Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Responses To A Fake Christian

What follows are comments I sought to post in the comments section of one of Dan's latest blog posts (where the post itself can be shown as well).  As Craig has done at his own blog, I post these here because Dan, being a coward and a liar, deleted them due to his inability to respond honestly and maturely to that which he demanded and received.  As I include his comments when I respond to them, you can match up with the thread to see where these would have fallen within it.  While he arrogantly won't condescend to visit here, especially when his cowardice and dishonesty has been so blatantly exposed, he is nonetheless more than welcome to do so in order to defend himself, though he won't because he can't.  To wit:

"Marshall, I'll play your game, but then, you MUST admit it is a false claim, that you were stupid for not recognizing it, apologize and promise to work against Trump the remaining time in the office."

I'm not playing any game, and I don't know what you think you mean by saying this.  I will work against Trump when he gives me a valid reason for doing so.  You've not provided one.  You've only provided reason to work against your derangement.

"Trump claimed REPEATEDLY that "the press is the enemy of the people...""

Honest people understand what he means by this.  Find an honest person and ask him.  While some who don't hate Trump (as disordered people like you do) find this expression to be over the top, they, too, understand what he means by it.  It's a sentiment shared by millions and was that which led to the popularity of conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh and others, and to the creation of FoxNews.  It is apparent in the many stories out there that demonstrate "fake news" is a reality:

What the above links also show is how easily, like hundreds of Dan Trubues, reporters run with false tales without doing their own research...also known as "investigative journalism"...which results in false stories gaining validity by their constant repetition.  The following letter to an editor highlights another example of all to common fake news, the misleading headline:

Considering the well known bias of the general journalist population, how stories are covered, as well as which stories, validates Trump's opinion that the press is the enemy of the people.  The more accurate way of saying it, and the way that honest people understand it is that when the press dispenses with objectivity, looking for the negative to report rather than simply reporting the newsworthy, the people are poorly informed, and THAT is an assault on the nation.  It's good to make the press accountable.  They need to be held accountable.

So clearly, the "only ONE factual, real world answer to this question", Dan, is that there is plenty of evidence to support the opinion Trump has of the press.  And that's what it is, Danny, his opinion.  Or were you trying to put this out as one of his "lies"?  Either way, it's not without solid factual basis, even if it's a bit "over the top" to state it in the manner he does.  But only a bit.

"your favorite nonsense fear mongering magazine, American Thinker"

Here's one of YOUR lies.  AT is not a "fear mongering" magazine.  You don't even read it. don't even read the articles from it that I link for your edification.  You just blow it off like you just blew off the links above.  Your panty-wetting over Trump's use of the expression "enemy of the people" demonstrates your derangement, as you again try so desperately to plead with others to turn on him to soothe your disordered response to his unique and peculiar style.

"You know why Obama didn't do that?"

Yeah.  Because he was too busy attacking the press in far more serious ways than Trump ever has:

(There.  There's some more links you'll ignore.)

And this Obama stuff provokes another truth that validates Trump's, and the general public's, opinion about the press:  there's a night and day difference between the coverage of Trump versus Obama, who was worshiped by the press despite his adversarial attitude toward them.   The press fawned over Obama.   They were every bit biased toward Obama as they've been with Trump, but 180 degrees in the opposite direction.  It would be a stupid ass who claims otherwise.  Don't be a stupid ass.

"Don't bother commenting here further, Marshall. Ever. Short of an apology and recognition of your error for supporting stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press."

You're a liar. A far worse liar than Trump, engaging in far more egregious lies. Here, you claim I'm supporting "stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press". This is a blatant lie for which the comments you deleted provided no evidence whatsoever. Thus, I'm not about to apologize for something I didn't do, just because you falsely accuse me of having done so.

The bigger and more egregious lie, among the many about Trump you continue to tell, is that he attacks the free press. My comments proved the falsehood of this charge, and you, because you're a liar, deleted it so you could continue with the lie. Worse, you did this while I, in my comments, conceded his expression "enemy of the people" was a poor choice of words even though his meaning is not hard to fathom, especially by true Christians...a claim you make that is clearly a lie.

With regards the crimes of the "free press", I present the following Snopes article, in which an actual objective summary of the falsehoods directed at Trump from the media in general is presented. Together with the links of my now deleted comments, it illustrates why anyone would be justified in questioning the motives and intentions of the media in general. A media that itself plays fast and loose with the truth, that makes little effort to be objective in their reporting and that unabashedly picks sides in politics furthering the agenda of one side (the left) over the other does all these things at the expense and to the detriment of the general public, purposely misinforming them and as such stands as their enemy. A real Christian wouldn't stand for it. Find a real Christian and ask him.

