PLEASE, NO MORE 'BORDER SECURITY'
January 2, 2019
The media are trying to convince Trump that if he abandons the wall, he'll be a statesman, so that as soon as he folds, they can start making fun of him as an untrustworthy liar.
Everyone knows that we can never have a secure border without an impermeable barrier -- something like a wall -- across all of it. The Democrats know it, the voters know it, and the millions of illegals hurtling toward our border like cannonballs know it.
The Democrats' latest idea is to call a wall "immoral, ineffective and expensive."
If they think a wall is "immoral," then they're admitting it's effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States.
Democrats' backup argument is to cite -- every four minutes on MSNBC -- Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for the wall. We're all baffled by Trump not having already taxed remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall (100 percent within the president's authority under various banking regulations), but if we're going to start listing the promises Trump hasn't kept, this is going to be a long column.
In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.
To keep the Third World masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific "border security." It's like ordering a Starbucks and instead of getting a coffee, you're told to have more "pep." Now move along. Here's your change.
Would liberals accept such airy statements of intent in lieu of clear legal commands for any of the things they care about? (Not to be confused with "our country," which they do not care about.)
Instead of EPA emissions standards, with specific parts per million of pollutants allowed into lakes and rivers, how about a law promoting "enhanced appreciation of God's bounty"? Emissions standards are immoral and ineffective!
more
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-01-02.html#read_more
