Walls Are Not Immoral

Walls Are Not Immoral But Politicians Can Be—————

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Believe me, I’ve tried to look at this issue objectively and see some wisdom in both sides of the great wall debate that’s resulting in inconvenience and embarrassment for the country and much more than inconvenience for those families without paychecks coming in. It will probably come as no surprise to my liberal friends that I can’t find much merit in the Democrat position. The reason I can’t is that it’s so blatantly obvious that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are lying about their reason for opposing what they so recently supported in terms of border security, including physical barriers. They are also guilty of demagoguery on this issue.

 

They and many of their Democrat colleagues as recently as last March agreed to proposals that included funding for some miles of wall on the southern border. Now they oppose it simply because President Donald Trump wants it and campaigned on a promise to build it. This opposition, which has resulted in the longest partial government shutdown in history, is, therefore, for purely political reasons. That’s disgraceful. Suddenly, walls have become immoral, even though they are as common as roofs in America and elsewhere and we already have many miles of wall on the southern border.

 

And, according to the experts who actually work on the border rather than behind desks in Washington, they pretty much do the job that walls were intended to do in making it safer and easier for agents to do their jobs and to divert illegal crossers from urban areas to areas where they can be more easily monitored and dealt with. Without walls and fencing in the San Diego-Tijuana area, there would be a stampede of illegal border crossings and chaos would prevail.

 

The politicians who once agreed to give the professionals, who work the border every day at great risk, the tools they say they need to do their job now pretend to know better what is needed. “Walls don’t work,” they insist. “Build bridges, not walls,” the open-border activists chant. Children and families are being used as pawns in a battle to open American borders to anyone in spite of security risks and anyone who argues for more security and orderly immigration and asylum process is labelled a racist. This is nothing less than demagoguery and incredibly about half of Americans buy into it.

 

How many times must it be repeated that walls already exist along stretches of the border and experts on the border say that they are doing what they were intended to do and that more new and replacement wall is urgently required, not everywhere, obviously, but where they will do the most good, primarily near urban areas. There used to be some consensus on this need before opposing anything called a wall became an anti-Trump tactic.

 

This standoff has gone too far now for the president to back down and he no longer has much to lose by hanging tough. Pelosi and Schumer, on the other hand could come across as the adults in the room by offering part of what the president wants for a physical barrier, call it a fence and end the shutdown now. It’s a disservice to the nation and a national embarrassment to prolong it, hoping the other side gets a majority of the blame. Both sides will get some blame. Both political parties and past administrations bear blame for not adequately dealing with security and smuggling problems on the southern border long ago.

 

Both sides will deserve added blame if they fail to hammer out a compromise which is the only way that standoffs like this get resolved. But for Democrats to say that any funding for a wall is off the table ends any hope for a compromise.

January 28, 2019

 

Such Language!

The Blue Wave’s Blue Language—————

                A commentary

                By J.F. Kelly, Jr.

Here come the Democrats to take control of the junior chamber of Congress, vowing to impeach the lawfully-elected president of the United States and turn the country into a welfare state with open borders. Some newly-elected members of the House of Representatives are acting as if they actually have the power to do much of anything in a legislative chamber where seniority determines who actually wields power.

 

Some of them displayed a disgraceful lack of manners and respect for the office to which they were elected, the people whom they represent and the institution they are privileged to serve, not to mention the president. A poster girl for this new brand of politician is Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who, on the very day she was sworn in as the first female Muslin Palestinian-American to become a member of Congress, referred to our president by a term so obscene and vulgar that it can’t be repeated or re-printed, even by the liberal media, as she vowed to help impeach him.

 

She used the disgusting label, moreover, in describing a conversation with her young child in which she quoted herself as saying “Baby, they (bullies) don’t (win) because we’re gonna go in there and impeach the m—–f—–). Sacre bleu! Such talk! That incident will surely follow her throughout her entire, hopefully brief, political career as an example of the coarsening of American politics. My question is, couldn’t the good and decent people of the Michigan congressional district, that made the mistake of electing her, do any better? Ms. Tlaib, who has been described by some in the media as anti-Semitic, refused to apologize and says she stands by her words. Does that mean that such talk will continue? Is that OK with Democrat leaders?