"Marshall, I'll give you ONE more chance to respond with something short of an admission of your mistaken false claims."

Pound sand.  I can't apologize for having done nothing at all wrong, and I've made no false claims whatsoever.  If I had, it would be demonstrating what "embracing grace" looks like to point out alleged mistakes while explaining what makes them so.  You didn't do either.

1.  "DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People.""

I did that in the comments you deleted.  More importantly, I explained how the expression was being used by Trump.

2.  "If your definition is not the standard one, admit that it is not standard/what is typically meant by enemy of the state."

There is no "standard definition" of the expression, and what you supplied weren't definitions but how the term was applied in the examples presented.  And no, it does NOT require "physical harm"...not directly or initially or at order for an entity to be labeled as such.  You just want it to be in order to help you demonize a flawed man that has been far better in his current job than is comfortable for you personally.

3. "If you don't know what is typically meant by Enemy of the State, admit it."

Bite me.  I not only know, but I acknowledge that even as hyperbole, it is appropriate in the manner used by Trump.  You reject this purely out of your unchristian hatred.

4. "If you do all of that, then point to THE RESEARCH/DATA to support the claim that "80%" of the media is an "enemy of the state" (according to your own definition)."

I did that in the comments you deleted as well.  I included a piece from, a left leaning source that also demonstrated the many falsehoods of the media directed at Trump.

5.  "If you can't do that (and you can't), then admit that you can't do it, that it is an unsupported opinion, not anything at all like a fact."

I DID do that with numerous links you clearly never bothered to read, thus showing it is more fact than you have the honesty and true Christian grace to admit.

I'll continue to post comments at Dan's blog as I feel compelled to do so.  He'll delete a significant portion of them because he's immature, totally lacking of Christian character and dishonest in a way and to an extent that makes Trump look like he accessorizes with Wonder Woman's Lasso of Hestia wrapped around him.  It really doesn't matter.  Between him and his pet troll, they provide much grist for this mill. 

Sunday, February 17, 2019

A Bad Anti-Wall Argument

Over at Dan's blog, he posted a response to Stan which, as is common on the blogs, was followed by comments which, as is common on the blogs, went off in tangents here and there.  One of those tangents contained claims by the troll known as "feodor" and is the topic of this post.  It is one of several points he claims as facts and I may or may not go on to address them all, but we'll just have to see how time allows for doing so, and whether or not my interest in doing so remains or wanes. 

feo's comment is below, and it ends with the link from which it comes.  He believes the studies to which the article refers ends all debate on the issue of illegal immigrant crime...because he just needs to have us fall into line with other Trump-hating, America-hating leftist fakes like himself.   My response follows:

“Now, four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems. In the slew of research, motivated by Trump's rhetoric, social scientists set out to answer this question: Are undocumented immigrants more likely to break the law?

All of this comes as no surprise to Art Acevedo, the police chief in Houston, which has one of largest undocumented populations in the nation. The chief has been publicly critical of the immigration crackdown.

Cato found that in 2015, criminal conviction and arrest rates in Texas for undocumented immigrants were lower than those of native-born Americans for murder, sexual assault and larceny.

"There's no wave of crime being committed by the immigrant community," Acevedo said. "As a matter of fact, a lot of the violent crime that we're dealing with is being committed by people that are born and raised right here in the United States."

There are a number of problems with this article and the info it contains:

1.  Only abstracts are available for a couple of the studies so far, with a cost attached to viewing the study itself.  I'm not up for shelling out a red cent for any studies put up for review by feo, who likely didn't pay to read them either.  Rather, he could have and should have paid for it, and then found a way to copy/paste, provide a link or in some way provided the info for the perusal of those he hopes to "show up" with their allegedly unassailable conclusions.   I did find another way to get at one of them.  

2.  For those studies I was able to actually read, I would say that I am not prepared as yet to pretend I am confident that I could expound on every aspect of them, as some of them are rather detailed and require more study than I've been able to give them at any single sitting in the time I had available to me to try.  It's an important caveat I feel necessary to concede so as to avoid any attempt to presume by trolls who wish only to demonize rather than engage in civil discourse.  'Cuz that's how feo rolls.

3.  What I've read thus far seems heavily dependent upon computer models, which as we all know from the climate debate, are suspect if not used properly.  The results spit out by these models are the result of the info inputted into the program and just as important as what is fed into them is that which is not. 

