Biblical and Constitutional Politics
Additional Thoughts on the Border Crisis and Government Shutdown
By Gary F. Zeolla
I don’t have much time to write about the most recent political unrest occurring in Washington, DC, as I just got a new computer. Today (Friday, January 11, 2019), after I post this article, I will be backing up my current PC on an external hard drive, unplugging it, then plugging in and setting up the new PC. That will take at least a week, and I will be offline for that time.
Also, I have already written about illegal immigration at length in two chapters in my book Tearing the USA Apart, in my two-part article End of the Year Political Unrest, and in other articles on this website. But I want to add a few thoughts specific to this most recent crisis before going offline.
Media Coverage of the Dueling Addresses
On Tuesday, January 8, 2019. President Trump gave his first primetime address from the Oval Office. It lasted for about eight minutes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (both Democrats) then gave a rebuttal, which lasted about five minutes. I recorded the speeches on CBS, ABC, CNN, and FNC, just so I could see the differing media reactions.
CBS was the worse. Before Trump spoke, George Stephanopoulos criticized what Trump was going to say. After Trump spoke, George criticized what Trump had just said. Then he introduced Chuck and Nancy, they spoke, then George said they were returning to regularly schedule programming, without saying one word about their speech, positive or negative.
ABC had several talking heads criticize Trump’s speech before and after it and after Chuck and Nancy’s speech, with again, not a word about the latter two’s speech.
Immediately after Trump’s address, CNN began “Fact Checking the Presidential Address.” Three male talking heads mentioned several points on which they said Trump lied or misrepresented the facts. But in fact, every one of their “fact checks” were wrong while Trump was right, as I document in my book, elsewhere on this website, or will do so shortly in this article.
Then after Chuck and Nancy’s address, three female pundits were added, and they were all laughing at the optics of Chuck and Nancy's address. They were standing uncomfortably close. Only a married couple should ever stand that close when addressing others. They also had sour looks on their faces the whole time. Later, Twitter had a field day putting their heads on the famous painting of the farmer holding a pitch fork, with his wife standing beside him, both with a sour look, just as Chuck and Nancy had throughout their address.
However, other than laughing at those bad optics, the CNN pundits had nothing bad to say about Chuck and Nancy’s address, even saying there was nothing to “fact check” in it, as they did not misrepresent anything. But CNN was probably correct in saying that probably neither address would change anyone’s minds. That was my thought immediately afterwards as well.
Not surprisingly, FNC was the only station that gave balanced reporting about both addresses, mostly noting they were light years apart, with little chance of a compromise on the horizon.
Trump’s address was an impassioned argument as to why we need increased border security, including but not limited to a Border Wall. He said the situation at the border was a “security and humanitarian crisis.” He cited many statistics about illegal immigration, such as the greatly increased number of illegal crossings by children, gang members, and drugs, and the number of Americans who have been victimized by illegal aliens. He also cited stats about the horrible treatment of illegal aliens by the “coyotes” who bring them to the US border, such as 1/3 of the women being raped repeatedly on the long trek.
I was a bit disappointed in his speech in that it was so short. He could have buttressed his pleas and stats by having a couple of Border Agents appear and confirm the need for a Border Wall and that “Walls work.” He also could have had a couple of “Angel Mothers” appear and give crying testimonies about the deaths of their children at the hands of illegal aliens. That would have made his stats personal.
He also could have showed a video montage of Obama, Hillary, Chuck, and Nancy strongly expressing support for a Border Wall to secure the border back in 2006-13. That would have made Chuck and Nancy look quite foolish when in their address they declared a Border Wall to be “immoral” and Trump to be “cruel” for wanting to build one.
As it was, the stats were immediately challenged by the mainstream (MSM). For instance, CBS declared that Trump’s claim that 20,000 children crossed the border illegally last year was wrong, saying, it was actually 20,000 “families” that crossed. I put families in quotes, as just because a child arrives with an adult does not mean they belong together, as I discuss at length elsewhere on this website and in my book.
But whether 20,000 is the number of families or children, either way, it means there are a lot of children being dragged on the dangerous 1,500-mile trek across Mexico, with many of them dying in the process and others being sold as sex slaves, as I detail in my book and this website.
Similarly, ABC denied the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens were a crisis, saying “many studies” show illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower per capita rate than Americans. But there are four problems with that claim.
First, there really is no such study or studies. Those who claim there are never cite the study authors, who paid for it, their methodology, or where it was initially published. If there is such a study, I would like to know these points but have not seen them. But as it is, liberals just keep repeating that same talking point, without any evidence supporting it. But as they say, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Second, Sean Hannity, on his radio show on January 8th, gave stats that showed the exact opposite, that illegal aliens commit crimes at a greater rate than American citizens. He stated, for instance, that 15% of murders are committed by illegal aliens, while they only account for 3.5% of the US population. But he also did not cite where he got his stats from.
