Ann Coulter is too “black pill” sometimes

Ann Coulter plays a valuable role vis-à-vis Trump: She keeps him honest on immigration. It’s good to have people on your side who always remember to keep the pressure on in the right direction.

But.

Coulter’s latest Goes Too Far.

She has believed the hysterical worst-case interpretations of the recently signed budget deal without reading what it actually says. I understand the reaction because that was my reaction at first too. But check out the links below that actually get into the details. The upshot is that while it has some bad features, it’s not the disaster that some on the right believe. Read the actual text, and listen to what actual LEOs say, people!

(1) At Fox News, a DHS official provides a per contrarum on the poison pill alarm:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-official-border-security-bill-does-not-contain-amnesty-poison-pills

(2) Your humble blog proprietor: Wall Good, Budget Bill Bad, But Maybe Not as Bad as Feared:
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/wall-good-budget-bill-bad-but-maybe-not-as-bad-as-feared/

The second problem with Coulter’s piece is that she simply ignores that Trump has gotten funding for the wall, and has declared an emergency to free up more funding!

She says,

“Trump also promised an executive order on anchor babies. As with the wall, we’re still waiting.”

President Trump has declared a state of emergency, you silly goose! He’s doing it! Coulter, you don’t have to worry that he might not declare a state of emergency to build more wall: He did it! He. Has. Done. It. It has been done!

You can relax about that! Yes, we on the right have been burned many times over the decades. Yes, we must always stay vigilant for betrayal; we can never let our guard down. But it’s counterproductive, and bad for morale, when your vigilance is so extreme that you won’t let yourself perceive victories, but force yourself to hallucinate that they’re actually defeats.

It’s one thing to have a sensitive betrayal detection system. That’s appropriate, given how often we’ve been betrayed in the past.

But it’s another thing to have a betrayal detection system that always says “This is a betrayal!” no matter what happens. That’s not a “detection system.”

When your “detection system” looks like this:

CoulterCalmDown

Then something has gone wrong.

For fuck’s sake, Coulter, false negatives are a problem, but so are false positives! We’ve got to try to be accurate.

And when you shriek that everything is a poison pill, your warnings about the real poison pills – there are some in the bill – will be drowned out in the noise, or simply ignored.

Now get back on track, will you? Year in and year out, you’re one of the more valuable voices on the right. And a major reason for this is that you’re usually so fact-based and knowledgeable.

Stay vigilant, but please, cut out the hysteria.

Advertisements

The bill contains a poison pill. Trump should use Emergency funds to get around it.

The short version: The bill says that in certain areas in Texas, “You can’t spend this bill’s wall money before September 30, 2019, and you can’t spend it after September 30, 2019 either.” And you can’t spend it on September 30, 2019 unless the word “until” is interpreted in a certain way.

The details:

From the bill:

SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.
7 The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out
8 of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
9 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019.

And

SEC. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the
current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.

Here are the specifics on the already-infamous “negotiate until September” part of the bill:

SEC. 232. (a) Prior to use of any funds made avail-
able by this Act for the construction of physical barriers
within the city limits of any city or census designated place
described in subsection ( c)
[SEE BELOW], the Department of Homeland
Security and the local elected officials of such a city or
census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mu-
tual agreement regarding the design and alignment of
physical barriers within that city or the census designated
place (as the case may be). Such consultations shall con-
tinue until September 30, 2019 ( or until agreement is
reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date
by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available
in this Act shall be used for such construction while con-
sultations are continuing.

This literally runs down the clock until the funds can no longer be spent.

Although:
SEC. 505. Except as otherwise specifically provided
by law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2019, as re-
corded in the financial records at the time of a reprogram-
ming notification, but not later than June 30, 2020, from
appropriations for “Operations and Support” for fiscal
year 2019 in this Act shall remain available through Sep-
tember 30, 2020, in the account and for the purposes for
which the appropriations were provided…

So if I understand all this, it means that any amount of money that Trump would like to apply to wall in the specifically-mentioned areas in Texas (see below), cannot be spent, unless

(1) the “local elected officials” in those areas are amenable to an agreement before 9/30/19 (I suspect they’re all heavily Hispanic that near the border, and therefore Dem. One of them, Salineno, is more than 99% Hispanic.)
or
(2) Trump can swing a way to build the wall outside of the “city or the census designated place”
or
(3) he simply uses funds freed up by the emergency declaration
or
(4) we can use half the desired funds, up through 9/30/2020. Hmm, does that mean the good guys can simply request double the money they think they need for those areas, then get half of that?