4.  One consistent caveat of the studies themselves, which is also present in those I favor, is how difficult it is to gather all that is needed to come up with accurate numbers when all is said and done.  This is due to a number of factors that loom large in such endeavors, such as

a)  the fact that there is no standard across all law enforcement agencies with regard to reporting.  Some local departments do not make the effort to determine the citizenship status of those arrested.  Some are prevented by their municipal overlords from even asking a suspect such a thing as whether or not the suspect is a citizen.

b)  many crimes by illegals are not reported in the first place, particularly those perpetrated against other illegals who fear their own deportation should they be found out upon reporting their victimization.

c)  some illegal alien criminals simply do not have any plan to remain in the country, but enter simply to perpetrate their crime (or to check up on those here but who are under their control) and then return over the border after.

These are just the few of the problems that make the calculations of the studies from the above link less than accurate.

5.  The manner in which "crime rate" is calculated seems flawed with regard to how it is viewed by the researchers, and thus by trolls like feo.  For example:

Imagine the nation of Bob populated by 100 people, ten of which engage in criminal activity.  We can say that the crime rate is 10%.  Add to that the immigration of 100 more people from the nation of Frank, ten of which engage in criminal activity.  Now there are 200 people in the nation of Bob, with twenty who engage in criminal activity.  The crime rate is still 10%.  The immigration of the Franks did not raise the crime rate when viewed as a percentage.

But what if there were only nine Franks who engaged in criminal activity?  Adding that 100 people  would have lowered the crime rate to 9.5%!  The problem with this is that there are nine more people engaged in criminal activity than there was before the immigration of the Franks!!  For the citizens of Bob who must deal with the effects of criminal activity, there is clearly more crime than there was before.  Why should Bob ignore that increase just to appease those who believe those who seek to enter must be allowed?

6.  I also have yet to figure out exactly how they deal with the numbers of crimes committed by each individual, legal or otherwise, as well as the severity of the crimes committed.  As to the former, if an illegal is convicted of a crime, he is either imprisoned or deported depending upon how the trial proceeded.  If an active criminal leaves the country as part of a deal or because he was forced, he no longer has his criminal activity counted from that point on.  Citizens of the U.S. who are criminals are not deported, and depending upon the crime, they are eventually released to the public where they will commit more crimes that are indeed added to the calculations. 

This article from what appears to be a blog gathers some relevant info, much of it referring to a federal government reimbursement program called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.  It is referenced in the troll's linked piece, I believe.  But more important than that is how the numbers it references are calculated.  Using both SCAAP numbers as well as a US Sentencing Commission Report from 2015, the numbers are measured according to imprisoned illegals versus their total population in America.  The bottom line here is that the numbers indicate that illegal aliens, and just those imprisoned only for non-immigration related crimes, are greatly over represented in the prison system.  John Lott's research involving Arizona showed the same.  Pew Research puts the illegal population in this country as around 3% of the total population, yet these three studies show illegals make up much more than three percent of the prison population. 

7.  This final point is the crux of it all with regard to illegal alien crime rates.  If we assume that what feo's studies attempt to show are absolutely true, it does not stand as a legitimate argument against erecting a border wall/fence/barrier.  As has been said often by many, each crime committed in this country by an illegal alien, every death by a drunk illegal alien...each of these are crimes and incidents that would never have happened had these illegals been prevented from entering.  Thus, whether or not they actually do commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens is not the issue at all.  They can't commit ANY crimes if they aren't able to enter.  THAT is the point.  And there is no legitimate reason why we should accept the lame argument that it should affect our decision one way or the other to erect a wall. 

Thursday, February 07, 2019

Evil Irony

feo threatens...or, promises...uh, claims...that he will be finally provide us with his grand plan for reducing "gun violence".  Naturally, I'm all a-twitter at the prospect that this almost year-long wait might finally come to an end.   It should be loads of laughs.   In the meantime, I just have to post the following pearl he dropped off the other day:

"Jesus god. The way conservatives think about human life.

“The Trump administration says it would require extraordinary effort to reunite what may be thousands of migrant children who have been separated from their parents and, even if it could, the children would likely be emotionally harmed.”"

I'm not sure what feo believes this actually says about the way conservatives think about human life.  This is no more than an acknowledgement of reality...that it will be no small task to reunite kids and their parents.  Yet, despite the suffering that has been the result of people ignoring our laws and dragging their own kids along for the ride, with the expectation that WE must ignore those laws as well for their sake, it is nothing compared to the disregard for human life demonstrated by the many policies fakes like feo support and demand:

1.  The separations are the result of leftist positions on immigration, sanctuary and amnesty, to say nothing of policies which provides services and funding for those who ignore our laws and the impact of such on our own citizens.   These policies attract those from other countries, encouraging them to risk so much for that which these policies promise them.

