Virginia Governor’s Race Is the Establishment’s Revenge

November’s off–year Virginia governor’s race is what conservatives would have faced in 2016 if Trump had done a Hillary as he descended the escalator for his announcement and wound up in A Place for Mom instead of the Oval Office.

Our nominee would have been a bland, white, country club Republican who talked lukewarm TEA Party. A nominee that would have looked just like “Establishment Ed” Gillespie the caretaker conservative running as the Republican in Virginia.

These off–year elections are supposed to send a message to Washington and specifically the White House. If a Democrat wins nationally and Virginia elects a Republican the following year, the result is supposed to mean voters are angry because Democrats went too far.

Conservative voters dissatisfied with the nominee are given a binary choice by party leadership: Hold your nose and support some housebroken Republican or be personally responsible for electing the Democrat.

This hobbling choice is not limited to Virginia. Conservatives nationwide regularly confront this dilemma as yet another cocktail conservative holds their vote hostage to the Democrat alternative.

After years of just following orders my nose is as pinched as Ichabod Crane’s and I’m tired of it. This year instead of sending a message to the White House, where one of the Javanka twins would no doubt intercept it, I want to move the targeting solution about 3 miles from Pennsylvania Ave. to the Republican National Committee.

Instead of an interparty message, I want conservatives to deliver an intraparty message.

Ed Gillespie is a perfect example of a candidate that feels genuine conservatives are good enough to help him win, but not good enough to influence policy once he’s in office. It would have been difficult to find a candidate more out–of–step with the conservatives than Establishment Ed.

The National Review recently endorsed Gillespie and they unintentionally damned him with faint praise. According to those Never Trumpers, Ed deserves our vote because:

  • He joined the Bush White House when George W was low on friends
  • A Gillespie win will send a message
  • Ed wants to cut taxes
  • Gillespie wants someone to open more charter schools

Big deal. For conservatives, the most important issue in Virginia is transportation: Base voters want new roads for a speedy trip in to work and new enforcement for a speedy trip back to Central America for illegals.

Naturally, Enervating Ed is on the wrong side of both parts. He doesn’t mention roads and Giveaway Gillespie supported the failed Gang of Eight bill. He’s part of the Delusion Caucus that’s convinced surrendering to Democrat demands to import more voters will someone result in GOP victories.

As befits a former lobbyist who made a living torturing innocent words, Gillespie assures conservatives he didn’t support “amnesty” for illegals, he only supports “legalization.” So, let me explain to Gillespie — who only speaks conservative–as–a–second–language —any result allowing illegal aliens to remain in the US is AMNESTY, regardless of how you try to focus group your way out of it.

Ed’s idea of tough–minded leadership on illegals is keeping a lid on how many other benefits the piñata holds.

The Washington Post reports that Gillespie is so concerned about conservatism potentially rubbing off on him that he promised business donors that he won’t champion any cultural issues from the governor’s office. This failure to grasp that politics is downstream of culture is why Ed and his cronies are long run losers.

It also appears that groveling doesn’t sell particularly well. The candidate of the rich is trailing the Democrat in fund raising by a two–to–one margin.

Conservatives next year are faced with a president who is ready to betray his promises on ending DACA for younger invaders and Virginia voters this year have a gubernatorial candidate who is just as soft on the rule of law.

My advice is don’t allow your vote to be held hostage by placeholder Republicans. When my family goes to vote in November we will be sending a message to the RNC in the only manner they can understand. We will be voting for write–in candidates for every spot on the ballot. And it’s going to be the same write–in each time.

For the first name, we will write DACA and for the last name Betrayal. We will no longer go–along–to–get–ignored. The only way Republican leadership will pay attention to the base it relies on for victory is when the victories stop.

My advice for Virginia voters is write in “Senor DACA Betrayal: and take a photo of your ballot. Send the picture to your state Republican Party and another copy to the RNC. Let’s show them voters are angry because the GOP hasn’t gone far enough.

Advertisements

DACA: Check Expiration Date Before Relying on Trump Promises

In May of 2016 Donald Trump casually discarded one of his central campaign promises. I thought it was remarkable. While it was traditional for Republican candidates in former campaigns to wait until after their inauguration to break campaign promises, Trump didn’t even wait until he was the nominee.