Also, what exactly does it mean for funds to be appropriated, obligated, encumbered, and/or authorized? All these terms come up in budgeting, and it’s not clear what exactly their import would be in this context. Can funds be requested/ encumbered/ whatever for wall even while “consultations” are underway? Any accountants out there who want to chime in?

Let’s look at the specific places mentioned. From later in Section 232:

(c) The cities and census designated place described
in this subsection are as follows:
(1) Roma, Texas.
(2) Rio Grande City, Texas.
(3) Escobares, Texas.
( 4) La Grulla, Texas.
(5) The census designated place of Salineno, Texas.

The second hit in Google for Roma, Texas is

Roma, Texas: A Smuggler’s Paradise

Fucking great.

Roma borders the Rio Grande, i.e. borders Mexico:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Roma,+TX+78584/@26.4217324,-99.039651,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86646e1008049ee3:0xe66708d7b6fcc558!8m2!3d26.4088523!4d-99.0156554
so there’s no way to build wall along that stretch of border without it being within city limits.

This is a naked, blatant requirement that illegal immigration be allowed to continue in that town. Presumably it’s the same for the others.

From online maps:
I guesstimate the total Mexican border of Roma at 3 miles.
Escobares, 1 mile.
Rio Grande City, about 3 miles.
La Grulla, less than 500 feet. The city is weirdly gerrymandered so that it has a long, thin arm that stretches to the Rio Grande.
The census designated place of Salineno, Texas. About 1.5 miles.

There are things that can be done, as noted above, and this bill doesn’t make the situation worse. But still:

President Trump should make public the cheap trick in this bad faith bill. Use Twitter, use a special address, use the White House web page, everything. By any reasonable standard, he now has carte blanche to stop “negotiating” with Democrats and to go “unilateral” on anything pertaining to immigration and border security.

Wall Good, Budget Bill Bad, But Maybe Not as Bad as Feared

Wall good. “Compromise budget bill” bad, but perhaps not nearly as bad as early reports indicated.

Here’s the text of the bill, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019.” It’s more than 1,000 pages, pdf file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYQ-X1tQhWe4uPUi1odmN-IiMAliJBvs/view?usp=sharing
(Note if you’re re-directed to https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYQ-X1tQhWe4uPUi1odmN-IiMAliJBvs/view, the word search function doesn’t work. I had to download a copy to do searches.)

(Found via https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/shutdown-watch-latest-congress-vote-today-government-funding-bill-2019-02-14-live-updates/ Props to CBS for providing the link, which no other “news” source did.)

1) I did a word search for sponsor in the text of the bill, found this:

SEC. 224. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act
12 or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the
13 Treasury of the United States derived by the collection
14 of fees available to the components funded by this Act,
15 may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
16 place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether
17 to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal pro-
18 ceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member
19 of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an un-
20 accompanied alien child ( as defined in section 462 (g) of
21 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g)))
22 based on information shared by the Secretary of Health
23 and Human Services.

I think that “based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services” is key. If you ignore that, then this says that an illegal just has to say “I live in a household with a potential sponsor of a minor, so you can’t deport me.” But look at that last clause. That seems to just mean that if a person shows up in an HHS database of STDs or something and ICE gets their hands on that database, they can’t deport the person based solely on that info. Hmm. Why the fuck Congress wants to protect people running around with herpes (or fucking Ebola or whatever) is beyond me, but hey, they’re leftists: The less sense it makes, the more they like it.

2) SEC. 231. None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction of pedestrian fencing-
(1) within the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge;
(2) within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park;
(3) within La Lomita Historical park;
(4) within the National Butterfly Center; or
(5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

First, note that “None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction.” That doesn’t say anything about funds re-allocated by, oh I don’t know, let’s say an Emergency declaration by the President! For those of you who just got back from a trip to Epsilon Eridani, he pulled the trigger on that earlier today! FUCKING SWEET!