1b.  Those policies defended by the likes of feo, Dan and other "progressives" has led to all manner of physical suffering...including death...for not just our own citizens, but for also the very people these fools think they're "helping" by encouraging their attempts to enter without regard to our laws.

2.  The defense of laws permitting the murder of one's own up to the moment of birth, and the intention of allowing it afterwards as well.  The "progressives" celebrate joyously New York's recent evil, even lighting up buildings and bridges to go along with their cheering.

3.  They push gun-control laws that leave the law-abiding defenseless against the criminal and insane...none more so than low income people who cannot afford the costs these laws impose on those who seek to arm themselves.

4.  They seek to legalize or de-criminalize drugs, and then complain about the rate of death from overdosing and abuse. 

5.  They support and enable the mentally disordered in their sexual pursuits, despite evidence that such behaviors lead to so many different forms of suffering...including death by disease and suicide. 

These and other examples of the "progressive" disregard for human life are beyond debating.  They are proud of their work in these areas which have caused so much sorrow for so many.  They intend to do more.  And this reprobate dares to appeal to Jesus with regard to Trump's and conservatives'  thinking about human life?  Incredible.

Friday, January 11, 2019

What Would Have Happened If I Was A Part Of That Debate

In a recent exchange on Facebook, an "opponent" presented a link to an article by a woman who was dealing with her own Facebook debate.  She speaks of a conservative...a Trump supporter...who challenged libs to come up with a real argument against the border wall.  In her words, "Conservative buddies flooded his post with snide remarks about how this would be impossible for “deluded libs."

At the end of her list of reasons why a wall is a bad idea, she says this:

"So what happened after I posted this conservative-sourced, fact-based list of why the wall is a bad idea?

I can't see why that would be.  Her points aren't at all beyond dispute.  Unfortunately, I wasn't there, nor do I know the conservatives with whom she engaged.  Nonetheless, I now present my rebuttal comments to her points as follows:

"1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls and simply driven over them. People find a way."

Well, yes they do.  That is, though some people may or will find a way, walls do work nonetheless.  The problem with this response is the assumption that anyone who supports a wall truly believes that they are impregnable.  They also think supporters believe that erecting a wall is all that is needed and once done, nothing more is required.  This is foolish, as no supporter thinks this way. 

Of course walls work, as I explained two or three posts below.  Border patrol agents were polled by their union and they overwhelmingly WANT a wall, and they testify that where walls exist they have indeed experienced fewer border crossings.  Israel has had great results from their wall, and so many places within America have walls surrounding them. 

As a side note, one of Trump's sons tweeted something about walls at zoos, to which leftist idiots, such as the Cuomo fool on CNN, pretended that meant Trump was calling immigrants animals!  This guy is a complete and utter moron, or truly evil in trying to smear Trump in such a way.  Of course the point was that the walls and fencing in zoos prevent the free roaming of the animals, not to mention keeping visitors away from them, thereby protecting both.  Jeez!

"2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.”"
While it is true that a percentage of illegals in this country are visa applicants who overstayed those visas, the wall isn't intended to address that problem.  Said another way, while those who overstay  won't be affected by the construction of a border wall, those who seek to cross the border apart from legitimate ports of entry will be.  Which is the point.  Thus, this comment has no bearing on whether or not a wall should be erected on the border.  In fact, it's an absurd attempt in that regard.
"3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the U.S."

The problem with this item is that it is impossible to know for sure how much drugs make their way into the country in total.  For one thing, to insist that most come through ports of entry, they can only speak in terms of drugs they've been able to detect as runners fail in their attempt to smuggle them in.  How can they know how much they missed? 

In the same way, and more so actually, how can they know how much is coming across other unregulated points along the rest of the border if people aren't being caught.  Again, you can only count what is found, not what is not. 

At the same time, in El Paso, agents insist that since the wall there went up, the amount of smugglers found with drugs has been cut in half.  So who do we believe about how the wall would impact drug smuggling?  What's more, tunnels are dug for the purpose of smuggling whatever the cartels want to smuggle.  If they haven't become aware of a tunnel, how can they know how much comes through it compared with drugs coming through other avenues?

"4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of steel fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage."

The moment I read this one, a very particular wall came to mind.  It also comes into contact with water in a vast amount.  Let's see...what's that wall called again?  Oh, yeah...the Hoover Dam.  That's one badass wall!  Take a look at it.  Would you say that it was constructed in rather rugged terrain?  The point of bringing up the Hoover Dam is that it was well constructed for its purpose, which was to deal with both the terrain and the water it's meant to contain.  Thus, and the example the article presents suggests it strongly, the location and everything related to it must be taken into account when designing a proper barrier in order that it serves its primary purpose.