Third, there is no way of knowing how many illegal aliens are actually in the country, with estimates ranging from 10 million to over 40 million. Without knowing that number, it is impossible to know the per capita rate at which illegal commit crime or the percentage of the population illegal aliens constitute.
Fourth, and most importantly, the “rate” is irrelevant, as it should be zero, meaning there should be no crimes committed by illegal aliens, as there should be no one in the USA illegally. It is only our lackluster border security and lack of a Border Wall that allows aliens to enter the USA illegally.
No matter what the number, every single American murdered by an illegal alien would still be alive today if we stopped illegal immigration. Every single American raped by an illegal alien would not have so suffered if we stopped illegal immigration. The same goes for every American who has been robbed or otherwise victimized by an illegal alien. In addition, every child sold by a human trafficker as a sex slave to some pervert in American would never have been kidnapped and sold into that unthinkably horrendous life. Again, this is where actual stories of such victims would have helped bolster Trump’s message.
Then ABC claimed most drugs come through legal points of entry, so Trump’s Border Wall would not stop them. That is true. But it is also why before Trump even mentioned the Wall, he listed several aspects of improved border security that were needed, including technology for detecting drugs. But all the liberal pundits ignored that first part of his speech and only discussed his call for a Border Wall.
Moreover, if there were a Border Wall, then Border Security would be able to allocate fewer agents and resources to the vast areas in-between the legal points of entry and instead focus on detecting drugs, illegal weapons, and other contraband attempting to be snuck through the legal points of entry.
Is the Situation at the Border Satisfactory?
How you answer the question above will determine which side you are on in this debate.
Trump claims the situation at the border is a “national security crisis” due to the large number of illegal aliens, dangerous criminals, drugs, and guns that are crossing the border. He claims it is a “humanitarian crisis” due to the treatment of illegal aliens in the long trek coming here and their living conditions while waiting in Mexico at the border or while being held by US Border Security.
Dems and the MSM are saying it is a “manufactured crisis” as there really are not that many negative elements coming across the border nor in the condition aliens find themselves. That, despite their incessant cries about children separated from their “parents” at the border last spring and the use of tear gas by border agents against illegal aliens rushing the border in November, both of which I discuss in my book.
But despite that hypocrisy, these differing perspectives are why it is impossible for Trump and Dems to come to a compromise to end the government shutdown.
Dems want to keep the level of border security at its current level. The status quo. Be assured, that is what they are talking about when they claim they want border security. They want it at its current level, not increased security. That is also why they see no need for a Border Wall. And it is why Dems and their cohorts in the MSM are repeatedly using the word “manufactured” to describe the crisis at the border. They just do not think there is any problem.
But tell that to each and every American victimized by an illegal alien or who has become addicted to drugs brought illegally across the border. But leftists refuse to even to listen to such stories. That is why you had Ana Lavaro, a CNN pundit, literally start filing her nails when the rare conservative pundit on CNN began trying to explain to her about Americans victimized by illegal aliens. Ana refused to hear it and wrote it off as unimportant and boring to even listen to.
It must also be noted that the type of border security Dems say they want, such as increased number of border agents and the use of drones, would all be dependent on ongoing funding by the government. But if the “no border, no walls, not USA at all” crowd continues to take control of the Democratic Party, and Dems someday take control of both the Presidency and Congress, that funding could be quietly ended, and we would have open borders.
A Border Wall, however, is a one-time investment. Once it is built, it will remain there regardless of ongoing border security funding, slowing down the entry of illegal aliens into the USA. The only way the open-border-Dems could reduce its effectiveness would be to tear it down. But such could not be done quietly. That is why Dems are so opposed to a Wall, as they know that once it is built, it will be a permanent obstacle to their ultimate goal of open borders.
Meanwhile, as we are debating building a Wall, yet another caravan is forming in Honduras that is said to be bigger than the first one, just as I predicted would happen in my book.
Finally, I mention in my “End of the Year” article that the $5.7 Billion Trump is requesting for the Wall is just 0.13% of the $4.4 Trillion national budget. Stealing a couple of illustrations from some pundit (I forget who), it is like taking one teaspoon out of a gallon of milk, or it is like the first three miles of a cross-country trek.
It truly is a tiny amount, especially for something the US Constitution mandates the federal government to do, namely provide border security. Again, this debate is not about money but about the Dems not wanting to give President Trump a political win.
Acosta Inadvertently Verifies Trump and My Writings
In my book, I discuss the dust up between CNN reporter Jim Acosta and President Trump during Trump’s post-midterm election press conference. Acosta began arguing with Trump over the caravans, with Acosta saying they are not an invasion and Trump saying they are an invasion. Acosta, in his ongoing arrogance and hatred for Trump, went to the border and broadcasted live on Thursday (9/10/19). This was the same day the President was visiting the border. Sean Hannity went with Trump.