Trump had repeatedly declared, “By self-funding my campaign, I am not controlled by my donors, special interests or lobbyists. I am only working for the people of the U.S.!” It was a central element in his early appeal.

Jeb Bush may have been making money calls between naps, but Donald Trump couldn’t be bought or rented.

Then poof, it was gone! Trump began soliciting donations from the same contributors he’d been disparaging only a few rallies before. It was so surprising I found myself agreeing with MSNBC which said,” Trump is taking one of the best arguments in support of his candidacy and throwing it out the window.”

Trump didn’t appear to suffer any damage from going back on his word and he saved money to boot, so for him it was win–win. For conservatives this casual discarding of a foundational promise should’ve been an ominous development.

The campaign finance issue was a crowd–pleaser but it didn’t have a direct impact on voters. Most of the people at his rallies weren’t contributors before or after the expiration of his promise, so the brief controversy was tangential.

Trump’s chief attraction to disenchanted voters was built around attitude: Trump wasn’t politically correct and he didn’t give a damn about what elite cultural arbiters thought.

As far as voters were concerned specific issues and their relevance were judged on whether or not the topic fit into the general aura of Trumpismo! For many Deplorables it was personality first — policy second.

But what if it was all attitude and arrogance and the issues that were central to our decision to vote for Trump were just so many applause lines at rallies he’s long forgotten?

Trump has been waffling on “Day One” issues since the end of the campaign. He said he’d move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Then he changed his mind. Trump said he would withdraw from the Paris agreement and then went back and forth for weeks on what should have been an easy decision. Trump said it was time to get out of Afghanistan and then decided to buy into the failed nation–building policies of the Bush that got elected.

Those are bad enough, but his seeming decision to go back on one of his bedrock issues and betray his base could make Democrat dreams come true and render Trump a one–term aberration.

During rally after rally Trump promised to “end DACA.” Trump is notoriously sloppy and inexact with language, but I guarantee that not one person in his base interpreted “end DACA” to mean granting illegal aliens the largest amnesty in history.

That appears to be the plan now. Trump tweeted, “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!…..” As someone pointed out, more DACA beneficiaries have enlisted in MS–13 than have joined the military. Trump has owned casinos so he should know when one’s luck runs out, it’s time to go home.

That applies to DACA, too.

Trump has surrounded himself with functionaries whose political advice would have prevented him from winning the nomination, to say nothing of the presidency. Trump appears to have convinced himself that allowing DACA participants to stay in the US without citizenship isn’t amnesty, but for Trumpistas that’s a distinction without a difference.

Before he cratered on DACA Trump made a number of appearances with Angel Moms, mothers who had suffered the death of a child at the hands of an illegal alien. Angel Moms were great props and gave Trump cover when the OpMedia criticized him for his promises to crack down on illegals.

Now the relationship isn’t so heavenly. Angel Mom Sabine Durden told Breitbart, “…the news about DACA receiving amnesty feels like a horrible nightmare and if true, betrayal of the worst kind.”

Mary Ann Mendoza explained, “President Trump needs to stand firm and keep his promises not only to us Angel Moms and Dads but to All Americans.”

Mareen Maloney agreed, “It is reprehensible that President Trump would go back on his campaign promises to the American’s who elected him, especially the Angel parents and families, to make a DACA deal with Democrats.”

Trump once boasted during the campaign, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Maybe so, but I wonder how many campaign promises he can trash on Pennsylvania Avenue before voters decide they’ve been had?

DACA: Delayed Accountability for Contemptuous Aliens

Remember when candidate Donald Trump promised when he was president, “We’re going to win so much. You’re going to get tired of winning.”?

Evidently, the president pooped out before we did.

The latest issue where President Trump is too tired to win is DACA: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival. This unconstitutional Obama fatwa ordered immigration authorities to give work permits, green cards, implied future citizenship and a stolen identity to illegal alien children brought here by their equally illegal parents.

The fact this particular subset of the illegal alien invasion is composed of children is supposed to make normally clear–thinking conservatives all dewy–eyed and sympathetic.