I've also read a few stories that speak of other environmental challenges to the building of the wall.  The first thing to remember is that when such stories are posted, they usually are posted by environmentalists and conservationists.   They will always present their position from a rather extremist position.  It's not unlike asking firemen about how many smoke alarms one should have.  They'd prefer one in every room of the house.  They go overboard.  The environmentalists are more extreme than that.  Some think the best thing for the planet and the animal world is that we all die. 

They also assume that those who want the wall have no regard for such things.  This is not the case.  I would submit that while the protection of American life is the priority, the flora and fauna is not ignored.  But for my part, inhibiting the movement of some Texas horned lizards or big horned sheep is not more important than inhibiting the movement of those who would ignore our laws.

"5. A wall would force the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles."

I don't know why this would necessarily be so.  Most border properties are rather large, and if they do not actually flow into what is actually Mexico (or vice versa for Mexicans), then what they would lose would be quite minimal.  In very many cases, such property owners want a wall to inhibit border-crossers who traipse through their properties, leaving trash and often heisting items as they go. A quick search has failed to turn up the smallest privately owned parcel of land along the border.  One article mentioned a 20 acre property, though I wonder if there are any that are significantly smaller.  

Some speak of properties being in the family for generations and others speaking of the wall going right through the middle or leaving them unable to get to the other side without traveling to a gate.  For these and other reasons, they are willing to fight the government if it wishes to get the land for a wall.  I totally get it, especially if my family lived on the land for generations. 

But this is what the concept of eminent domain is for.  That is, if ever a reason existed that justified the government commandeering private property, illegal border crossing is it.  It's a "needs of the many outweighing the desires of the few" kinda thing that is more than merely rhetoric.  I think the key here is compensation.  While eminent domain only calls for (generally) market value compensation, I think it is reasonable for the government to offer better...perhaps three times market value.  It is, after all, a big ask.  But there is a point when an individual has to consider the greater good.  Imagine if you won a case against eminent domain, and then become aware that someone who crossed over your property murdered a Kate Steinle or Officer Singh or Jamiel Shaw, Jr. 

All in all, if the government was forced to take the land, the reason justifies the taking...despite how bad it might be to be on the losing side.

"6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities."

Well, this isn't an argument against a wall so much as against a specific design.  Border patrol wants a wall.

  "7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them."

Fortunately, no one is arguing for a wall only.  Certainly Trump isn't.  But agents see the wall as the first order of business.  Detection technology doesn't stop anyone, particularly if agents cannot get to where invaders are detected before the invaders can move out of range of the detection devices.

The most egregious aspect of this objection is the author's suggestion that the only workable solution is to model ourselves after communist East Berlin.  Typical crap from a lefty.  It's the type of willful lie Dan would say.  They need to make it as bad as they can to sell the lefty position, so this type of hyperbole and metaphor is just what the Trump-hating doctor ordered.

"8. Where barriers were built, there was little impact on the number of border crossers."

Good gosh, this is just so incredibly stupid, particularly since she provides why at the end of this objection:  "They simply came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions preclude a wall."

Clearly the barrier had a great impact if it forced them to come it "elsewhere".  The intention seeks to limit those "elsewhere" locations to the most difficult natural barriers which act as natural deterrents.  Simply put, not everyone is willing to complete an arduous journey by negotiating a far more arduous last few miles.  What's more, when limited to those "elsewhere" locations due to a wall everywhere else, it leaves fewer areas where patrolling is the only means of stopping invaders.  In any case, it is clear then that the wall did have an impact of significance, particular right in the exact spot where the wall existed.  And THAT demonstrates that a wall is effective.  The DIDN'T come in there!

"9. A wall has unintended consequences on other industries: For example, it blocks farmworkers from exiting when their invaluable seasonal work is done."
Without digging deeply into this one at all, it comes to mind that there are several problems with this objection:
---It assumes there is no means by which legal worker visa holders wouldn't be able to go to and from their jobs.
---It assumes that these seasonal workers even have worker visas that allow them to work in this country.
---It assumes that without these workers, legal or not, that wages wouldn't rise to attract Americans who need the seasonal work

Objections like this one compels me to believe that the objector doesn't expect the reader won't think about all the possible angles, or the objector isn't capable of doing so herself.

"10. Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would actually be needed."

