Saturday, January 28, 2017

The Wall

Mr Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexico border. You might have heard. By the Lord Harry even folk in the Tavern have heard although none (as far as I know) have rioted in the streets at the very notion. He has been denounced; traduced; calumnised. And he's only been on the US Throne for a week!
Even the Pope has very disappointedly - and dare I say hypocritically (as the Vatican has a massive wall) - condemned the wall. 
Some fine ladies were sitting at their usual table today talking excitedly about The Donald's proposed erection.

The democratic peace-loving, anti-hate voters of the USA hate the very idea as it fails their tolerance and diversity test.  They were joined by upward of 800,000 illegal immigrants who voted for Mrs Clinton, so I am told. That figure may be higher but it is very unlikely to be lower. No-one is quite sure just how many 'voting-machine' votes for Mr Trump were automatically given to Mrs C. There may be a case for slinging a lot of folk to the other side of the construction site from where they may not find it easy to escape back.

What seems to have escaped from their minds (if they have them) however is the  wall that is already there. 
It is already a whopper.

And far from Mr T being the arch Raaaaacist for even considering holding back the tsunami of illegal immigrants, he is merely the latest national leader to put his nation's money where the 'leader's' mouth is.  

35 other nations have beaten him to it around the world and some a very long time ago.  

China and the Roman Emperor Hadrian spring easily to mind. Wiki lists those that are recent and current.

'Fake News' speads the tale that Mexico already has one of its own to stem the flow of South American thugs and drug-runners, people fleeing poverty and sundry infiltrators from middle eastern countries. They don't it seems but have seriously discussed the idea and have plans in place. Maybe they can do a deal and get The Donald to pay for it, as he is asking Mexico to do for his.

The cost would be enormous and far more than India spent on its border with Pakistan.

Indeed, The Donald will have to do a fantastic job, to be the 'Best', a "nobody can do a wall better than us" wall to be seen from space as India's can. That is a thrown down glove !!
See the Trump hair Orange line? It is the lit-up border fence
seen from the Space Station !!

Still he can afford it. With $221 million clawed back from the Palestinian terrorists added to the $ half a Billion no longer funding the killing of American babies every year, it should be a doddle. He just has to back-up his Executive Order with a bit of Congressional acquiescemce.

And guess what. He has that in hand. Congress already voted the money, a long time ago.  In fact some very odd people voted for it as the ladies explained.
Check Out Which DEMOCRATS Voted For A Wall Along The Southern Border Back In 2006

I know, I know – if you want a wall or a fence or rabid wolves guarding the border between the United States and Mexico, you’re a dirty rotten RAAAAAAACIST who hates all those poor, pitiful DREAMers Mexicans trying to come into America to make a better life for themselves (and take advantage of every freebie the Democrat Party wants to give them, in exchange for their undying loyalty and votes). Yes, leftists. I’ve heard it all over and over. Spare me.

(Maybe Mexicans ought to be demanding that their government does a better job of taking care of their own citizens, rather than pawning them off on us? Just a thought…)

Anyway, Democrats LOVE to talk about how increased border security is just so impossible and borders make people enemies of each other – again, you know the drill. 
But the funny thing is that, according to this, a fairly prominent Democrats actually voted for a border fence back in 2006, similar to the one that President Trump is proposing.
US Border Guard checks his post.

President Donald Trump will be able to order the construction of a wall on the Mexico border Wednesday with the stroke of a pen, because of a 2006 law passed with the help of Democrats including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

The 2006 law authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, as well as additional lights, cameras and sensors to enhance security. Although former President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, the Democrat-controlled Congress that took over a few months later ensured it would never be completed by means of an amendment to a 2008 spending bill.
In addition to then Sens. Obama, Biden and Clinton, 64 House Democrats and 23 Senate Democrats voted for the wall in 2006. 
Many of them are still in Congress, including newly-established Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Other Democrats in the Senate who voted for the wall in 2006 are Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH — then in the House), Tom Carper (DE), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Ron Wyden (OR).
There are also a number of Democrat representatives still in the House who voted for the bill: Sanford Bishop (GA), Corrine Brown (FL), Michael Capuano (MA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Peter DeFazio (OR), Steve Israel (NY), Ron Kind (WI), Daniel Lipinski (IL), Stephen Lynch (MA), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ), Collin Peterson (MN), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Tim Ryan (OH), and Adam Smith (WA).

