It used to be that abetting an invasion of your nation was called treason.
Now it’s called Democrat Party Policy.
After years of GOP dithering and Democrat obstructionism, President Trump signed an emergency declaration Friday to allow the government to build a border wall using already allocated funds. In response, Democrat leaders vowed to use congressional legislation and the courts to block the action, declaring the move “unlawful.”
As the Daily Mail reports, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed in a joint statement that there is no ‘crisis’ on the U.S.-Mexico border, and threatened to defend the spending power of Congress with every tool at their command.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
“‘The President’s unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist does great violence to our Constitution and makes America less safe, stealing from urgently needed defense funds for the security of our military and our nation,’ they said,” the paper continues.
This is interesting coming from a party, the Democrats, that in recent decades has opposed robust military spending. Moreover, what’s the point talking about “national security” — or going overseas to “fight” terrorism,” as is said — but then leaving your back door to Mexico and points south wide open? It’s a bit like a man complaining about local crime and going out at nights as a community watchman, but then leaving his house door open, with his wife and kids sleeping inside.
Note that the funding bill the Democrats created, and which Trump signed, apparently reflects these priorities. While the Mail and some others claim that Congress appropriated $1.4 billion for the wall, pundit Ann Coulter and other sources point to language in the legislation indicating that its funds may not be used to build a wall, but only “pedestrian fencing” — and even this would be disallowed in many areas.
This should be no surprise. The Democrats have made clear their adamant opposition to effective border security, as evidenced in the January video below in which Speaker Pelosi said plainly, “There will be no wall money.”
Ergo the emergency declaration. As to what it enables, “Trump said in a Rose Garden press event that he would leverage about $6.5 billion in existing Defense Department and other funds,” the Mail also informs. “White House officials said earlier in the day on a conference call that the money would allow for the construction of at least 234 miles of steel bollard walls.”
Unfortunately, Trump also gave the Democrats some ammunition, saying Friday that there were other avenues for funding the wall. “I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” he stated in a video clip disseminated by the Democratic National Committee. “I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.”
So just as when activist, rogue judges used campaign-trail comments Trump made about keeping Muslims from the country as a pretext for ruling against his travel bans, one could easily see the activist courts using the president’s above statement as an admission that the border crisis doesn’t actually constitute a national emergency.
Even more worryingly, Coulter claims that the funding bill prohibits the building of a wall, period, and says that Trump “has just signed away his inherent powers under the Constitution.” Other analyses hold that the bill only prohibits funds provided under it from being used for a wall, however. One could wonder if this yet another (perhaps purposely) ambiguous legislative provision that will be left to the courts to define.
What is easy to define, though, is that there is a border crisis. Last year alone nearly 467,000 illegals were apprehended trying to cross the border, and low-end estimates hold that 1,000 a day successfully invade, according to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform.
Even if the latter number is lower, as other estimates hold, if this isn’t a crisis, what is? Two-thousand a day? Three-thousand? Ten-thousand? Moreover, we know that criminals are among this number — as terrorists have been — and that Americans have been hurt and killed by them. So what body count, of invaders and victims, is necessary for “crisis” status? Someone should ask Pelosi and Schumer this question.
In reality, illegal migration is never a crisis for leftists. It’s an opportunity. Illegals are concentrated in Democrat states/areas and increase their official populations because the aliens are counted in the census numbers; thus, they inflate these leftist’ areas congressional representation and, hence, the Left’s power.
Second, as I often point out, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World, and 70 to 90 percent of this group votes Democrat upon naturalization. This figure would be even higher among amnestied and naturalized illegals; moreover, some have even been able to cast votes as non-citizens.
This is perhaps why President Trump said in a Rose Garden press briefing Friday that the immigration-debate Kabuki theater is “a big lie, a big con game” (video below). He also predicted what would follow his emergency declaration, which includes a probable ruling against it from the activist United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Of course, the Ninth Circuit would have ceased to exist long ago if Congress had done its job; note that the latter has the constitutional power to eliminate any and all federal courts except for the Supreme Court. Elimination should be the fate of all rogue circuits, mind you. Why? Well, what else should befall people who steadfastly refuse to do their jobs (in this case, abiding by the Constitution)?
But this just reflects the real crisis: that we have leaders ranging from weak to irresponsible to power mad to traitorous — and no small number of citizens who elect them.
Photo: AP Images
