fish when he takes on someone like Rahm Emanuel or Ed Lee (mayor of San Francisco). What he needs to do is tackle the big fish and let them go after the little minnows.

It is going to be a fight regardless who you tackle because liberals want votes (that’s all they see the illegals as), and the conservatives, while enjoying the lower waged workers (yes…that’s taking advantage of them!), want to toughen up our admission standards for citizenship, or at the very least, enforce them. But on this one, Trump is on the right track. Cities cannot pick and choose which federal laws they are going to follow any more than you or I can. You follow it or you pay the consequences. THAT is the way it works!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

California Continues The Threat

California isn’t happy with Donald Trump. The largest population in the country has threatened to secede from the union (which is in doubt if it legally can without the permission of the president and congress), and is looking at withholding tax payments to the IRS coming from Sacramento if the Trump administration continues to threaten to withhold federal funds if California doesn’t comply with the Sanctuary Cities ban.

All of this is heading for a loggerhead and will probably be decided in the Supreme Court. That isn’t particularly good news for the folks on the left coast. The Supreme Court has pretty much always gone against states that want to show muscle when it comes to the federal government, whether it was seceding from the union (only one state, Texas, actually has the ability to do that because they were an independent country before becoming a state), or doing something like withholding the payments of taxes to Washington.

This all makes for fine conversation, but here’s the main point. If California were to decide to secede, Democrats would all have to move to the state because they would lose every single presidential election out there. There are currently 55 electoral college votes in the CA, and without them, very few Democrats would ever get elected. Let’s look at another thing. If California decided to withhold funds from DC, it would certainly invoke the wrath of the IRS and punitive measures would follow. California gets $0.87 in federal aid for every $1 it sends to DC, so it IS on the short end. That would mean the IRS and the Trump administration would be very quick to tamp down any sort of rebellion.

Personally, if the folks in Cali want to leave and form their own state (they say it would be the world’s sixth largest economy), I say let ‘em go. They would learn very quickly that a federal government is a lot more expensive to run than a state. And they would have to deal with the biggest issue threatening them right now, immigration. How San Diego and San Francisco decide to deal with illegals pouring in from Mexico would be their problem and their problem alone. Frankly, that would probably be great for the rest of the country because all of the illegals crossing the border could do so in California and they could leave the rest of us alone!

It makes no sense for California to leave, but a lot of what happens out there makes little sense. These aren’t what I would classify as “normal” people. That’s one reason why it’s called the “land of fruit and nuts”, and they aren’t speaking of agriculture. If they want to leave, let’s all wave good-bye. If they want to withhold tax dollars, that probably would be another story, and they’d probably be tasting the wrath of the military, and certainly the IRS. Put another way…if the IRS can come in and confiscate everything you own, your house, your car, your bank account because you don’t pay your taxes, don’t you think they can do the same thing to California? But let’s let them try, shall we? I love to watch a good fight!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Trump’s Promise To “Build The Wall”

On Wednesday of this week, President Donald Trump went to Homeland Security with a message. We ARE going to build a wall on the southern border. That would keep a long echoed campaign promise to do that, and of course, to make Mexico pay for it. Now, obviously, the Mexicans aren’t happy about that. Illegals aren’t happy about it either, because it means, once the wall has started and the southern border is secured, Trump can start coming after the illegals, deporting those with criminal records.

Actually, no one I’ve talked to on either side of the aisle can give me a reason we shouldn’t build a wall. And no one I’ve talked to can actually give me a reason why we shouldn’t deport at least those illegals with criminal records. This is one of the glaring mistakes the Obama administration made in the name of politics and more votes. They thought if they could bring in more and more illegals into the country and somehow get them to vote, they’d be voting Democrat. That was their whole purpose for allowing illegals into the country in the first place. And it was such a flawed practice, it actually has backfired on them in a few places.

Look, I’m not at all for illegal aliens (and yes, Virginia…that IS what they are!) coming into this country, or staying in this country. They got here illegally. They’ve been hiding in the shadows. They’ve been stealing Americans’ benefits, and jobs. And they have caused themselves to become second class citizens because of it (even though they aren’t citizens at all). If Trump wants to right the wrong that has been going on for decades, I see no problem in it. There are very few countries in the world that will allow such an open border policy, and even those that do, such as Germany, are feeling the wrath of a terrible decision. This illegal practice has got to stop, and with Trump signaling on Wednesday that he’s going to build the wall, he has told those to the south of us (not everyone coming across is from Mexico!), that it won’t be tolerated any longer.

