Right Wing Fighter

Why hasn’t DACA been removed?

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is one of Obama’s executive orders that illegally allows certain illegals to stay here. Obama had no legal power to order their deportation to be ‘deferred,’ and all it would take is a stroke of the pen from Trump to remove the policy. Yet he hasn’t done so.

Why? Perhaps it’s part of his somewhat slapstick style. This is not to insult him. But the fact is he tends to take a lopsided approach to what policy initiatives he’ll advance.

It’s true that he said a few weeks ago that he wanted to deal with the ‘Dreamers’ with ‘compassion,’ so it’s possible that some of his advisers are pressuring him over the issue. Doubtless all the Republicans on capital hill are telling him it’s political suicide to end DACA and deport these ‘minors.’ In fact it’s a political winner. The American people like a president who stands up for them. And more importantly, the nation’s sovereignty and demographic integrity are involved. DACA should be removed immediately, and all its recipients should be deported.

And for those who might be concerned: the Democrats didn’t make DACA for the sake of compassion. The whole point is to get, and keep, as many immigrants in the country as possible, since they tend to vote Democrat. It’s a way of getting more Democratic votes.

Trump should make English America’s Official Language

Trump should make English our official language. This is an issue that’s popped up from time to time but has never been settled. America is an English-speaking country. We ought to make it official.

Of course, there are humbugs who would oppose it. Chiefly immigrants and those who cater to them. But so what? Anything in politics gets opposed by someone. And many of those who will oppose it are anti-American anyhow, so their opposition should be taken as a badge of honor.

It will also serve to tell the world that Trump means business about putting Americans first. Official English will send the message that America is for us. It will tell the world we’re not a hotel for all the world’s travelers.

Call the ‘Rio Grande’ the ‘Grand River’

As part of retaking the United States for Americans, we should stop referring to our southern border-river as the Rio Grande. Instead, we should use English and call it the Grand River.

There’s no reason to keep calling it by its Spanish name, except habit. And it’s a habit that should stop. Largely for the sake of our own dignity. But it will also give more proof to Mexico that we are finished tolerating their guff. Creating this verbal barrier will help to show we’re cutting them out of our consciousness. It will help to show them we regard them as just another nation, and not an important one at that.

International Women’s Day

It’s international women’s day. A made up holiday with two purposes: to coddle the childish sentiments of many women, and to build a political block of support for liberal causes.

There are many women who overrate themselves. They imagine themselves at the center of all the world’s progress. They consider themselves the real drivers of life’s developments.

This is why there’s always a lot of jabbering about the ‘woman behind the man’ whenever a man does something famous. And whilst some women do support their husband’s achievements, it’s not the kind of support that allows them to take credit for what their husbands have done.

The kind of emotional, psychological, and physical support a woman can give to her husband is just that: support. Now, if she were in essence the field marshal of his life, then she could take credit for his achievements. The same way sports coaches get the credit for games won.

But good wives don’t provide leadership, they provide support.

But many women, with their childish ideas, think they’ve made the pie the world eats, and want credit for it. They haven’t, and they don’t deserve it.

As for the political angle: people with childish sentiments are easily manipulated. As such, whoever promises to give center stage to people who imagine they deserve it will get their support. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, businesses, even husbands, all try to outdo each other in wooing these women. In politics, it’s about getting what they want. In private life…well, isn’t private life political too?

Obamacare Repeal

The Republican Obamacare repeal bill has set off quite a firestorm. Here’s why:

The repeal bill doesn’t simply repeal it in total. Instead, it repeals parts of it and leaves others behind. This could be a Republican betrayal in part. But there’s another reason.

In order to fully repeal Obamacare under the present senate rules, 60 senators would have to vote for the bill. There are presently only 52 Republicans. Thus, the Republicans have to use reconciliation in order to pass it. That only requires a simple majority of 51 senators. However, in order to use reconciliation, the bill must be budget neutral for the next 10 years. Thus, it’s impossible to remove all of Obamacare with this method, since it would have an effect on the budget.

This leads to two options:

One, pass a partial repeal using reconciliation.

Two, change the senate rules to remove the 60 vote threshold and pass a full repeal.

There are hot opinions on both sides. For example, Sundance of the Conservative Treehouse, thinks changing the senate rules would be a mistake:

Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law…  The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority.

However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber is gone. Forever.

There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions.  What this means is the constitutional republic is gone.

The constitutional republic would be replaced with a pure majority rule democracy.  The founding fathers regarded majority rule democracy less than a monarchy, because a simple majority means mob rule.  At least in a monarchy you might get a wise king once-in-a-while.  In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything.  You go from being a nation of laws, to a nation of laws of the moment based on emotion.

This is both overstating and misunderstanding the situation.

The mere senate rule of 60 votes instead of 51 is not the bastion of constitutional government Sundance is making it out to be. If a mere nine senators is what stands between ‘mob rule’ and constitutional government, then clearly it’s gone already.

All this talk about the ‘constitutional republic’ and ‘mob rule’ and the founding fathers shows too many people are living in the past. Anyone with a semblance of sense can see that the US government is nothing like what the founders had laid out. And so what? The system the founders made had serious problems. And correcting some of their errors has produced problems of its own. The fact is, it’s impossible to make a perfect government. That’s because you usually can’t get an improvement in one place that doesn’t produce a problem somewhere else.

Let me give you an example.

During the 1800s, before the Civil Service laws were made, the entire federal workforce could, and would, be fired by the incoming administration. So if Republicans beat Democrats, the Dems would all be turned out of office. And vice versa.

The Civil Service laws were made to remove government employment from the realm of politics. The goal was to make it so that only the most qualified would be hired by using merit-based exams.  Additionally, it became impossible to fire a man simply because he belonged to the other party.

But this produced a problem. Nobody in government lacks a political opinion. They aren’t mere apolitical functionaries. So whilst they have been protected from political hiring and firing, the government is not protected from their activities, or lack thereof. What this means is you can have a ‘deep state’ of thousands of federal bureaucrats working to undermine a president and there’s nothing he can do about it.

Let me give you another example.

The selection of senators by state legislatures was in the original constitution. It’s touted endlessly by ‘constitutional conservatives’ as a great way to give the government back to the people. But that isn’t true.

The fact is, amending the constitution to make senators directly elected gave people more power. This is because the senators were never actually chosen by the people. Instead, they were chosen by state party bosses. Directly electing senators put a great deal more transparency into politics than the system originally had, because it damaged that sub-layer of political bosses who really ran the nation’s politics.

So it’s not a neat and clean issue. Simply doing what the founders did is not automatically the right choice.

To return to the senate rules, yes, the Democrats will abuse the simple majority when they get back into power. But do the Republicans have a choice?

The fact is, changing the senate rules is nearly mandatory for the Republicans to be able to govern. Decades of immigration have turned many states permanently blue. The chance of Republicans actually getting sixty senators is slim, unless Trump republicans run in the blue states that Trump carried. Then it’s possible.

But will that happen? Will the various state GOPs run Trump candidates, or ‘constitutional conservative’ windbags who don’t know anything about how to govern? In short, will they run a bunch of ‘Freedom Caucus’ types?

Or will the local parties run establishment types who are heavily funded by business in order to stop Trump’s nationalist agenda?

Or will we get self-seeking flakes who want to ride Trump’s momentum to the big time?

One can only speculate. But while it’s possible that Trump will be able to drag eight Republicans to victory, I wouldn’t bet on it.

So what can be done? I’d say, pass as many measures as the GOP can before the 2018 elections, and then see how the electoral map looks. If the states Trump won have enough vulnerable Dems, then wait on changing the rules. If not, change the rules.

AP cites confused people regarding immigration and refugee program

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Where immigrants are concerned, James Wright is OK with people who are here legally, as well as illegally – if they haven’t committed crimes. But turn the talk specifically to the risks and benefits of admitting refugees to the U.S., and the New Jersey resident gives a fraught sigh.

“It’s hard not to be conflicted,” said Wright, 26, an independent who supports President Donald Trump’s proposed travel ban on certain foreigners. “By no means do I want to be cruel and keep people out who need a safe place. But we have to have a better system of thoroughly finding out who they are.”

Wright is part of a group of Americans a new survey suggests are making distinctions between legal immigrants who choose to be here and refugees – who are legal immigrants, too – fleeing persecution in their home countries. A new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reflects that divide, with two-thirds of the respondents saying the benefits of legal immigration generally outweigh the risks. But just over half – 52 percent – say refugees pose a great enough risk to further limit their entry into the United States.

Interviews with some of the poll’s participants suggest the distinction may be one of perception in an age of religious and politically inspired violence and 4.8 million refugees fleeing war-scarred Syria.

“Sometimes the vetting might not be quality,” said Randall Bagwell, 33, a Republican from of San Antonio, Texas, the state second to California in settling refugees between Oct. 1 and Jan. 31, according to the State Department. “Nobody can do quality control when they’re just reacting immediately.”

It’s easy to not be conflicted if you have your facts straight.

The fact is, the United States is not a charity. It is not our responsibility to invite people here, even if they are from dangerous places.

The fact is, a nation is the product of the people in it. If these people are coming from bad countries, it’s because they, as a people, lack the capacity to kick out the bad guys and rule themselves decently and peacefully.

For instance, South America is a conglomeration of banana republics. Why? Because the people are both corrupt and indifferent, and allow it to be so. If you transplanted, say, the population of America, Australia, or Germany to Venezuela, and removed its current population, the corrupt regime would fall overnight. Why? Because the people would not tolerate such a regime.

The people who are coming here in droves from the third world, the people who are “just seeking a better life” are doing so because they lack the courage, intelligence, and decency to change the way things are in their own countries. They lack what I call the civilizational virtue to establish a better society and government. Why? Because that’s the kind of people they are.

That’s why California is turning into a banana republic right now. That’s why parts of Florida are little Cuba. Because people do not change simply because they’ve moved from one country to another.

As such, when you invite Syrians, you get little Syria in the US. When you invite millions of Mexicans, you get little Mexico in the US. It’s that simple.

The Enlightenment era philosophy that man is a blank slate is false. Man comes with most of his views on life, and his methods of effecting his views, from his blood. As such, people of a certain race or ethnicity will always act the same way.

This is broadly known. But it’s hushed up for three large reasons:

1: Politicians, chiefly Democrats, want to elect a new people who can be easily duped and who also generally support their policies.

2: There are businesses that want cheap labor wherever they can get it. Admitting racial and ethnic differences would be powerful evidence against such immigration and visa policies. As such, they financially back groups who push against the truth.

3: There are people who want to believe we’re all the same, and we can all do the same things.

For these reasons it’s hushed up. But the strains put upon America by this lie are mounting. That’s why we’re seeing an emergence of racially conscious groups on the right.

To come back to the original point: it’s the duty of American citizens to support policies that support our citizens. A mushy, sentimental sense of ‘compassion’ that prefers other people to our own is wrong.

New Travel Ban in the Works

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is preparing to sign a revised executive order temporarily barring the entry of people from certain Muslim-majority countries and halting the nation’s refugee program.

A White House official says plans to roll out the order are on track for Monday. The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the order ahead of the official announcement.

The new order has been in the works since shortly after a federal court blocked Trump’s initial effort, but the administration has repeatedly pushed back the signing as it has worked to better coordinate with the agencies that it will need to implement the ban.

Trump administration officials have said the new order aims to overcome the legal challenges to the first. Its goal will be the same: keep would-be terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews the vetting system for refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world.

Trump’s original orders temporarily blocked citizens of Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya from coming to the United States and put on hold the U.S. refugee program.

The revised order is expected to remove Iraq from the list of countries whose citizens face a temporary U.S. travel ban for 90 days. That follows pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider, given Iraq’s key role in fighting the Islamic State group.

It always astonishes me how many anonymous sources exist in the government. Unless Trump wants leaks like this for some purpose, he should clamp down on it.

It’s also aggravating that the State Department and the Pentagon urged Trump to remove Iraq from the list. So what if Iraq is fighting the Islamic State: they are doing it as a matter of self-preservation. Thus there are no kudos to be earned by removing them from the ban list. Will they dislike us more? Sure. But so what: they’ll keep fighting the Islamic State anyway, and will be more than willing to receive our aid.

This is symptomatic of a problem in the Pentagon: they are always looking for ‘partners’ on the world stage to work with. Additionally, they think there can be a personal or emotional connection between the US and other countries. As such, they are aggravatingly careful of the feelings of nations like Iraq. They think that a psychological connection is possible.

But it isn’t. Iraq doesn’t like us and never will. To them, our support is merely a means to an end. There is no way we can ever have a sort of friendship with them. The whole concept of friendship between nations betrays an utter misunderstanding of foreign diplomacy: nations work together to help themselves*. Sentimental connections are wrongheaded.

And thus, the kind of ‘win their hearts and minds’ campaign that the Pentagon and State Department have in mind is wrongheaded. All it will do is weaken our bargaining position. It will also put us in a state of mind that will accept burdens we don’t need.

Again: Iraq is not fighting the Islamic State for our sake. They are fighting it for their own. Thus, there is no need to keep them happy with us. It isn’t possible anyway.



* This is not cynicism: the only right thing for a nation to do for its people is to look after them. That means getting the best deal it can, even at the expense of other nations. To engage their people in a sentimental arrangement with another power would be to betray their own people.

There is no Liberal ‘Tea Party’

There’s a claim doing the rounds in the media that a new liberal tea party has risen up in order to oppose Trump and the Republicans that support his agenda.

This is nothing new. When the Occupy Wall Street bunch got going, the media also hailed it as a liberal tea party movement.

And when Occupy died, the media said nothing.

The fact is, liberals don’t do grassroots activism. Most of their political advances start from the top down. This is something that’s bothered some liberals in the past. It’s not that they mind top down leadership. But they would like to have a tea party of their own.

And so they parade every ‘spontaneous’ movement on the left as a liberal tea party. But it’s nonsense.

As a side note: it’s interesting how the media has always attacked the tea party as an ineffective minority within a minority. But yet they are so eager to have a tea party of their own. Obviously they were lying, or they wouldn’t be jealous to have one of their own.

Liberals and the Russian Hysteria

The left is going bananas about the so-called “Russian Conspiracy.” For those out of the know, it’s a lie the Democrats started circling before the election. The idea is that Trump won the election because of Russian meddling.

It has two purposes:

First, to delegitimize Trump’s victory. The idea is to make him seem like a fraud who stole the election.

Second, to make him seem like a tool of Vladimir Putin. This is why they endlessly harp on his, and his cabinet members’, supposed financial ties to Russia.

Third, it serves as a salve for the liberals. They really can’t accept that they lost.

It’s kicking into high gear now. Every day, all hours of the day, the news is blaring about how this or that Trump advisor met with the Russian ambassador. This even though the Russian ambassador sat with the Democrats during Trump’s speech to congress a few days ago. But the Washington Post wont be investigating that !

The media is attempting to slander the Trump administration.

The best course for the Trump administration is to state calmly and endlessly that the media are losing their minds chasing a chimera for the purpose of delegitimizing the president. It’s important for high level administration officials to go out for interviews constantly in order to combat this lie.

So far the Trump administration has been sending out representatives regularly, which is good. They need to keep it up.

This is a battle that the administration can win easily as long as it keeps pushing back daily. Before long, the American people will see that the media are just engaged in partisan hysterics. Hysterics that, in fact, are hurting our diplomatic relations with others countries.

A Border Wall, not a Fence

Trump has said many times that the southern border wall will be a big solid wall. I hope that’s the case, and that it wont be a mere chain link fence. I’ll explain why:

For one, a real, solid wall is much more intimidating to potential illegal aliens. They’ll get a very distinct sense that they are not wanted.

Second, it’s much harder to get past a real wall. You can cut through a chain link fence with a pair of wire cutters. But a wall? There’s no way an illegal alien can cut his way through it or scramble his way over it. About all they could do is tunnel beneath it. And with the increased security Trump will be sending down to the border, I don’t think that will be possible. Tunneling leaves telltale traces that can be spotted.

Third, it will send a stronger signal to the world that the US is serious about illegal immigration. A fence feels very transient.This would be useful in negotiations relating to immigrant-sending countries taking back their criminals. It would send a stronger signal that the US is serious about keeping unwanted people out.

Fourth, any unpatriotic future administrations would have a much harder time removing a real wall as opposed to a chain link fence. And it’s certainly possible that such an administration could come into power some time after Trump. It would be much harder for them to swing removing a concrete wall, because it would be harder to justify the work and expense involved.