Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, January 7, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDlzKnZxHEs

Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution states that the US government must "protect" each State from "invasion". It goes on to include protection from "domestic violence", but that requires action from the Legislature, unless the Legislature can't convene, then the Executive branch must take action.

It does not say, "The US government may protect the people if it wants to. And, if the Legislature refuses to, then the President must allow anyone and everyone to just destroy whatever they want to." It also does not say, "...unless they really, really want to come into the country, and that's why they're invading." But, that's how House Democrats would like to have it interpreted.

What's happening at the southern border is an "invasion"—people from the outside coming in by force. The Constitution does not specify that the invasion must be a sanctioned, deputized, funded military force operating at the behest of a recognized State. Any and every kind of invasion must be stopped, by Legislature or otherwise.

The Legislature is only required for situations of domestic violence. But, even then, if the Legislature can "convene"—and it can—but disobeys this Constitutional requirement, that could be cause for an action of impeachment because they would be in violation of their oaths of office, to support the Constitution. Then, the power to stop domestic violence would fall to the Executive branch, namely the president.

Trump is well within his powers to declare an emergency and take executive action, but he might be Constitutionally required to begin impeachment proceedings against Congress if the border situation is regarded as domestic, not an "invasion" from non-US citizens. So, claiming that Congress is needed to build the wall would actually be an argument to indite Congress.

As for citizenship by birth, that applies only to children of parents "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Amendment XIV does not say, "Anyone can run from the police, sneak into the country, have a baby, then demand citizenship for that baby." But, that's how Congressional Democrats would like to have it interpreted.

The US is about to rediscover its Constitution, the document that united our nation at its founding. That could redefine the entire playing field of elections in the future.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, December 24, 2018

The government shutdown is good for Trump and good for the wall. He said what he meant and he meant he wasn't bluffing. Good, old fashion follow-through is one of DC's lost virtues. If the current budget isn't passed by the start of the new 116th Congress on January 3, then it will die. It already has approval of the White House and has passed the House. The quickest way to end the government shutdown is for the Senate to pass the bill.

Ultimately this is a game of "chicken". Either way, we should expect whining everyday.  The key to Congress surviving a government shutdown is the theater of talking everyday as if "today's the day" that the government will reopen. It's somewhat akin to the act that Democrats and drive-by news anchors put on about how "today's the day" when they will find the "silver bullet" to stop Trump.

There is no such silver bullet, not even today.

The main actors rising above the dust are the Kushners. Jared and Ivanka are drafting deals and growing coalitions, no matter their father's opponents. Their progress should be bigger news.

So, over Christmas, the worms of Capitol Hill take pot shots at each other and the president is referred to as a child for sticking to his promises, just as Clinton did when he vetoed the budget. One of the best kept secrets about government shutdowns is that the government doesn't actually shut down. To some, that's a disappointment. Even Mueller's investigation continues, but the Supreme Court might stuff coal in his stocking. The holiday season has many more surprises yet to come.

continue reading

Standard
Faux Report

BREAKING: Donald Trump Secretly Hired Illegal Immigrants To Start Building Border Wall

WASHINGTON, D.C. – 

Top secret documents leaked to the press by a White House staffer showed that President Trump ordered the hiring of over 2,000 illegal immigrants to begin working on his border wall between Texas and Mexico. The documents, released to the press only hours ago, also stated that he was prepared to offer each worker upwards of $40 an hour.

“This is a goddamn outrage,” said construction worker Chris Thomas. “I have been bidding for the border wall job for nearly a year, and it’s the goddamn illegals that get the job? Isn’t the whole point of the wall to keep these sand people out of the fucking country?”

Trump released a statement on Twitter, stating that “all suspicion of illegals being used for labor at the border are false.” He went on to say that “Fake News” had struck again.

“I would never hire undocumented workers,” tweeted Trump. “The Fake News Media has struck again, and you’re all buying it. We don’t have any staffers in the WH that would leak that news, even if it were true.”

Standard
Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, April 30, 2018

Immigration is at the top of everything—news, speeches, law enforcement...

Building contractors hoping to get the contract for the Trump wall should be very pleased with this caravan of immigrants just arriving at the border, as should the Republican Party. With the failing Russianewsgategate investigation from Mueller, this immigrant caravan has almost guaranteed a contrary-to-the-norm Republican pickup in the 2018 election. Trump even knows that he can threaten to shut down the government to build the wall just before an election.

The interesting part of this caravan—as well as other illegal immigrant crackdown new stories—is that the caravan may actually believe that their journey will have the reverse affect that it's having. And, the news media also seems to think that reporting on illegal immigration crackdowns will make the public think that immigration is less of a problem. Perhaps the media and the marchers live in the same world. It makes sense since experience in one subculture can cause the reality of another subculture to become counterintuitive.

continue reading

Standard