Former Democrat Rep. Barney Frank and now-disgraced former Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner also voted for the bill.
Soooo… are those Democrats also racists who hate Mexicans? 
Or are we just supposed to ignore everything Democrats have done before this very second that we’re standing in? I notice that Dems don’t really like it when you bring up their sordid past (slavery, denying women the vote, Jim Crow, segregation, etc.) – always insisting that they’ve “changed” from that version of the Democrat Party.

One thing’s true – the Democrats are still liars and obstructionists. And they’ll do anything to keep hold of their power, and that includes enticing more illegal immigrants into the US for their votes.
The chicks scored free drinks for the rest of the evening. 



  1. Yes, Dems voted for it in 2006 because surprise, lefties are for stronger border security too. It's a bit more complicated than this. May I? :)

    1) The proposed cost of just the construction/labor for the 2006 secure fence , without the later monitoring, ranged from 2.1 to 4.1 billion. The cost of the proposed wall is estimated at between 12 and 15 billion, according to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell's press conference on the subject.

    Assuming the figures in your post are correct: "$221 million clawed back from the Palestinian terrorists added to the $ half a Billion no longer funding the killing of American babies every year", that's still short nearly $13.3 billion. That's hardly a "doddle," said tongue-in-cheek or not ;)

    2) President Bush signed the bill in October 2006. There was a Republican majority in both House and Senate until 2007, so I am not sure why funds were never appropriated. I assume either because the final estimate of 4.1 bill was a big jump from the initial 1.2 billion or perhaps there wasn't enough time before the Demos assumed the majority in January.

    3) However, if it was the latter reason, transition from Republican to Dem majority rather than budget jump, that doesn't explain further congressional lack of action on immigration. Because in 2007, President Bush - along with Republican Senators John Kyl and John McCain - authored the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 (SA 1348). Considering the 109th Congress was by then Dem majority, Dem Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid sponsored it and it was cosponsored by 5 other Dems - Leahy, Kennedy, Menendez, and Salazar. It was voted down with complaints from parties, so after several revamps, the final vote still didn't pass it. Here is the roll call on that final vote.{%22source%22:%22legislation%22,%22search%22:%22s.1639%22}&searchResultViewType=expanded

    Note only 2 Republicans voted for it in the final. Among those voting "nay" on every version were McConnell and Dole. Graham initially supported it, but was against by the final. Clinton and Biden voted for it every single time. Obama voted for it initially, but didn't vote in the final.

    4) Obama's 2014 immigration reform bill was nearly identical to Bush's 2007 bill, with one crucial difference - proving "good character" was defined as "no felonies" rather than being left for definition. He threatened the executive order on it because Congress had failed to do anything for literally 20 years and after repeated bills.

    5) From 2004-2013, the DHS shows the steadily increasing figure of deportations of illegal immigrants steadily increasing - hitting a record high with Obama, not Bush.

    Pew gives us this graph citing the DHS:

    Or if you prefer, you can compare year to year through the DHS directly:

    All of this to say - yes, lefties would like stronger border security too, just not at that price, not sacrificing other programs we like for it, and not without some pathway to citizenship for "dreamer" children or extenuating circumstances.

    As I've proven above, both parties in Congress have voted against these bills for different reasons, none of them having much to do with racism or "welcoming everybody." They range from wanting total amnesty for those already here to path to amnesty to path to citizenship plus backtaxes to many suspect many business enjoy the ability to underpay workers off the record with no benefits. Living in the 7th largest state for mexican immigrants on horse farms, I can personally confirm that's true.

    Anything else you'd like to know about our history and government, just ask and I'll do my best to research it for you:)

    ~ Chrystal

    1. Well that all sounds so logical and reasonable, but no. The Democrat hordes simply shouted 'Raaaaaaacist' rather than discus cost. Even today all one hears is the howl and not the quiet conference and cooperation. Perhaps that can be put down to the media, but that itself is telling.