And I am sympathetic. I think it would be cruel to make these illegals fly back to their own country on Spirit Air, so taxpayers should be willing to spring for a ticket on United.

But there ends my sympathy.

Adhering to the rule of law is a difficult topic for leftists to grasp since race, class and ideology take priority and their law enforcement is subject to outside circumstance and political popularity. For those who think laws should apply equally to everyone, the concept of “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” is relevant here.

Cornell defines it as, “A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential “tree” is tainted, so is its “fruit.”

The same rule should apply to DACA. When the parents cross the border and break the law the children shouldn’t benefit from their crime.

The left’s response is always “they were children and didn’t know the law was being broken.” Fine, the kids didn’t know dad shoplifted the Xbox either, but they don’t get to continue playing Grand Theft Auto when the cops arrive.

So if those kids forfeit an Xbox worth under $500, why should illegals be allowed to keep benefits worth vastly more?

[Curious note: Both the shoplifter parent and the illegal parent claimed they broke the law because they “wanted to give their families a better life.”]

We owe nothing to DACA participants wrapped in Mexican flags and burning US flags, while demonstrating the aggressive dependency that characterizes much of the immigration controversy. Their beef is with lousy parents who took a gamble and lost.

The issue shouldn’t really be this difficult for Republicans to understand either. We had a referendum! Out of the 14 serious candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, nine were in favor of giving DACA participants US citizenship or some form of amnesty. And guess what? Not one of the nine gained the nomination or won the presidency.

The guy that won promised to end DACA on Day One.

Ending DACA won’t lose votes for President Trump. Ninty–nine percent of the DACA supporters who could legally vote, voted for Hillary.

Waffling on DACA is the vote loser because it betrays Trump’s base.

Republican appeasers are recycling the same arguments voters soundly rejected 2016. They fear applying the law equally will ruin Republicans with Hispaniards for generations. What else is new? Ethnic supremacy groups have been holding funerals for the GOP since the turn of this century and the corpse keeps leaping up from the grave.

When Republicans do cave in to illegal alien demands, the party realizes no benefit. Ronald Reagan signed the bill that granted citizenship to 3 million illegals and they rewarded him by voting Democrat.

In this week’s frenzy to cater to minor criminals two polls supposedly show overwhelming support, but the data, like GOP open border sellouts, can’t be trusted.

The questions are misleading. In the Politico poll, supposedly proving “overwhelming” support for DACA, there are no specific conditions listed, only “certain requirements,” which is polling fantasy.

That’s like asking if the Cleveland Browns will win the Super Bowl if the team “meets certain requirements.”

The NBC poll is equally doctored. DACA delinquents are termed “undocumented immigrants” instead of the understandable “illegal alien” in a sleazy attempt to boost support.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–Appeasement) claims the decision on DACA is a “defining moment” for Republicans. He’s right, but not in the way he thinks. Fact is these moochers had quite a run in the US. They attended schools they didn’t pay for, demanded green cards they didn’t merit and took welfare benefits they didn’t deserve. Now it’s time to say thanks go home.

Graham, and now Trump, appear to be embracing a DACA “fix” that keeps illegals in the US while causing a mass exodus of conservatives from the GOP. It’s a victory for the left, parasitic businesses and Republican swamp leeches.

There’s already a “fix” that keeps a Trump campaign promise and begins solving our immigration problem. That “fix” is ending DACA.

California Reinvents Medical Tourism

Until very recently medical tourism was traveling from your home to find less expensive medical care, usually overseas. Medical tourists were leaving the warm embrace of the American Medical Association and the FDA to journey far from home. There were three motivations: Elective plastic surgery not covered by insurance, wanting to try an experimental procedure not covered or getting surgery done without benefit of any insurance at all.

That’s why breasts were being lifted in Brazil and hips replaced in India. Particularly courageous patients scheduled foreign heart transplants. I know all about this because I was almost a medical tourist myself. A few years ago we had what was laughingly called health insurance. Our deductible was so high you had to have been on life support for a week before coverage started.

I had a sports hernia, which meant the problem was on my dime. While pondering options, I devised an effective, temporary solution for the gym. After carefully folding a washcloth over the leak, I’d wrap myself with a giant Ace bandage.