This might be the only reasonable opinion, while not being necessarily a reasonable objection.  There are any number of far less justified projects on which the federal government spends our dough.  Few of them get accomplished for the projected cost, with most of them going way over budget.  But this one IS justified.  It also ignores how the existence of a wall would impact other costs associated with illegal immigration and other illegal border crossings, which are many.  Even should the wall cost as much as is imagined in the article...and that's debatable...there is over $100billion per year net cost of illegal immigration that would greatly reduced.  Some dispute this, but do so based on studies that combine ALL immigrants, legal or not.  Rational and honest people focus on ILLEGAL border crossings.  

"11. According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion."

This was put here simply to pad the list.  It really falls under the previous objection and as such no more need be said about costs.  Aside from maintenance and salaries, this is a one-time cost and again, the savings from reducing illegal crossings more than makes up for it.

The writer closes with a number of typical leftist tropes and misstatements.  Such as:

"As the conservatives of the Cato Institute put it, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.” It would also create many “direct harms,” including “the spending, the taxes, the eminent domain abuse, and the decrease in immigrant’s freedoms of movement.”

First of all, Cato is libertarian.  While there are many positions that are held by both libertarians and conservatives, as a conservative, I object to conflating the two as if they are synonymous.  It's like "progressive Christians" objecting to being conflated with atheists, except that they are morally the same where libertarians and conservatives are morally distinct...conservatives being the moral of the two. 

Secondly, as I've demonstrated, a wall will indeed have a great impact on illegal border crossing...even if nothing else is done along side having one.  Just making crossing a bigger pain in the ass makes it true. 

Thirdly, the "direct harms" are overstated as I've also demonstrated.  Among them is one that isn't the least bit a concern, that being the "
immigrant’s freedoms of movement."  This is blatantly untrue.  For those of us who abide the law, the mere acquisition of a passport infringes on our freedom of movement.  So to insist that all who wish to enter also do so in accordance with the laws of a sovereign nation is an infringement indeed, but a most necessary, just and moral infringement for the sake of the citizens of that sovereign nation...the primary people one must consider.   As citizens, we all endure various such legal infringements on our liberty, but we still enjoy the liberty to do the things in which the law injects itself.  I have the liberty to drive, for example, but must obey the rules of the road.  "Freedom of movement" does not mean one has the liberty to go absolutely anywhere strictly on one's own terms.   It is a false dilemma.

"We must add, because conservative sources do not, that the environmental harms are likely to be severe."

Again, I'm sure they overstate the impact on the environment severely, but it remains to be seen.  It assumes such considerations are not a part of constructing the wall, as if this particular public project is necessarily different than any other in that regard.  This is no more than further demonizing of the conservative to assert that we are unconcerned about the world in which we live.  Idiotic, in fact.
"In other words, the facts show that walls don’t work."

They don't show that at all.  Not the facts she presented.  She merely inappropriately attaches a fact to an outcome, with no proof one thing leads to the other. 

"Instead, they create even bigger, more expensive problems."

Not generally, and not necessarily in any limited way.  Lots of assumptions are required to make this statement and she did little to demonstrate that they're at all likely. 

Look.  No one wants a wall.  Ever...anywhere.  We put up fences or walls around our homes, but for specific purposes that walls and fences satisfy...not because we like walls and fences (not most of us).  We want to keep our small children and pets in the yard, or we want to block the crappy looking property of our neighbors.  It's sometimes a way to create our own little world because we can't have anything like that without having a wall or fence...or an island.  But if the world around us was beautiful and safe, few of us would ever have a wall.  The same is true of our national borders on a grander scale.  Unlike this woman and others like her need to believe, it is not true that...

"The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in “extreme danger” and only a wall will make them “safe.”"

An honest woman she is not, the issue of increased border security and using such ideas such as a wall have been around far longer than Trump's first step into the political pool.  And it wasn't Trump that convinced intelligent Americans of the need for a wall (and no, not "only" a wall...idiot), it was the deaths of so many of our fellow citizens from a variety of reasons resulting from the incursion of illegal aliens, as well as the economic impact of it.  Trump merely promised to actually do something about it.  THAT'S what compels support from his base. 

And since when is it wrong to hate the criminal behavior of any individual?  When is it wrong to hate that suffering has occurred when it could have been prevented or minimized years ago?  The fears are rational and reasonable given what drives it.  But before we can "grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it>",  we need to prevent or reduce as much as possible the suffering that results from having such a wide open border exploited by so many without regard for the people of this country.

Yeah.  I wish I was part of that Facebook conversation.


Sunday, January 06, 2019

UPDATE ALERT!!!! A Loon(ie)'s Desperate Plea!