 

Apparently so. California’s Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who just regained the speaker’s gavel, was queried regarding this public vulgarity. Her response was rather pathetic. She herself doesn’t use that kind of language, she said. Wow, that’s a relief. However, neither does she censor others. Well, how about a vote of censure then for the rookie congresswoman whose filthy language brought discredit on the House? This is the same Speaker Pelosi whose moral sensibilities are offended by walls. So why does she have walls on her own property? And if they are immoral, should we tear down the miles of wall that already exist on the southern border, notably in the San Diego sector? Can you imagine the human stampede and chaos that would follow?

 

Then there is the socialist freshman representative from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who wants to tax the rich at 70% and provide Medicare for all which would send federal debt through the roof. Perhaps she is too young to realize that every time we significantly raise taxes, net government revenue declines because the affluent find ways to shelter income, aided by legislators of both parties who, anxious for their support and campaign contributions, legislate loopholes to help them shelter it. Conversely, when taxes are lowered, net government revenue increases because more people invest more in the economy rather than sheltering it, generating business and jobs, just as the tax cuts are doing now.

 

The newly-elected blue wave of Democrat activists are already shaking their tiny fists, believing that they have a mandate to impeach the president. They have no such mandate. They were elected to represent all the people of the congressional district whom they represent, not just the ones who voted for them or who wish to see the president impeached. If they intend to waste their time and efforts on futile attempts to impeach the president which will not succeed with a Republican-controlled Senate, they will be doing the nation, their party and their own careers a huge disservice and their careers will be blessedly brief.

 

Meanwhile, the partial government shutdown over funding for the border wall/fence/barrier/whatever continues and people suffer because of the failure of elected officials to do their job. This situation cries out for compromise. We already have miles of wall on the border. The Border Patrol experts, not the political hacks and their staffers and immigration activists, say that they work by making it easier to patrol and spot violations. That’s good enough for me, so why not give the president some of what he asked to build some of it where the experts say it is most needed and end the partial shutdown before it gets any uglier than it already is. It’s called a compromise. It isn’t that hard, Speaker Pelosi, so just do it.

January 24, 2019

 

The Great Wall Debate

The Battle of the Border————————

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The new year started off on a sour note with another partial government shutdown in effect and a population deeply divided over who is to blame and immigration and asylum policy in general. So far, prospects for a happy new year seem a bit cloudy, especially for those furloughed government workers and others working without pay.

 

Democrats in Congress have refused to provide any funding for what they and the liberal media describe as Trump’s wall. The issue is the wall itself and the fact that Trump wants it, not the amount of funding which is modest compared to some of the things government wastes money on. They may pontificate over the moral aspects of building a border wall, its limitations with regard to deterring illegal immigration and whether it would be a waste of money, but the fact is many Democrats supported a wall before Trump made it the signature promise of his presidential campaign.

Besides, we already have a wall on portions of the southern border as anyone who has who has toured the border in the San Diego region can plainly see. It clearly has deterred many illegal border crossings there and elsewhere along the border because walls make it easier and safer for Border Patrol agents to patrol it. Is a concrete wall needed along the entire southern border? Probably not. A fence or some other physical barrier or even just electronic and drone surveillance might suffice in some remote areas. A see-through system of vertical steel slats would enable agents to keep track of what’s happening on the other side. The professionals who patrol the border are the experts in determining what type of barrier is needed and what works best in different terrains.

 

 

Call it a wall, fence or the more inclusive term, physical barrier, whatever name you want to call it, it is needed. Just ask any Border Patrol agent. Any fool knows that it won’t completely solve the illegal immigration problem but it will help deter illegal and dangerous border crossings and aid the Border Patrol in doing its job. Property owners, including those who oppose the border wall, often erect walls around their property that, while not impenetrable, send a visible message that those who violate them are trespassing and are subject to prosecution.