Frankly, I liked my new slim waistline with only a hint of bulge in the intestinal wall. There were days when the Ace came loose and I trailed spandex out of my shorts like toilet paper stuck on a shoe, but it was a small price to pay.

The wife didn’t agree. Janet said it was gross and told me to quit procrastinating and get the hernia fixed. The medical tourism broker’s choice was Thailand or Oklahoma City. I couldn’t see paying $1,000 for an airline ticket on top of the procedure when the Okies were so much closer. Even then the procedure would set me back about $4,500.

That was still too much. In the end I opted for Dr. Amazon and bought a 12–dollar truss, which didn’t make me look as slim, but kept my lower tract in place.

California politicians have a proposal before the legislature that would totally eliminate my worries about cost. Instead of patients traveling overseas and paying for medical care, California politicos will have foreign patients coming to the Golden State and it won’t be to consult with me about trusses.

After the airline ticket or the coyote’s bill is paid financial worries are over. California taxpayers will cover the rest.

That’s just one of the disasters awaiting passage of what the LA Times terms “government–run universal healthcare.”

The Times description: “SB 562, would establish a publicly run healthcare plan that would cover everyone living in California, including those without legal immigration status…The state would pay for all medical expenses, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health and nursing home care.”

Talk about no “pre–existing” condition worries. One doesn’t even have to be a pre–illness resident. Just make your way from the airport or border crossing to the hospital and watch the doctors scrub up. California welcomes Anchor Babies and Anchor Patients!

Lefty politicians claim the program will be paid for by what is nebulously described as “broad–based revenue.” This sounds ominous to me. California’s tribal Democrats oppose rounding up illegal aliens, but they have no qualms about corralling taxpayers and squeezing them until their wallets pop out like hernias.

Supporters of the bill were the usual suspects: Unions looking for guaranteed taxpayer–financed positions with permanent job security and clueless members of “Our Revolution,” a Bernie Bros conglomeration.

The support of the Saunders’ crowd is particularly interesting because Vermont tried a version of single–payer healthcare and it was so expensive it collapsed before it was implemented, which must be a record of some sort.

In Vermont the bill was passed and prior to the program’s kickoff the legislature got cold feet and commissioned a financial projection study. It found the cost would be $4.9 billion a year, which would double the state budget. To pay for it payroll taxes would have to be increased 11.5 percent, individual income taxes would jump 9 percent and a border wall would be built to keep rich people from fleeing to cheaper states.

The governor and legislature were so taken aback the plan was shelved.

Cost estimates for the Golden Fleece, I mean Golden State plan put the yearly total at more than double (there’s that word again) the state’s current budget of $180 billion. But there’s no need for California single–payer fanaticists to worry, their legislature never learns. They plan to seize the $50 to $100 billion the private sector currently spends on employee health insurance and then wait for the rest of the money to turn up.

In the meantime many trips are anticipated at taxpayer expense. Legislative “fact finders” are planning trips to Canada, Taiwan and Maryland to learn “best practices.”

The only place they won’t visit is Vermont.

Congress Can’t Be Bothered to Close 9/11 Security Loophole

Security–conscious citizens will be startled to learn that 16 years after Saudi Arabian jihadis crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the woman who approved visas for 11 of the 19 hijackers is still on the State Department payroll.

Even better, PJMedia.com reports, Shayna Steinger now works as a Foreign Service officer for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. There her crack diagnostic and investigative abil

ities will be put to use preventing “the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”

Something tells me both Iran and North Korea are lobbying to have her assigned as their nation’s senior case officer.

Steinger may a clueless cog in the machine who didn’t have the decency to resign, but her departure would have only been symbolic. The resignations we really need are the 535 members of Congress that allowed the visa loophole the Saudis exploited on 9/11 to remain open until today.

AP reports 740,000 foreigners overstayed their visa in the period from October 2015 until September 2016. And that only includes travelers that arrived by airplane or ship. It doesn’t include foot traffic.

That’s approximately 200,000 higher than in 2015. And it’s an incredible 314 percent increase over the number in 2001 when the US first learned cost of not monitoring those who begin their residence in the US by breaking the law.