As someone that lives on the border, I applaud that. I applaud Trump challenging the so-called “sanctuary cities” like San Francisco, and Austin, Texas. If these places want to harbor illegal aliens, they need to bear the burden of abetting a law-breaker. That is what they are doing, and they should feel the full sting of the law.

I still don’t believe Mexico is going to pay for the wall in a sense. They may be paying for it through less aid from the US, or fewer jobs, or a stiffer tariff, but I can’t see them actually forking over money to build it. But it will be built, much to the chagrin of the left who wants to see everyone come in, regardless of whether or not they intend to hurt the United States. God only knows how many terrorists the Obama administration let come into this country. We may never really know, and that’s one of the scariest legacies of his presidency of all!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Dems Just Wanna Be Dems

I was talking with a rather conservative friend over the weekend about the women marching all over the country. He was aghast that these people were out protesting, and wondered why it was they didn’t campaign more for Hillary Clinton. Actually, I think these WERE the women that were campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Unlike Donald Trump, I think they WERE the women who voted in the election. Let’s face it, there are a lot of women in this country and not all of them were marching on Saturday…only a very small percentage!

But the interesting thing that came out of the conversation was the fact that the Democrats today are feeling about Donald Trump exactly how I felt about Barack Obama eight years ago. Yes, I wanted him to fail. No, I didn’t think he’d last four years in office, much less eight. And while I felt, as Democrats will eventually get to, that the Republicans eight years ago had a terribly weak candidate in John McCain, as the Dems had in Clinton, I realized something rather startling.

The Democrats today are acting just like most Republicans did eight years ago.

Oh, we didn’t protest in the streets. We formed the Tea Party. We didn’t burn cars and stand outside of Obama’s Chicago home screaming. We went to work trying to figure out how to change the message. And it was a very painful and tumultuous time in the GOP. Just like it’s a very painful and tumultuous time in the Democrat party right about now.

About the only difference is, the Republicans tried to work with the Dems early on. They allowed seven of Obama’s cabinet picks to be confirmed on his first day. Chuck Schumer, head of the Dems in the Senate, allowed two after promising that he would also allow seven. Lesson learned early. Don’t trust the Democrats. They obviously didn’t trust the GOP when it came to writing and voting on Obamacare, it was done without any GOP input or vote. So, the GOP gets to run things for at least the next two years, and probably more, and the Dems can try and figure out how to get power back. In time, they will. Everybody does, and we all know it’s cyclical.

I say, let the Dems be Dem.

Eight years ago, Rush Limbaugh was crucified by everyone left of center for saying he hoped Barack Obama failed. That was racist, it was unpatriotic, and it was wrong (according to the left). Today, the left is saying the exact same thing about Trump, hoping to get him out of office before his four years are up, threatening to move anywhere in the world but here (and then reneging), hoping that he fails and doing whatever they can do to cause that. Exactly what the Republicans did with Obama. And Obama did fail. He failed miserably. But I seriously doubt it was because of the Republicans. It was because he was too liberal for the country.

The Republicans should let the protestors go on making fools of themselves. They should let the Dems in Congress keep playing “slow ball” with Trump’s nominations for his cabinet. And they should continue to fight them. Because the Democrats aren’t going to play ball. THAT is not in their 1960 playbook!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Fox News Mis-Fires With Harf Hire

marie-harfLet me state right up front, I can personally think of probably 300 people that are more qualified to be a Democrat strategist than Marie Harf. Remember her? She was the “neato-neato” 12 year old girl that took over as spokesman of the State Department when Jen Psaki, who WAS really pretty good, ended up going to the White House.

And in case you missed it, in their waning wisdom, Fox News has decided to hire Harf to join Martha McCallum’s new show as a “Fox News Contributor”. This after Fox has decided NOT to renew the contracts of syndicated columnist George Will, GOP strategist Ed Rollins and others.