I just got an email alerting me to an attempt by the buffoonish feo that I just have to share:

"My plan for gun significantly reducing gun deaths in this country has been on the front of your own blog just a few inches down since July. You copied most of it. Craig got a the last missing bit. And the superiority of its practical and moral sense has pretty much shut down your blog ever since. Suck on it idiot coward."

He's clearly referring to the 20 lame suggestions that alone or altogether would have no impact whatsoever on reducing anything but a law-abiding citizen's ability to protect himself...not to mention the liberty of all Americans.  I really don't know what he means regarding what he gave to Craig, but one thing is certain:  "superiority", "practicality" and "moral" are words that have no relation to much of anything this false priest says, to say nothing of his gun grab nonsense. 

I'm quite certain my blog has been in operation without interruption the whole time, even if I don't post anything.  Whether or not I post anything has absolutely no connection to anything this sad and pathetic man-child has ever done or could ever do.  He's about as insignificant as one can be.

Nonetheless, I've been waiting patiently for him to provide his alleged plan, and if they include all or any of the twenty points about which I easily proved are worthless in achieving his stated goal...indeed they have no relation whatever to it...I'd still love to see it.  Because, what the hell, I'm always up for a good laugh and a chance to remind him how lacking he is as a thinker. 

But that's never going to happen, because as you can see from the quote above, he's not willing to play like a good boy.  His eagerness to prove he's no true Christian is an urge he hasn't the character to overcome, and as such, even if he sent me an actual plan, it would likely be so filled with his typical hateful condescension and arrogance that it would not be worthy of publishing.  He'd have to do it at his own blog and I don't give it the time of day anymore.  So, he'll continue to be looking in from the outside, sitting in his own waste, pretending he's showing me up.   *Yawn*

Friday, January 04, 2019

Walls Work

Just a quick note to all opponents of a border wall:  Walls work.  That is, they do what they're built to do:  prevent entry or exit. 

Now, we're not concerned about who leaves the country.  Concern about who enters and how is essential to the safety and security of our people.  And walls work to aid in that purpose, or else why would walls be employed in so many ways throughout the world. 

We have walls around us.  We call them our homes.  The walls protect us from the elements as well as those who do us harm. 

We have walls around our properties.  Some are fences of one type or another, while some people have actual walls of stone and brick.  This further protects the inhabitants while allowing more freedom of movement around the property.  The wealthy often have high stone/brick walls to shield them from those who might have designs on their stuff.  Many of these people oppose a wall on our border.  Hypocritical.  We see this with wealthy Democrat Representatives and Senators.  I understand Obama just put one up around his house, as if he's significant in any way.

I work near a large international airport.  There's a wall (a fence) all the way around the entirety of the land set aside for this operation.  It's enough land to be its own town. 

There's fencing and walls around government the White House.

Of course, there's walls around prisons.

All these walls do the same thing:  they prevent entry or exit.

Not a one of them is perfect.  That is, for the truly ambitious and determined, they all can be breached...climbed over, tunneled under, plowed through.  But that's a lot of work and enough work to dissuade many from attempting to enter without permission.  The fact that they aren't perfect means that a wall on our southern border would have to be 100% perfect 100% of the time in order to prevent some typical lying opponent of a border wall (i.e., a Democrat) from pretending a breach proves it wasn't worth it.  But that's just the sort of stupidity we've come to expect from such people.

Walls work.  What's more, a wall will force people to wait their turn due to the increased difficulty of enter our country at any other spot but a legal port of entry.  That's the point. 

Most Americans, including a majority of Democrat voters, want this level of security at our southern border.  The current shutdown, therefor, is not the fault of the president.  He ran for office on the wall.  Those who elected him expect that he will continue to push for a wall.  No.  Those "holding America hostage", are the Democrats, whose only reason for existing, it seems, is to thwart any move Trump seeks to make.  Being liars, they want to pretend a wall is somehow immoral, while allowing into our country those who engage in any of a variety of criminal acts is somehow not. 

Dan, being the hater and liar he is, asked how anyone could believe a word that comes out of Trump's mouth.  He's one man.  How could anyone believe a word that comes out of the mouth of a Democrat, liberal, leftist, socialist, progressive?  They ALWAYS lie.

