Advertisements

Trump’s Triumphant Retreat

President Donald Trump prides himself on never admitting a mistake or backing off a stand, but on Wednesday he signed an executive order to end his own policy of separating children from parents detained as illegal immigrants. His Homeland Security secretary had previously said the policy didn’t exist, which was a lie, and Trump had also said it did exist but that he hated it and it was forced on him by a “Democrat law,” which was also a lie, and Trump and his die-hard defenders had also said the policy was unfortunately but necessarily strong, which might have been arguably true but is less persuasive in the wake of Trump’s executive order to end the policy.
We ran into one of Trump’s die-hard at the Vagabond dive bar over in Delano Wednesday night, and he was still defending the family-separation policy and was sorely disappointed that Trump had uncharacteristically caved to overwhelming public opinion, but we think our friend lost the ensuing conversation and his side was clearly losing the broader public debate. In every news medium but Fox News the coverage was full of cute and crying girls being ripped from their mothers’ arms, and and the administration’s media response was contradictory lies and endlessly-repeated footage Trump’s one-time campaign manager — not the one who’s currently in jail, but the one who manhandled a woman reporter at rally — responding to an account of a 10-year-girl with Down’s Syndrome being torn from her mother’s arms by sarcastically whining “Whaaah Whaah.” Needless to say, the administration was losing the news-cycle, bigly.
The opinion polls showed two-thirds of the country opposed to the policy, prominent and previously loyal congressional Republicans also disapproved, and Republican and Democratic governors withdrew their National Guard units from border enforcement, and a couple of major airlines apologized for flying some seized youngsters off to such far-flung locales as New York City and promised to never do so again. Every living First Lady went on record against the policy, including the one currently more or less married to Trump, along with First Daughter Ivanka Trump, and such a ratings-conscious president as Trump realized that no matter how contrary it was to his lifelong instincts he had to back off a stand.
Not that Trump admitted a mistake, of course. During a signing ceremony he still blamed the Democrats for a President George W. Bush-era law that he dishonestly says requires family separations as a matter of routine policy and couldn’t be undone by executive order, even as he boasted that he’s the first president since Dwight Eisenhower with the “political courage” to end the inhumane policy that he had been first to enact with an executive. He also reassured his die-hard defenders that he was still “very strong” on border enforcements, unlike the “open borders” Democrats who apparently enjoy Latino gang murders, even if he wasn’t willing to endure the sob-sister photographs and videotapes and audio tapes of cute brown-skinned toddlers crying for their mommas.
The news cycle probably doesn’t end here, though, despite Trump’s best efforts. The executive order Trump signed doesn’t address the two-thousand or so children who have already been separated from their parents and are currently alarmingly unaccounted for, and their fates will surely fuel some heartbreaking and all-too-real stories from the “fake news” for enough months to reach the mid-term elections next fall. Trump is still sticking the the administration’s announced “zero-tolerance policy” to prosecute every allegedly illegal border crossing, albeit with the parents and children confined in nearby cages, or “partitions with chain-mail walls” as a Fox News host put it, and there’s going to be newsworthy court cases going all the way to the Supreme Court about that. In the meantime federal law only allows the detention of foreign minors for 20 days, and although Trump recently lied to the National Federation of Independent Businesses that there are “thousands of immigration judges” there are in fact only 335, and due process requires complicated and time-consuming deliberations, so in 20 days or so the badly planned family separation policy will be dominating yet another a news cycle, barring any bigger developments in the trade wars or the “Russia thing.”
At this point, we’re mostly hoping those ninos will somehow be someday reunited somewhere with their madres and padres, and hold out fainter hope that America can still somehow enforce its borders in accordance with international law and basic human decency.

— Bud Norman

Advertisements

For the Children’s Sake

May God bless Nancy Pelosi’s bleeding heart. The former Speaker of the House and current Democratic minority leader recently traveled where the recent invasion of unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors is being stacked up in hellish makeshift detention centers, and with admirable empathy declared that she would like to take them all home with her.
Even the fabulously wealthy Pelosi’s multiple mansions apparently aren’t quite big enough to accommodate the tens of thousands of illegal youngsters who have crossed the border in the month, alas, but we’ll graciously assume that it was only out of a sense of fairness that Pelosi returned to her swank San Francisco digs without even the few hundred or so of the youngsters that she could have housed and fed. Still, she described the humanitarian crisis on the border as a “humanitarian opportunity” for those politically powerless communities that will be welcoming the invasion and those ungenerous taxpayers she expects to pick up the tab. The poor souls who traveled across Mexico from Central America are mostly “children,” as Pelosi pointed out, and she simply couldn’t bear the thought of anything so cruel as sending them home to their families.
The vast majority of these children are over the age of 16, an advanced enough age in the slums of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that they managed the long trek across Mexico atop freight trains and drug-smuggling routes and are now causing problems in those makeshift detention camps with their rampant sexual activity, but such an exquisitely sensitive soul as Pelosi’s regards them as children nonetheless. That in many cases they carry disease, gang loyalties, no skills that might contribute to the American economy, and considerable costs for their care is of matter once the word “children” has been invoked.
That the invasion began after the president signed an executive order deferring deportation of minor illegal immigrants and this “humanitarian opportunity” is a direct result of that oh-so-compassionate policy is also to be overlooked, lest one be indifferent to the plight of mere children cast upon our land by cruel fate. The sight of illegal immigrants stacked up in makeshift camps and being flown around the country to cash-strapped communities unable to afford their care should even make Americans all the more amenable to a comprehensive immigration reform law that would bring millions more similarly burdensome immigrants to a land that already has a record number of people out of work.