 Is there a solution? Yes and it may involve people who answer to the name, “Dog.” To find out more, please click on the link to my complete Newsmax column:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/ap-loophole-visa/2017/05/24/id/792044/

 

Moral Instruction From the Opposition Media

How accurate is a poll based on a set of facts that don’t exist?

The WaPost’s Greg Sargent is excited about a new CNN poll claiming a vast majority of Americans essentially support open borders. But before we decide to delete the 4th of July from the calendar and add Cinco de Mayo, it’s crucial to know the entire question, so as to judge the accuracy of the result.

It reads:

Now, thinking about how the U.S. government should treat illegal immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years, hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay any back taxes that they owe.

Would you favor or oppose a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in this country rather than being deported and eventually allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship?”

CNN may as well have asked respondents their view on the commercial viability of unicorn ranching. A more accurate question would have included the qualifier “and meet only one of the following four conditions.

An accurate question is both longer and more truthful:

Estimates of the number of illegal or undocumented immigrants currently living in the US range from 9 million to 19 million. One approach to dealing with those who have lived here a number of years is to offer amnesty or a path to citizenship. [Rotate description]. Supporters say it’s morally right that illegal or undocumented immigrants who have a job, speak English and are willing to pay back taxes should have the opportunity to become productive and legal. Opponents say the jobs illegal or undocumented immigrants hold are taken from citizens, bi–lingual ballots prove the requirement to speak English is not enforced now and depending on immigrants to admit to owing taxes is unrealistic and back taxes won’t be paid. [Rotate arguments]

Knowing this do you favor or oppose a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in the country rather than be deported and eventually be offered amnesty or a path to citizenship?

That balanced question reflects reality and produces an answer that would merit news coverage and analysis, rather than the 90 percent approval CNN’s fantasy question got.

So what did the media make of these results and how were they wrong? You guessed it, click on the link below and go to my complete Newsmax column:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/bannon-california-cnn/2017/04/27/id/786847/

 

 

Gullible Republican Voters Fooled Again

When Republican voters went to the polls last November, electing Trump meant seizing the last branch of government in Washington. Trump would join the existing Republican House and Senate. These optimistic voters looked forward to ushering in a new era of unchallenged conservative government. Trump’s election would be a stunning repudiation of Obama’s eight years of big government, soft socialism,

Instead, what Trump voters got was Vichy France.

Although in fairness to the French, when President Albert Lebrun surrendered to the Germans in 1940 Hitler was at the height of his power.

Republicans in Washington — led by Curator of the Senate, Mitch McConnell —surrendered to Chuck Schumer after Hillary lost the presidential election and Schumer failed to capture the Senate. But Democrats don’t have to actually win to defeat Republicans.

Democrats just have to exist.

I’m sure the explanation for this rout has something to do with the 2018 mid–term election.

In the run up to the 2016 vote, Republicans were warned not to expect too much in the way of conservative legislation from the GOP–controlled Senate and House. The GOP was defending more incumbent Senate seats than Democrats and McConnell had to protect the vulnerable.

In 2018 it looks like Republican voters can’t expect a return to conservative government this time because the Democrats are defending more incumbent Senate seats.

How does this budget bill betray the base who keeps electing Republicans and the new voters Trump added? You’ll see for yourself when you click the link below to the rest of the column on Newsmax.

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/congress-goals-legislation/2017/05/02/id/787714/

 

Helping Chuck Schumer Commit Political Suicide

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is preparing to offer Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the gift of a lifetime, but I don’t know if McConnell is astute enough to accept it. Mitch McClellan’s career has been defined by a gopher–like reluctance to risk anything that causes him to stray too far from the safety of his den. (To learn how McConnell earned the nickname “Mitch McClellan,” click here.)

Accepting Schumer’s gift will require Mitch to go head–to–head in the arena of public opinion, which he is evidently reluctant to do since, like most of the Republican leadership in Congress, he doesn’t believe enough in conservative principles to make a compelling case in public.

This is why Trump is president and McConnell isn’t, but that’s another column entirely, which can be found here.

So let me explain another missed opportunity for Republicans to show the American public just how far out of the mainstream Democrats are.