Sunday, December 30, 2018

A Quick Summary of Reality Regarding Illegal Immigrants

It's really too bad.  So many criticize this administration over the immigration situation as if the problem began in January of 2017.  And all the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, were in office prior to Trump even running for the Republican nomination.  We know that in Schumer's case, he actually supported many of the policies now pushed by Trump.  And like them, Dem voters, such as Dan Trabue, did nothing to criticize Barack Obama for his failure to resolve the issue.  They made no arguments against his detention of immigrants.  I know this is true as I have recently reviewed all of Dan's blog posts from a few months before Obama took office and on throughout his two terms and there is next to nothing at all in the way of criticism for ANYTHING Obama did...despite Dan insisting he calls out his own when they do wrong. 

But then, Dan's a known liar.


So much of what people like Dan...well...actually...I'm pretty much referring to Dan with what will come in this post, though much of it is true of most on the left with regard to the immigration much of what Dan expects is actually in place already.  We welcome immigrants from all over the world to the tune of about 1million per year...600K of which are change of status personnel.  And despite Trump's reduction in the number of refugees admitted, we still took in over 20K in fiscal year 2018, but the main reason for the drop in numbers is due to the backlog with which our people are already dealing. 

That backlog is the result of the screening and vetting that must take place before affirming the claimant is legitimate and entitled to receive our protection.  When the system is overwhelmed...which it is...that simply causes more of a backlog.  It can't be helped what happens in other countries that forces people to flee for their lives.  It's a true tragedy for which most people...regardless of political leanings...feel deep sadness and empathy.  Unfortunately, regardless of how badly we might feel for all those suffering world wide, there are limits to what we can do about it. 

And therein lies much of the dispute between people like me and the stupid...I mean, Dan.  Dan pays lip service to concepts like how many we can actually let in and help, but he has no solid suggestion for just where the cut off should be.  I'm more than happy to simply stop it all until we can catch up, because we're doing no one any good letting the crowd awaiting processing to grow and grow.  We need both more people doing the job and fewer people trying to get in.  Perhaps Dan can go and volunteer at one of the agencies who do the processing.  He can clean toilets in order to free up those who know what they're doing. 

But all this is just those who apply for asylum legally, through the proper legal channels every step of the way.  There are also those who simply cross our borders illegally and then when caught, they assume the guise of refugee seeking asylum.  There is no justifiable expectation that they should be treated exactly as are those who did things by the numbers.  Dan sees no difference between them and the legal applicants.  Dan is stupid.  Legally, logically and practically, these border jumpers are simply illegal immigrants and should be regarded as such, dealt with separately from all those that sought entry according to the law. 

Then there are the total frauds.  There are far more than Dan is honest enough to admit, because to Dan, all those who want to come in should be believed no matter what their story is.  But just as we know that there are far more false rape claims that idiots like Dan is willing to admit, illegal immigrants will lie as well.  How many, Dan asks?  Doesn't matter.  What matters is that there are quite enough to justify tightening up enforcement of all laws related to immigration and border protection.  The reason is simple, though Dan is too simple to get it through it pointy head.  Bad actors come to us from other if we don't have enough of our own...and they do bad things in this country.  The Remembrance Project is an organization that documents cases of Americans killed...some murdered, some victims of things like drunk illegal immigrants.  Other sources illustrate that crime...particularly violent crime...and incarceration rates are disproportionately greater among illegal immigrants.  To pretend there is no documentation for this fact is stupidly false and only an idiot would suggest such a thing...particularly one who prefers to regard all immigrants as within their rights to come and go as they please without regard the laws of the land.  This is like suggesting that total strangers have the right to enter your home whenever they want, eat your food and use your stuff.  But that's how stupid lefties are.

The intelligent people know that immigration law is meant to serve the country into which the immigrant wishes to enter.  That country's main concern is the welfare of its own people, not that of the foreigner.  No twisting of Scripture can change that, because nothing in Scripture disputes it in the least.  But people like Dan, for whom truth and honesty is no more than a punchline, will do that twisting as if it's OK to risk the lives of one's fellow citizens in order to posture as a caring human being. 

*Sigh*  There are so many angles to the immigration issue that is only complicated by people like Dan and the Democrats he supports.  There is no way to correct the many problems without first establishing that the laws must be obeyed and that our borders must be respected.  Since it's asking too much to expect those conned by activists to respect our borders, we are actually forced into erecting a wall.  Doing so will solve many of the problems we face, including slowing the backlog.  A proper wall that inhibits the ability to cross will act as a deterrent, as word spreads that there is no "easy" way in because of it.  Fewer will cross illegally confident that they can escape detection long enough for the next idiot Democrat to suggest amnesty. 

The real cure, of course, is the countries from which these people come.  More jobs, less violence and corruption results in fewer refugees and asylum seekers.   But that's a different post for a different day.  Dan and the Dems have even fewer logical, practical or worthy suggestions for those issues.