Let me put it as bluntly as I possibly can. Marie Harf has rocks in her head. She has no intelligence, and has no place on that network. She really belongs with her own show on MSNBC, where there are fewer people watching than reading this blog right now.

Let’s go back a ways to prove my point. Do you remember Harf’s comments about ISIS? She said the way for the United States to defeat ISIS was to start a jobs program for them. That these were people that were unemployed and had no money and no hope and all we had to do was put them to work with a meaningful salary, and we’d win the war. Remember that? How about her actions on the anniversary of the Benghazi slaughter? Harf was seen partying instead of laying low. I mean, for crying out loud, it was one of the absolute low points in the Obama administration, and even the president himself called it his worst day in office. Why you would think you could go out and get drunk and smoke Cuban cigars that night while you are the spokesperson of the department that was mostly responsible for the whole tragedy in the first place is beyond me. That is a little girl with no brain function, which was why she was relieved of duty and reassigned to be an advisor for “strategic communications” to John Kerry less than 2 years on the job.

And this is the type of person Fox News wants to put on the air? Yikes! That’s about all I can say, is YIKES!

I was hoping that she would end up marrying a lobbyist somewhere, get pregnant and never be heard from again. Instead I’m going to be watching her on TV now? I cringed having to watch this pre-pubescent teenager when she was at the State Department podium. Now she’s actually going to have to make sense! Either that or she’s going to be a softball for Charles Krauthammer, Tucker Carlson, or Steve Hayes to smash out of the park. Maybe that was the thought process? Maybe they were getting a little long in the tooth and needed some help. Or maybe it was that the Democrats just don’t have anybody that makes more sense? Either way, Marie Harf doesn’t belong on television. Unless she is showing you how to use that remarkable new item that Ron Popiel came up with!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Can Dems Recover?

There is a really interesting saying that socialism will never die because there are too many stupid people in the world that want something for free. And while that’s a pretty accurate assessment of the left, it also isn’t at all accurate for what Democrats are feeling today.

Democrats are absolutely morose over the loss of the presidency. I don’t think any of them were prepared for what happened this past election. Every one of them believed in their heart of hearts that Hillary Clinton would be the president, the Dems would take back the US Senate at the very least, and quite possibly, because of Clinton’s large coattails, would re-take the House. Instead, they are looking at a chasm the size of which they haven’t seen in almost a century.

The problem for Democrats is, they don’t know how to get out. Nobody is standing there throwing them a rope, and in fact, nobody is standing there. If you were to ask the top Democrats today what their strategy is to re-gain power, you’d get probably a dozen or so mostly half-baked ideas that have very little to do with reality and nothing to do with Donald Trump actually succeeding at anything in office. When you ask them who is going to lead them out of the abyss, they have a bunch of people they point to, but as we’ve seen so far, they are the same old, tired players that have dotted the Washington scene for years.

Who can they turn to? I’ve mentioned several times over the past couple of years that they don’t have a very long bench, forget about how strong it is. That was evidenced by the fact only four people on the left saw fit to run for president. After Hillary and Bernie, you had what, Jim Webb, and Martin O’Malley? Then what? Barack Obama certainly doesn’t want the mantle after eight years, especially when it comes with no real power. Harry Reid is dead for all intents and purposes. Nancy Pelosi has one foot in the grave, and no one with any brain stem function can even understand her outer space rants. Joe Biden, while popular with the left, and possibly interested, is tied to an administration that is going to end up being as popular as the Titanic the day after it sank. That leaves who? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders? Two uber-left wing oldsters that are past their prime, and would have been something to watch in the 1960’s.

No, the Democrats have no one that is young, and ready to lead. There’s no John Kennedy…no Jimmy Carter…no Bill Clinton on the horizon for them. They only hold 18 governor’s mansions across the country, so the odds of them elevating a governor are slim. And because the state houses have flipped as well, there aren’t many at the state level, like where Obama came from, that can lend a hand.

So the question is, what now for the Democrats? And the answer is in the wind. There just isn’t anyone there yet. But don’t worry leftists…there will be. There’s always someone waiting in the wings somewhere. The question is, who are they and how effective will they be, and most importantly, how long is the rope they’re bringing to rescue the rest of the party!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!