AP reports Schumer “has concluded that denying President Trump his wall is perhaps the surest major defeat Democrats can hand the President in his first year.” And he plans to do it by filibustering the wall.

This is the biggest tactical error Schumer has made since he didn’t object to Fauxcahontas being sworn in.

If only McClellan would exploit Schumer’s gift.

So what can the Curator of the Senate do to exploit Schumer’s gift? All the exciting details can be yours by clicking on the link below and being whisked to my Newsmax.com column. Thanks.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/mitch-mcconnell-chuck-schumer-border-wall-filibuster/2017/03/07/id/777474/

 

Ordering Dinner With a Side of Sanctimony

A nationwide group of restaurants is now offering diners a chance to stick it to the man while simultaneously putting the fork to their tofu. Those of you who’ve wanted to join a great moral crusade, but never got around to cleaning up the basement and inviting a Syrian “refugee” to move in, can now eat locally and be served globally.

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United has launched a “Sanctuary Restaurant” movement for eatery owners who want to stay current with the latest moral–posturing on illegal immigration.

Now diners in New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston, Oakland, California and Ann Arbor, MN may encounter a sign in their local bistro that reads, “Sanctuary Restaurant: A place at the table for everyone.”

I suppose if the establishment adheres to a dining policy that’s anything like Obama’s immigration policy, the sign means when an illegal sits down at your table for lunch, you’ll be picking up the tab.

This is why I like eating at Red Robin. Management doesn’t spend time trying to demonstrate its empathy and there’s an E–Verify sign on the front door that means everyone working in the restaurant is legally in the US.

That certainly isn’t the case even in non–“sanctuary restaurants.” A diner at a Virginia Chipotle would have a better chance of sharing a meal with Hillary Clinton than being served by a citizen.

According to WNYW, “Roughly 80 restaurants are participating” in this low–level criminal conspiracy to harbor lawbreakers and obstruct justice. The idea is to publically position management as social justice warriors, while privately protecting their profit margin by keeping their illegals working for wages citizens won’t accept.

At least 1.3 million illegals are working in the restaurant industry and the wage exploiters hiring them tell Washington they need a “robust pool of workers,” which really means a cheap pool of workers. Just like Georgia plantation owners, whoops, make that commercial farmers warn that fruit will rot in the fields if they can’t pay Juarez wages to Juan, restaurant owners predict food will sit uncooked and unserved if diners expect to be attended by citizens.

Naturally, that’s not how participants describe the conspiracy. Oh–so–compassionate backers want Trump to “alleviate the fear of deportation and other harassment” for illegals. The goal is to “protect” the illegals, but from what? Heartburn? E.coli? Paying for Trump’s wall? Their authority to write policy ends with the menu.

Instead they come off sounding like the prayer in Luke 18:11 where the Pharisee loudly proclaims: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers or deportation supporters.”

I wonder if dining–while–smug patrons have thought their choice though. Patronizing a business harboring criminals has a potential downside. Management may draw the line at breaking immigration law, but there’s no evidence the staff won’t be tempted to branch out. Once they’ve violated the border, what’s a little identity theft or trafficking in stolen credit card numbers?

And if management opposes sending the help back to their home countries, what’s the policy on sending a bad meal back to the kitchen?

One thing is different in “sanctuary restaurants.” Instead of giving patrons a signaling device that glows and vibrates when their table is ready, the staff carries the black box and the premises clear out if an ICE agent enters

“Sanctuary restaurants” give the staff “know your rights training” and webinars on how to demand the feds produce some paperwork before a raid. The conspirators are also supposed to adopt “anti–discrimination policies” that I suppose mean if a Trump supporter mistakenly wanders in and orders in English he has a 50–50 chance of being served.

The fact that an organization supporting millions of illegal aliens, who continue to defy the law, can describe enforcing immigration law as “harassment” and publically recruit other businesses to join the conspiracy, without any fear of legal repercussion, is a stark indication of how official support for the rule of law has collapsed in favor of the rule of feelings.

Illegal immigration may be the hope for the future of the Democrat party and the secret shame of RINO Republicans, but I can guarantee you his promise to enforce the law is one of the main reasons Trump won.