In any case, Acosta went to a section of the border where nothing was happening. No invasion, no crisis, no drugs or humans being trafficked, no one trying to cross the border illegally. It was all “tranquil” as Acosta said repeatedly. This was to prove his point there was not an invasion occurring, nor a crisis, as Trump claims. However, the portion of the border Acosta was at had a Border Wall! Thus, what Acosta proved was, “Walls work!”
Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt, on his radio show the next morning, reported that along with Acosta, another reporter (I did not catch his name) went to the border on the same day and broadcasted from a different section of the border. He saw several aliens trying to cross the border illegally, but they were stopped by Border Security. But the section that reporter was at did not have a Wall!
In my book, I quote a Border Agent saying not a single person has been able to scale the eight miles of Trump’s Border Wall that has already been built in his area. People looking to cross the border illegally are instead going around the Wall to less secure parts of the border. Then in this article, I stated that the Wall frees up Border Security from having to police the entire border, so they can focus on catching drugs at legal points of entry. These two reporters verified all of these points.
A National Emergency?
President Trump has said he has the authority to declare the crisis at the border “a national emergency.” By doing so, it will give him the authority to divert funds from elsewhere to border security, including building the Wall. The pundits on CNN and FNC are saying that such an act would not be constitutional, as the US Constitution gives authority for authorizing funding to the House, not the Executive Branch. That was my initial impression as well.
However, investigative reporter and lawyer Gregg Jarrett was on Sean Hannity’s radio show on January 8th and on Rose Unplugged on January 9th. On both shows, he talked about the National Emergency Act of 1976. It was passed by Congress and authorized the President to declare a national emergency and to divert previously authorized funds for the building of “unauthorized construction.” The word “unauthorized” means not specifically authorized by Congress. This Law would give the President the authority to both declare a national emergency and to divert funds to build the Wall.
Also, the 2006 Secure Fence Act authorized the building of 700 miles of “fencing” along the southern border. That law was voted for by then Senators Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with Chuck and Nancy. Trump could also appeal to it, and it would be hypocritical for Chuck and Nancy to oppose him in doing so.
However, if the President were to declare a national emergency and invoke either of these laws to allocate funds to build the Wall, that declaration and funding would be immediately challenged in court, most likely in California or some other western state. In that way, no matter how the initial lower court ruled, it could be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court. That Court is notoriously liberal and has already stuck down several of Trump’s actions, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
This is where the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court becomes so important, and why I devoted much of my book to his confirmation proceedings. His vote could very well be the deciding vote in how this case turns out.
Those Hurt by the Government Shutdown
In my “End of the Year” article, I said no one noticed the government being shut down. That was true at that time (1/3/19). But as it drags on, people will be hurt by it, most especially the 800,000 government employees who will not get a paycheck today due to the partial government shutdown. These hardworking Americans are caught in the middle of this border fight. But the meeting on Wednesday (1/9/19) proved Trump is right in not agreeing to reopen the government without that agreement also including funding for the Wall and other increased border security measures.
The President asked Nancy that if he were to agree to reopen the government, if Dems would agree to such funding within 30 days. She could have said, we will consider it, or we will do so if we get amnesty for DACA recipients, or she could have expressed some such openness to making a deal. But instead, she just flat out said, “No.”
That is when Trump quietly walked out the meeting. He did not “storm out” as the MSM has been reporting it. Nor did he throw a temper tantrum. He didn’t even raise his voice. He simply left, then declared it “a total waste of time” on Twitter. And that was an appropriate response.
As for the furloughed government workers and those working without pay, as Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sean Hannity’s TV show after the dueling addresses, “They will get back pay, but Singh’s wife won’t get her husband back” [Officer Singh was murdered by an illegal alien, as discussed in my “End of the Year” article.]
Will It Ever End?
Will the government shutdown ever end? Will we ever get the much-needed, effective, and cost-efficient Boarder Wall President Trump was long promised? In the end, Trump will probably agreed to fund the government without getting the border funding, but he will then declare a national emergency, and the court fights will begin. At least, that’s my prediction.
But whatever happens, hopefully, all of this will be resolved by the time I get my new PC up and running and I am back online. But if not, I will write more about it then.
In the meantime, do a search on “immigration” on this website and read the two chapters on “Caravans and Illegal Immigration” in my Tearing the USA Apart book for my full thoughts and the truth on the border situation.
The programming mentioned in the above article, plus Standard References.
Additional Thoughts on the Border Crisis and Government Shutdown. Copyright © 2019 by Gary F. Zeolla (www.Zeolla.org).
Tearing the USA Apart
From Kavanaugh, to Incivility, to Caravans, to Violence, to the 2018 Midterm Elections, and Beyond
The United States of American is being torn about by political differences more than any time since the 1960s and maybe since the Civil War of the 1860s. This division was amplified by political events in the summer to fall of 2018. This time period could prove to be seminal in the history of the United States. This tearing apart came to the forefront and was amplified during the confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. This book overviews the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings in detail. It then overviews these additional major events that occurred up to the end of November 2018.
The above article was posted on this website January 11, 2019.
Articles 2019 Articles
Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information
Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics