Just watched Chris Wallace’s interview of presidential adviser Stephen Miller on Fox News Sunday. Wallace pressed Miller with numbers as “facts” to contradict the claim of an emergency on the southern border. They are facts-as-numbers, not facts-supporting-the-conclusion. The rhetorical hocus pocus plagues the immigration debate so much that it’s hard to think straight on the subject.
About the “facts”: they are numbers produced by a formula. The formula is overly reliant on tabulations at 48 border crossings along the 1,954 miles of the US/Mexico border because that’s where the bulk of counters are located. Border crossers are channeled and monitored there to profoundly influence whatever sum total happens to result. The vast voids between will contribute very little due to the emptiness.
The Tijuana border crossing.
It’s like limiting the threats to life and property to the number of reports making their way to the DA’s desk. The number is shaped by public perceptions of law enforcement’s effectiveness, personnel, bureaucratic behavior, social norms, and political will. See, there’s more to the number than the number.
Conclusions about “no emergency” are leaps and bounds beyond what the numbers can support. The presence of anywhere from 11 million to 21 million illegals should tell you something. The huge range means that we don’t know, and if we did, that would imply the complicity of government officials to allow illegal entry so illegals could be counted. Absurd … I think.
The reality should instill some humility, but it doesn’t. The battle of the numbers becomes the battle of tomfoolery.
I watched PBS’s Frontline “The Gang Crackdown” on MS-13 till I couldn’t take it anymore, roughly ¾ of it. The program was a goulash of logic that raised more questions than it answered. And when it tried to answer some, the explanations resembled Alice going down the rabbit hole. The thing was an affront to common sense.
The broadcast tried, in the tradition of the world’s best sleight-of-hand magicians, to associate the presence of MS-13 to reactionary American public officials. As they did so, anyone watching it would be blinded by one basic question. Where do we find these MS-13 miscreants? They reside within the suddenly blossoming enclaves of immigrants, many of them “undocumented”. Suddenly blossoming! We wouldn’t have this problem if we hadn’t lost control of our borders. Dahhh!
MS-13 murder scene.
Such logic apparently never dawned on the script writers – or at least there’s no evidence of it. Instead, they steered the viewer into a sojourn of the crime and poverty of third world countries, the reactions of law enforcement, and the unchallenged opinions of open-borders activists. Clearly, the program could have benefited from more of the kind of pushback that was only reserved for Trump and federal and local law enforcement.
Activists protest the Trump administration’s approach to illegal border crossings in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2018. (AP File Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
The lambasting of American authorities was partnered with an unstated inference. Call it innuendo with a light touch. Bad conditions everywhere in the world obliges the US to accept nearly anyone needy. Why else the hackneyed reference to the plight of El Salvadorans, et al? Everyone living in a dirt floor hut is now to be recast as a “soon-to-be-American”. Emma Lazarus’s poem is sentiment, but it is also suicide as public policy in the era of a gargantuan welfare state.
Frontline added nothing to the immigration debate but the tired Democratic Party talking points on the issue du jour. A little more honesty would help, as well as a little more rationality.
Chico Marx as Chicolini in disguise with Harpo from “Duck Soup”.
“Well, who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”, Chico Marx as the character of Chicolini in 1933’s “Duck Soup”. Don’t worry, it’s relevant.
It should never amaze anyone when a politician says something out of sheer spite or plain stupidity, like the folderol on the border wall (fence, barrier, whatever). The donkey party doesn’t want a wall so a fraction of the federal government is shut down. The party mouthpieces say walls don’t work – the perps will just add a few more rungs to the ladder, they squawk – while claiming sole proprietorship of the entire “expert” demographic. But “experts” can be purchased like a pair of shoes. Look into any courtroom. Remember, “experts” helped get OJ off.
Well, don’t limit yourself to courtrooms. Cruise the environs of the rich-and-beautiful-and-mighty if you want to see walls. Try to get near their doorbell to evangelize. Walls, people with guns, security cameras, gates, singular road access to the neighborhood, if not ocean bordering 2 or more sides, and a government-imposed DMZ of zoning for the rich makes sure nobody disturbs their tranquility.
The home in Malibu for Babs (Streisand). Notice the oceans. It provides more than a great view. Also, zoning and the byzantine array of permits helps keep the hoi polloi at bay.Entering Oprah’s digs in Montecito, Ca., will be no easy task. It’s a veritable feudal castle.The Kirkeby estate, Beverly Hills. It’s famous for being the fictional home of Jed Clampett of the Beverly Hillbillies.
Funny, many of the rich-and-famous overwhelmingly vote Democrat and, ipso facto, don’t like walls … if they are on the border. They bankroll the heavy-weight Democrats in trolling Trump for pushing for a wall to protect Americans. But they, personally, love walls. I would think that the gazillions spent on them means that they work … or our Gatsbies might be admitting that they blew a lot of dough to simply look high and mighty.
Typical gates and walls of homes in Medina, Washington, on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, Seattle. Its an exclusive ‘burb for the well-heeled like Bill Gates.Mark Zuckerberg’s plush hangout in Hawaii is dutifully surrounded by walls, some 6 feet high.Zuckerberg has extended the concept to encompass his entire estate, to the displeasure of his neighbors.The concept of safety and security is becoming quite popular. Here we have a Miami condo complex within the protective womb of gates and wrought iron fences.Walls aren’t the end of it. Manpower is hired.The patron saint of today’s left, Barack Obama, was protected as president, and rightly so, behind multiple barriers and a praetorian guard.Israel’s border wall on the West Bank. Terror bombings of weddings and pizzerias has ended. Terrorists have had to resort to flying missiles over the barrier, not adding more rungs to their ladders.A portion of Greece’s wall on its border with Turkey.A portion of the barrier between Pakistan and India.
So, to paraphrase Chico Marx, “Who ya gonna believe, them or your own eyes?”
Use your lyin’ eyes to view the pics of the homes of the rich and famous, and the walls of other countries worried about who enters. If “experts” on Dem retainer say walls don’t work, check the hot shot’s shoes to see if they’ve been chasing ambulances with the lawyers.
Please watch the youtube video of Monty Python’s black knight at the bridge.
The black knight’s condition reminds me of California’s business sector. A report by business relocation expert Joe Vranich says that 1,800 businesses have pulled up stakes and moved to other states, many to the Southwest, Northwest, and, of course, Texas. There’s no reason not to expect the trend to continue. What appears to be keeping the state afloat is LA digital media, Silicon Valley, and mostly foreign money. Two of the three are linked and rise and fall together. All are sensitive to the next downturn; and since the state’s economy is atrophying outside these economic islands, good luck. Good luck to all those people dependent on the state’s tax haul.
The state is downright hostile to business in all the well-known ways. And if that ain’t bad enough, it relishes in creating catch-22’s for nearly anyone who has a payroll to meet. The latest culprit is the recently passed California Immigrant Worker Protection Act. This piece of identity pandering makes it illegal for a businessman to cooperate with ICE. Of course, it’s a federal crime to not cooperate. Vranich’s advice: Get Out!
Here’s the article: https://www.investors.com/…/california-companies-leave-tax…/ .
Venezuela was the first black knight at the bridge. California has jumped in to take his place. Go figure.
US President Donald Trump makes remarks at a roundtable meeting on sanctuary cities May 16, 2018, in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, DC. Orange County Supervisor Michelle Steel is 3rd from left.(Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)
From 1864 to 1865, Jones County, Mississippi, and its immediate environs were in open revolt against the Confederate state of Mississippi and its governor, Charles Clark – a Democrat by the way. The so-called “Free State of Jones”. Numerous state officials were assaulted and harassed, some probably killed. Clearly, this was a pro-union constituency. Project forward to May 16, 2018 and a meeting of disgruntled California local leaders with President Trump. A parallel anyone?
Some firebrands of the left – who rule the roost in California – are as incensed about federal immigration law as the South was about abolitionism and tariffs. They have made cooperation with ICE the equivalent of assisting child porn traffickers. What’s next, an act of secession?
Well, some in the state are having none of it. They have approached the president, as surely as some in 1864 Jones County would relish a confab with Lincoln.
History seldom repeats, but it does rhyme. (Reputedly stated by Mark Twain)
RogerG
* See “Orange County, Inland Empire leaders talk immigration with Trump in White House”, Roxana Kopetman, Orange County Register, 5/17/2018, https://www.pe.com/2018/05/16/trump-meeting-today-with-leaders-from-orange-county-inland-empire/
Sonam Sheth, politics and national security reporter at Business Insider, from her Twitter page.
While scanning Yahoo news, I ran into an article by Sonam Sheth (pictured above) of Business Insider about Trump’s pardoning of Joe Arpaio, the sheriff accused of challenging one judge’s definition of the amorphous abstraction of “racial profiling”. What was presented as a straight-up news piece was essentially a stitched together product of lefty wish-fulfillment. The article went along a boozy path from the pardon to Trump-as-mafioso. Journalism isn’t journalism any longer. It’s fevered imaginations run wild.