Aside from waiting for food that’s never served, the other bugaboo of the anti–deportation crowd is higher prices. They claim if xenophobes insist on forcing restaurants to hire citizens, then prices are going up, because those sorts of people won’t work for Karjackistan wages.

For me, that’s no deterrent at all. If the choice is between paying a buck more for a hamburger or doing away with press one for English,” well, here’s your dollar.

Trump’s Wall Can Be a Memorial, Too

There’s been a great deal of controversy regarding who is going to pay for Trump’s border wall. The option that’s most popular is sending Mexico a bill. This would require the man Mark Steyn calls “President Piñata” to bring a big check to the groundbreaking ceremony or possibly pay on the installment plan — like rent–to–own furniture in an illegal’s crash pad.

trump-wall-if-you-build-it-they-wont-comeShould the Mexican check not materialize or if it bounces like a jumping bean there are alternatives. Oklahoma has a remittance tax that puts a one percent fee on all wire transfers sent out–of–state. According to the Center for Immigration Studies a similar US tax would mainly fall on illegals and could bring in between one a two billion dollars a year.

More than enough to pay for the wall with some left over for environmental stalling studies.

Or there’s always the even more controversial tariff on imported Mexican goods.

Frankly, I don’t care who pays as long as the wall is built, but my wife did have an innovative idea to provide seed funding while details on the larger payments are worked out. It has the dual advantage of not requiring tax dollars and proving to the opposition media there is broad–based support for Trump’s wall.

She wants Trump to sell individual bricks or cinder blocks to Americans who want a part of the wall for themselves. The American public made it possible to tear down the Berlin Wall that kept Germans in; why not let them make it possible to build the border wall to keep illegals out?

This is an ideal solution for a capitalist entrepreneur like the president. Each commemorative block could contain a message from the donor. It could be something as simple as “Thank you President Trump” or pointed as “Why Isn’t Ted Kennedy Buried Under this Wall?”

Her original idea was more specific regarding sales. She thought victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens would be happy to buy a brick. I like this, too, although I would have a sliding price scale for each brick depending upon the crime involved. I think the two bricks I buy for friends killed by drunken illegals should get a discount, while the man who wants to immortalize “I was frightened by illegals in the 7/11 parking lot” should pay full freight.

The brick commemorating my daughter’s car that was totaled by an illegal would fit somewhere between the two extremes.

Trump could save on construction expenses by requiring all illegals in federal detention be put to work building the wall inspired by their law breaking. The symmetry certainly has its appeal. Currently there is no real penalty to being repeatedly caught violating our border, other than processing delays before Obama holdovers send you north.

A few months operating a shovel for free might serve as a real deterrent.

If the brick idea doesn’t appeal to the White House, how about taking the money Trump doesn’t send to Sanctuary Cities and spend that on the wall? The solution is a twofer: Financing and poetic justice.

Until recently I’ve been stumped trying to understand the motivation behind declaring one’s city a safe haven for lawbreakers. Why should the Mexican who steals privileges that don’t belong to him get a free pass and the citizen who steals a cellphone be arrested?

What possible benefit is it to law–abiding residents for elected officials to encourage the in–migration of a criminal underclass? Unless the underclass is all in the backyard, celebrating Cinco de Mayo with the rest of the family.

California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon introduced a bill to make the entire state of California a Sanctuary, because “half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order.”

De Leon is more than willing to risk forfeiting millions of dollars in federal money if it means he won’t have to travel to Matamoros to enjoy grandma’s tamales.

It’s also De Leon’s belief that if Americans can donate half their insurance premiums to pay for Obamacare coverage for someone else, they should have no problem splitting their identity with a “hard working” illegal. After all De Leon contends identity theft is “…what you need to survive, to work in this country.”

Personally I wouldn’t want to dine in a restaurant that wouldn’t let you send back a bad entre and I wouldn’t want to live in a state that won’t send back a bad hombre.

De Leon and the rest of the illegal enablers participating in a conspiracy to obstruct federal law are not only importing members of their tribe at the expense of citizens, they also appear to be importing the corrupt Mexican politics the “refugees” are supposedly fleeing.