If this doesn’t strike as a caring policy, then you just don’t care as much about the children as Pelosi’s bleeding heart.

— Bud Norman

In the Mean Times

We can be quite scathing in our criticisms at this publication, but we always strive to do so with a certain literary subtlety and a proper respect for decorum and the bounds of reasonable discourse. By temperament and policy we forbid foul language, ad hominem arguments, or the snide sort of punning nicknames typical of schoolyard taunts, and in no circumstances will we ever wish a slow and painful death on any person’s children.
That last prohibition seems the least one can do, but these days even that modicum of civility is becoming distressingly rarer. A seething hatred that hopes for the death of political opponents’ children, and is not embarrassed to publicly express itself, is now commonplace. Three typical examples have recently appeared in the news, and although we are heartened that such vitriol is still considered newsworthy each of the stories illustrate that this murderous tendency has gone beyond the comment sections of the more fevered internet sites and into the mainstream of politics and academia.
One story concerns the Sacramento Democratic Party’s communications chairman, of all people, who responded to a “Tweet” advocating the de-funding of Obamacare by writing on his own “Twitter” account: “May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.” The author of this witty riposte is not only a paid spokesman for the Democrats in the capital of the nation’s most populous state, he’s also a self-described “communications pro” who has a web site named “It Matters How You Say It.” He eventually apologized for his outburst, but only after a series of even more vulgar responses to his critics and a fair amount of public pressure on his employer, and has since been forced to resign from his party post.
Similarly hateful invective is being hurled from the ivory of towers of academia, of course. Another story concerns a prominent fundraiser for the University of California-San Francisco who “tweeted” her desire that all “Obamacare nonbelievers” be denied healthcare. She cheekily added “Let them eat their McDonalds,” which can be interpreted as a death wish as well as the usual San Francisco culinary snobbery. Sarah Palin earned much ridicule and scorn by fretting about the existence of politically-motivated death panels in Obamacare, but openly advocating for them apparently earns a nice job in California’s higher education system.
Yet another story involves a journalism professor at the University of Kansas, who took to the “tweets” after the mass murder at Washington’s Navy Yard to say “The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let is be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.” Simultaneously mean-spirited and self-righteous, the “tweet” has attracted much attention in the Kansas media, even if many of them have politely declined to mention the professor’s desire for the murder of young children and instead explain the controversy in terms of an “anti-NRA” argument, and has become a popular topic of conversation in the state. Even with such friendly reportage, presumably from past students still grateful for an easy “A” in his courses, the outburst has sparked enough outrage among the gun-loving Kansans who pay his salary that the professor has been suspended. Academic freedom advocates have rushed to defend his right to be a simple-minded boor with no respect for the freedoms of others, and they might well have a point, but surely he can be relieved of his duties at a journalism school named for the great Republican writer and editor William Allen White because he uses ALL CAPITAL LETTERS like some deranged internet troll.
The same sense of anonymity and invulnerability that drives the average deranged internet poll is no doubt responsible for these harangues by supposedly respectable people, and a popular culture that is constantly blaring out profane boasts and violent threats over a thudding hip-hop or heavy metal beat probably has something to do with it, but we suspect the serious nature of the current political controversies is the primary reason. Democrats will have plenty of examples of similar hatefulness coming from their ideological opposites, but it’s far more common and widely accepted among their own party. All of the political power achieved by the left does not seem to have placated it, and the embarrassing results of their power seem to have left them downright snippy.
The more polished Democratic politicians still refrain from violent fantasies about their opponents’ children, at least in public, but even the most prominent among them are now prone to incendiary insults. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has recently described the “tea party” legislators attempting to limit the debt and de-fund Obamacare as “anarchists” and “fanatics.” It’s nice to know that “anarchist” is still a term of opprobrium in Democratic circles, given their longtime indulgence of the black-masked thugs going by that name who terrorized the past several international economic summits, but the insult does not bode well for any bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems. At the very highest levels of the Democratic party the president routinely tells audiences that his opposition is motivated by the desire to cause the poor and sick to suffer while making the environment uninhabitable, and it invariably gets a big hand from the hand-picked crowds of true believers. With such mean rhetoric coming from the leaders, it’s not surprising that the followers would start hoping for the death of sons and daughters.
It would be nice to see a more cordial discourse, and not just because it would return the debate to matters of fact of logic and undeniable results which the Democrats would prefer to avoid. Such hateful talk is not good for those Democrats’ impressionable young children, and we wish those little whippersnappers nothing but the best.

— Bud Norman