To grasp the pitiful state of journalism, let’s go on a journey through Sheth’s personal profile. It will illuminate a lot about her unconscious – or conscious – mingling of bits of hard news with barnstorming lefty politicization. This will be brief.
Her’s is a compressed odyssey from a Rutgers University classroom to a couple of extensions of the classroom in internships and a “columnist” for the college newspaper. While in the college cocoon, she had a 3-month layover with Citizen Action of New York. Currently, Citizen Action is one of the lefty activist groups in the vanguard of The Resistance. Check out these gems of left wing boilerplate from the website:
“Build the Movement. Add Your Name to the Restistance Rapid Response: We’re building the statewide movement we need to take on Trump and make health care for all a reality. Build it with us.”
“Gov. Cuomo: Stop Trump’s Climate Attack! While we fight the Trump administration every step of the way in D.C., New York must lead on climate change by transitioning to 100% renewable energy. It’s up to Governor Cuomo.”
There’s more, but you get the idea.
What would attract a future Business Insider staffer to an organization of politically strident lefty activism? Hmmmm.
Oh well, from there she dropped into a short internship with CNBC and was picked up by Business Insider. I’m sure that the Rutgers econ degree drew attention with the HR departments, but with the degree comes a load of ideological fixations. They make it easy to leap from assumption/premise to disjointed fact to conclusion, all in a surreal and dreamy narrative landscape. It would make Salvador Dali cringe in envy.
Salvador Dali
Now to the article. The title says it all: “Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio could be a crucial piece of evidence in the Russia investigation”. A person could stop with the title and be just as informed.
The article was riddled with so much bounding from point to point that my wife could only hear, as I was reading, my repeated refrain of “This is bull@#$&*!”. The bravo sierra begins with the grasping for a link between the pardon and hoped-for proof of obstruction of justice.
First, right out of the gate, she constricts Arpaio’s sin as “criminal contempt in July for violating a court order to stop racially profiling Latinos”. “Racial profiling” is one of those politically loaded terms that are bandied about like a frisbee. It’s become so expansive that a victim might shy away from using the word “black” to describe a black assailant.
Besides, Arpaio’s tough illegal immigration stance, and his use of “racial profiling”, might have something to do with the overwhelming type of illegal that a sheriff might confront in a state that shares a border with the Latino world south to the Strait of Magellan. In effect, the judge is either ordering the sheriff to ignore the rule of law – immigration law that is – or pretend the obvious doesn’t exist as he does so. Either way, it’s a court-ordered charade. Trump’s pardon put an end to the judicial lunacy.
Illegal immigrants sit in a group after being detained by U.S. Border Patrol agents in McAllen, Texas. (Associated Press).
For our budding journalist, it may never have occurred to her that an immigration hawk of a presidential candidate has a natural affinity for a sheriff thinking, and doing, the same. It’s not proof of criminal intent and conspiracy to clear a sheriff from the clutches of an activist judge for carrying out policies in line with the policies and constitutional authority of the president of the United States. But no, Sheth’s surreal potboiler must take precedence.
From the pardon, she builds the edifice. In quoting a single source, Renato Marriotti, she tries to weave a story of criminal intent from, once again citing Marriotti, Trump hypothetically “ending investigations as to his friends”. The presence of “friends” is not evidence of “intent” of criminal conspiracy to “obstruct justice”. Arpaio isn’t an example of the kind of cronyism typical of the Clintons. If viewpoint sympathy can be strung into the kind of relationship most typically found in criminal conspiracies, then most assuredly Bill Clinton should be dressed in striped livery for the pardoning of Marc Rich. There was much more evidence of illicit behavior in that whole unseemly affair.
President Bill Clinton and Denise Rich attend a funraiser for ‘The G & P Charitable Foundation for Cancer Research’ in October 1998, in New York City. (DIANA WALKER/LIAISON)
As for Sheth’s insinuation of “obstruction of justice”, where’s the underlying crime? You know, the criminal conduct that a person seeks to hide. For Bill Clinton, it was perjury in Federal District Court in Arkansas and his subsequent dissembling testimony before a federal grand jury in Washington, DC. For Trump, as the constitutionally ordained chief executive officer of the United States government, he simply asked about the possibility of ending the investigation of Michael Flynn. Even here, Sheth can’t present proof of an order by Trump do so. She’s only got Comey’s “feelings” of pressure.
I’m reminded of my discussions with my teenage sons after they came home late. Certainly they felt “pressure”. Am I guilty of “obstruction of justice” simply because they felt “pressure” … but I’m hiding no crime for which the “pressure” is applied? Sheth’s pseudo-logic enters the realm of the ludicrous.