 

 

It would be useful, I believe, if President Trump would address the people directly on this issue, not on social media, but on national TV. He should spell out what he means by a wall or physical barrier and how it contributes to security at the border, saves lives and makes it easier and safer for the Border Patrol agents. He should also indicate how much initial funding he is willing to settle for. Something up to $5 billion would be a small price for reopening government. If he shut down the border entirely, as he has threatened, it could cost the economy that much in a week.

 

 

As of this writing, the two sides remain far apart. The president and first lady cancelled their holiday vacation plans and remained in the White House awaiting action by Congress on any compromise funding bill that would contain some money for a physical barrier. Instead of a compromise offer, most members just fled Washington for the holidays. Not one cent for a border wall, say Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi because that would be giving in to President Trump and they are confident that he, not the Democrats, will be blamed for the government shutdown. They would do well to remember, however, that while Mr. Trump’s popular approval percentage is low, Congress is rated even lower. The last thing a new Democrat-led House of Representatives needs is a continued government shutdown., Any legislation that they might craft designed to end the shutdown without some funding for the wall will likely face defeat in the Republican-controlled Senate or be vetoed by the President.

 

Meanwhile, it’s the nation that suffers from this impasse while Republicans and Democrats play a game of chicken to see who blinks first. This is no way to run a government. Let’s have a compromise.

January 17, 2019

A White House Wonderland

Chaos in the Capitol—————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

By now everyone, from his supporters to his detractors knows, or should know, that the only thing predictable about Donald Trump is his unpredictability. That trait may be useful in poker or negotiating real estate transactions but as a technique for governing, it stinks. I’ll concede that unpredictability may have helped shake things up at first in a Washington that badly needed some shaking up but it is a dangerous strategy to use on your allies or on members of your own team of advisors. Governments, like markets, hate unpredictability but that’s what they’re getting and it’s causing chaos.

 

Being the chief executive of the world’s most powerful nation and largest economy is vastly different from running a real estate business. If requires some knowledge of how the branches of government are supposed to work together to get things done and Mr. Trump took office with no experience in government. He was, consequently, heavily dependent upon advisors from the very outset. Initially, he surrounded himself with a variety of knowledgeable advisors reflecting a variety of viewpoints, some at variance with his own, frequently-changing views. Among them were senior retired generals with extensive military experience, experience which Mr. Trump totally lacks. Can you believe he actually thought that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the nation’s senior military officer, made about $5 million in salary a year, according to a Washington Post and Navy Times report? (The position pays less than $200,000.) He also bragged, wrongly, that he gave the military its first pay raise in a decade. Not so.

 

In a dangerous world, a president with no military experience, needs plenty of advice from those who actually have some. At first Mr. Trump boasted about “his generals”. Among the best of them were John Kelly and James Mattis. The former, as his Chief of Staff, brought some order to a chaotic White House. The latter, as Defense Secretary, brought current and proven military experience to that department. Both are gone now as Mr. Trump increasingly surrounds himself only with those who agree with him and thus reinforce his own biases. The popular and highly capable Jim Mattis has essentially been fired, replaced by someone with no military experience.

 

Secretary Mattis tended his resignation after he reportedly was blindsided by the president’s precipitous decision to remove U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan. In announcing his decision to resign in February in order to provide time for a smooth turnover and plan a safe troop withdrawal, he thanked the president for the opportunity to serve and said that every president deserved someone in the position whose views were closely aligned with the president’s and his, emphatically, were not.  He should have known by now that this president would react to such criticism just as he did by ordering Mattis to leave by Dec. 31. Again, Mr. Trump’s temper got in the way of mature judgment and added ammunition to those who seek his removal from office.

 

The issue here is not so much the actual decision to withdraw troops as it is the fact that this sudden decision blindsided allies and a key advisor and cabinet member. When will the next surprise occur? How can allies trust this government to honor agreements? How can his own team members plan and do their job well under such a chaotic and undisciplined decision maker?