    2. Well, I probably shouldn't respond until I know which Dems saying what, but I think you're referring to when Hillary said, "Over half of Trump's voters are racists, homophobes and xenophobes, yes?"

      She shouldn't have said that, we have no way of knowing that. However, by my interpretation, she was referring Trump and voters - things he said about Mexicans and Muslims, not the wall itself. Not all Republican candidates and voters, she said Trump and his voters in the famous "deplorables" rant.

    3. PS - If true all Dems think it's racist to build fences or walls, then how do you explain them voting for the fence or Bush's 2007, as you said?

      Aha, because it's not all Republicans Clinton or others think are racist, but we do think Trump is.

    4. The expanation is in the hypocricy. I long since lived in an expectation of left logic. I am open to being occasionally surprised though. I would accept that only Trump is called a racist were I not called one too ! And pretty well anyone who is winning an argument with a lefty. It seems to be the flouncement-denouncement of the moment, but will soon change back to homophobe or islamophobe as the appropriate discussions are lost by the lefty. :)

  2. I have several friends who are Righties/Republicans who aren't racist :) I have no idea if you are or not, I don't know you well enough - but thus far, you're not angry and hateful enough to be truly racist and like Trump lol. And any true racists I do know love Trump for some reason and you're not a fan.

    We all categorize, it's human. Even bias and prejudice are normal with new or different people (according to social psychologists). However, scientific method applied to social science also teaches us if we don't remove our subjective biases based on personal experience, it's not an objective study.

    As such, I'm not quick to label someone racist without more information, because doing so would be operating from subjective bias rather than objective input :)

    And IMO, there's a difference between racial ignorance (lack-of-experienced, non-negative categorization), racial bias (showing favoritism/always attributing positive behavior to one's own group vs. others, apprehension/caution based on skin color) and actual racism (negatively blanket-generalize the entire group, fear, hatred and objectify them as justification to mistreat them, based on race.) They tend to throw out any individual that doesn't fit their hypothesis as "exception to the rule" rather than adjusting their biased hypothesis/theory.

    I'm toying lately with the idea that true racism only happens when a person's first experience or input from someone of that group has been extremely negative and for some reason, they have associated that behavior with that person's skin color.

    You know what I mean, as a psychologist - if a person's dad is a monster, they may think all men are monsters. But not everyone would associate that behavior with gender, either. Even when we do, more positive experience with better men can change that faulty perception. If they do have positive experiences, but they consider them "exceptions," well, we have a problem, Houston. Same with racial bias and racism, IMO.

    As for you, I don't have enough info to "label" you when it comes to racial attitudes.

    I DO think you're a "lefty-ist, though haha! :)

    Meaning ya know the behaviors I mentioned above about true racists? Apply them to lefties instead of skin color - blanket-generalizing everyone on the left negatively, anyone that doesn't fit that hypothesis is exception to that rule rather than hypothesis adjustment, distrust/fear lefties, objectify them as being inferior or inhuman. Never saw that from you before the last few posts, so a bit surprised. In fact, I never saw that in politics until the last 5 to 10 years or so.

    Having said that, I think you'll remember I said that it's very hard to have a friendship with someone who thinks everyone from your group is the enemy, inferior, crazy, thinks ___ etc. I'd never seen that "always/never" propaganda sounding stuff from you or your commenters before.

    Thus, I'm not sure I should continue discussion. Not only because that probably wouldn't end well, but because I don't think either of us viewing the other side as ALL being in these ways is going to help heal the divide.

    But I tell ya, it's really hard after reading how evil, crazy or stupid the people on my side are, not to start giving it back lol. But note, I never did while here ;)

    Perhaps I'll return when the political dust has settled a bit more - when people in this world make up their minds they want to heal rather than divide and stop drinking all the negative propagandic Kool-Aid their party leaders and press have fed them, just so their politicians can benefit from us being at each other's throats.

    Best to you, Amfortas. Another time :)

    ~ Chrystal

    1. Have a nice fine Ale, m'dear. And I really do appreciate you taking the time to add such illuminating comments.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..