Of course, lurking behind the curtain is the fantasy of all denizens of the left: the Trump/Russian criminal conspiracy, the philosopher’s stone of explanations for the 2016 election results. There’s been no evidence of “criminal conspiracy” … up to now. But, then again, there’s no evidence of an underlying crime in my sitdowns with my clock-challenged sons … up to now. I can only hope and pray that they never discover Sheth-logic.
Possibly Sheth could benefit from 2 doses of reality. First, the president is the federal government’s alpha law enforcement officer. In essence, he’s the chief DA of the federal government. He can inquire into any investigation under his purview. It may prove to be embarrassing to his supporters and much fun to his detractors, but voters can deal with that at the next election. Alan Dershowitz, no card-carrying member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, said as much in June of this year (see 6 below).
Furthermore, the president’s pardon power is near absolute. If Trump so wished, he could pardon the entire roster of inmates in the federal penal system. He doesn’t even have to wait for convictions to fling the power around. It may not enhance his electoral viability, but he could do it.
Sheth’s story is a mess. It is more lefty wish-fulfillment than it is journalism. It doesn’t even make for good commentary, and more resembles a bad term paper. As per the old cliché, there’s no there there. For the Sheths of the world, it’s as if they want to overturn an election with smear-mongering and an endless manipulation of the criminal justice system. The more appropriate venue for their angst is the ballot box … which, by the way, they have difficulty in winning.
RogerG
Bibliography and sources:
“Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio could be a crucial piece of evidence in the Russia investigation”, Sonam Sheth, Business Insider, 8/27/17, https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-decision-pardon-joe-arpaio-160000939.html
Citizen Action of New York website, http://citizenactionny.org/
Sonam Sheth’s brief profile at Business Insider website, http://www.businessinsider.com/author/sonam-sheth
“Alan Dershowitz: History, precedent and James Comey’s opening statement show that Trump did not obstruct justice”, Alan Dershowitz and contributor, Washington Examiner, 6/8/2017, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-history-precedent-and-james-comeys-opening-statement-show-that-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318
An interesting story appeared in Tacoma’s The News Tribune on February 15, 2017. A routine driver’s license check by a Washington State trooper at the scene of a multi-car accident revealed a man, Armando Chavez Corona, who was a deported felon convicted of a drug charge. A trooper then notified ICE and two hours later ICE agents arrived to take the man into custody.
Ironically, the state trooper making the call to ICE may be in as much hot water as Mr. Corona. The Washington State Patrol is investigating the officer for not following department guidelines about not detaining or questioning people based on immigration status.
Mr. Corona presents an intriguing case. According to ICE spokeswoman Rose Richeson, he was a “previously deported criminal with an aggravated felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance and a conviction in the U.S. District Court for illegal re-entry. He was removed to Mexico on four separate occasions between 1996 to 2000.”
What of the state guidelines in question? The so-called protocols pronounce that the agency will not “not stop, detain or interrogate or place an immigration hold on any person solely for the purpose of ascertaining immigration status or in any other way attempt to enforce federal immigration laws.” The troopers at the scene didn’t detain or otherwise question Mr. Corona. Corona had to wait at the crash site for cars to be cleared. While waiting, ICE arrived to take Mr. Corona into custody.
Now, what if Mr. Corona was a citizen? What if a routine driver’s license check revealed an outstanding FBI notification of him to be a person of interest in a federal matter? Local law enforcement would have taken him into custody in a heartbeat.
The only consequential difference in the two scenarios is the real “undocumented” status of Mr. Corona in the first and his hypothetical status as a citizen in the second. In the real story, the “undocumented” Mr. Corona has a halo of protection from federal arrest as a result of Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) declaration that state and local law enforcement are not to be “mini-immigration agencies”. Mr. Corona has greater legal protections in the state of Washington as an illegal resident than as a citizen.
Certainly, residents of the state of Washington who happen to be citizens wouldn’t evade the federal hammer. How does this comport with our veneration for the constitutional principle of “equal protection”? Equal protection requires the government to guarantee the same rights, protections, and privileges to all citizens. Apparently, the non-citizen designation of “undocumented” by the state of Washington means a greater level of protection, not equal protection. Eschewing the “citizen” label while violating our immigration laws perversely means a higher status than the lowly citizen.
Citizens get hauled away by the feds as the “undocumented” receive sanctuary. We have most certainly entered the pretzel logic world of Alice’s Wonderland of the Sanctuary City.