 

All this took place in the midst of a partial government shutdown, the third of 2018, which included, of all things, the Department of Homeland Security, the department responsible for security at the southern border as well as the Coast Guard, at a time when we are dealing with an immigration crisis. The issue supposedly is funding for the border wall or fence or whatever one wishes to call it, which Trump campaigned for successfully. But funding isn’t really the issue. Mr. Trump would probably settle for something less than the $5 billion he requested. Democrats, many of whom once supported a wall before Trump said he wanted one, could have avoided this stupid shutdown by providing at least some funding for it. The previous Democrat administration wasted a lot more than $5 billion on recovery programs that didn’t work. The issue is now the wall itself which Democrats now oppose for purely political reasons. It’s ironic, indeed, that the wall, intended to deter dangerous illegal crossings, now divides Americans and contributes to the chaos in Washington.

January 9, 2019

New Years Resolutions

Resolutions for the New Year—————————

                A Commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As has been my custom over the years, I offer herewith suggested resolutions for the new year for those who may be too busy to come up with their own. Feel free to pick and choose and don’t be too hard on yourselves if you sometimes fail to keep them. Most people do fail. We’re human.

 

First and foremost, we might all resolve to do our part to help reduce the bitterness that so often seems to accompany any discussion over national issues we disagree on. We can at least make the effort to listen to those we with whom we disagree rather than just focusing on what we’re going to say in rebuttal. We may not find opposing arguments persuasive, but at least we may better understand where the other person is coming from and perhaps learn something new in the process. Young people may especially benefit from this advice. Refusing to listen to opposing views or shouting them down does not lend credibility to you or to your viewpoint. Neither does attacking the person rather than the viewpoint.

 

Politicians should resolve to remember that their main purpose in office is to serve the people that elected them and the region that they represent, not to attain and preserve power and build a career. Our founders did not envision politics as a lifelong career but rather as an opportunity to serve their country and the citizens they represent. There is a servant aspect to leadership and it is conspicuously absent among many officeholders today. We are much too consumed by partisan politics in America today and it is increasing divisions among us. Officeholders spend far too much time building careers and posturing for reelection instead of doing what they were elected to do.

 

Congratulations to Democrats who won midterm elections. Your party will control the House of Representatives, the People’s House. Resolve to remember that you were elected to serve the people you represent, not some party mandate like impeaching the president or opposing everything he favors, Such mandates do not constitute a strategy for governing. Crafting quality legislation that a majority can support and that addresses America’s real needs is your job. Don’t waste the next two years on efforts to impeach the president that will never survive in a GOP-controlled Senate but will further divide the country and give comfort to China, Russia and others whose goals include sowing in Americans a distrust of their leaders and our democratic form of government.

 

By the same token, Republicans should resolve to cease efforts to get Hillary Clinton convicted of something. Whether or not you feel that she committed serious errors in judgment, it is dangerous policy to seek criminal sanctions against political enemies who held high office. It invites retribution and discourages talented people from running for high office. It reduces us to the level of totalitarian dictatorships and banana republics whose leaders often cling to power because their freedom may depend upon retaining that power.

 

Too many colleges and universities have become centers of liberal thinking. Surveys consistently show that faculties and administrative staffs consist overwhelmingly of liberals. Conservatives are, to put it mildly, underrepresented. Students should be exposed to a variety of viewpoints including some they may disagree with. They should not be permitted to dictate who is allowed to speak on campus or to disrupt speakers with whom they disagree. While there should be no political litmus test for prospective faculty members, university leaders should resolve to seek more balance in faculties and ensure that students are exposed to a variety of views and philosophies.

 

Journalists should resolve to be more objective in reporting news. A news story should deal with facts and observations, not the reporter’s personal opinions. Op-eds, columns and editorials, not news stories, are the places for the writer’s opinions. Too many news stories today are laced with adjectives and phrases that reveal, sometimes subtly, sometimes less so, the reporter’s bias. Too many headlines reveal the newspaper’s political biases. This is what critics mean by fake news. It reduces their faith in the media to report the news accurately. Journalists should start taking more of that criticism seriously.

 

Finally, all of us should resolve to reflect on our news sources. Our own political viewpoints are influenced largely by them. If we always read, watch and listen to commentaries, editorials from the same sources just because we agree with them, then we are just reinforcing our own biases.

 

May your new year be happy, safe, healthy and relatively stress-free.

January 3, 2019