Second, I checked the size and location of these areas, to get at their importance to invaders. To an extent, enforcement manpower can be substituted for a wall, of course. So it depends on the length of border that’s left un-walled by this part. Here’s what I found, which is basically that it only amounts to a few miles:

(1) The Santa Ana one: This border is on the Rio Grande. It’s hard to judge scale, but I think, judging from Google maps, the arc length of the winding river border would work out to a couple of miles.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Santa+Ana+National+Wildlife+Refuge/@26.0665944,-98.1685208,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xb06ad8e91077e584!8m2!3d26.0732056!4d-98.1495308

(2) the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park looks to be about 1,500 feet of border:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bentsen-Rio+Grande+Valley+State+Park/@26.1676323,-98.3895777,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86650759cb11cce1:0x3b257ea3108a5124!8m2!3d26.185498!4d-98.3794443

And the park does not actually abut the Rio Grande. There’s some space in between the edge of the park and the river. Now read the language again: barrier cannot be built “within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park.” So this is fine as long as Trumpy and his homies realize it. And of course they will, since the first thing they’ll do is bust out a map and look at all this stuff. In fact, one hopes that’s what they did in the first place.

(3) within La Lomita Historical park: This is a tiny little thing, and it doesn’t abut the border anyway: https://www.google.com/maps/place/La+Lomita+Historical+Park,+Mission,+TX+78572/@26.1575951,-98.3330924,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x86650794d543f425:0xf6c385194f8a9c4c!8m2!3d26.157631!4d-98.330918

(4) within the National Butterfly Center: The Google map only shows the main building, and you can’t tell whether the park abuts the US-Mexico border.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/National+Butterfly+Center/@26.1798398,-98.3675923,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8665a9d8fb962ef9:0x4f83ecdabad3ac0d!8m2!3d26.179835!4d-98.3664926
Here’s the map at the Center’s webpage. It looks like it abuts the Rio Grande, so yes, it abuts the border: https://www.nationalbutterflycenter.org/about-nbc/maps-directions

And apparently wall segments were going to go up there, so it was a desirable place for a wall. Grrr. https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/politics/article/Wall-construction-spotted-near-McAllen-13616604.php

“Heavy equipment operators began bulldozing trees in recent days near the city of Mission under a contract to build 6 miles of wall that eventually was to cut through the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley park and the butterfly center.
The 6-mile section is part of a project approved by Congress last year to build 33 miles of wall in the Rio Grande Valley.
Cuellar’s budget amendment voids wall-construction contracts in the protected areas.
…The sites hug the Rio Grande…”

Asshole. But manageable.

(5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Not sure about this. Doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the border. This is puzzling, or it’s a clever ploy to literally forbid any wall “east of” that point at all, as opposed to “east of” it within the Refuge.
https://www.google.com/maps/search/Lower+Rio+Grande+Valley+National+Wildlife+Refuge,+vista+del+mar/@26.1152364,-97.8131186,11z
The Refuge does not border Mexico. A prohibition on a wall “east of” the refuge can simply be avoided by noting that one would want to build a wall to the southeast, not to the east.

So yeah, some stretches will be wall-less, but they only amount to a few miles, and with wall going up elsewhere, manpower can be re-assigned to wall-less stretches to an extent. So, an inconvenience, not a disaster.

3) Requires Trump Admin to try to negotiate with local officials until September 2019 or until an agreement is reached. As a practical matter, this means we can’t start building it in certain places until September:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/14/gop-dem-deal-trump-must-have-approval-from-left-wing-county-to-build-wall/
Well, that’s obnoxious, but some people were resigned to waiting that long anyway.

I want to check some other shit then maybe will update or add a second post later.

Addendum February 23, 2019: A DHS official explains why people shouldn’t panic over this bill:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-official-border-security-bill-does-not-contain-amnesty-poison-pills

Trump Bends the Dems over…a Wall

trump

President Trump’s speech today was a thing of beauty. He ass-raped the Dems on optics.

I watched it live. When he was only about 2/3 done, a scroll at the bottom of the screen appeared, saying “Pelosi calls Trump deal a non-starter.” Before he even finished saying what his proposed deal was!

Now he’s the guy who offered a compromise, but they said “No!” so he has no choice but to build the wall unilaterally.

Or he can just let the shutdown roll on, but now the Dems own it.

Or freakin’ both. There’s no reason Trump can’t direct the military to start building the Wall and continue holding firm on the shutdown. If Dems are assuming he’ll only do at most one of those things, they’re too used to dealing with establishment cuck Republicans.

(At the very least, as someone at Vox Popoli suggested, the President could defer deciding whether to sign a budget bill until after the Democrats’ pet judge hands down a “ruling” on the emergency wall funding. Judge nixes it? Then the shutdown continues, hurting Dem voters the most. Heh heh. More on the inevitable confrontations with the judiciary below.)

The President knew, of course, that it was almost certain the Dems would reject his proposal, so I’ll pre-emptively swat down any black-pill notion that he seriously wanted the 3-year extension of DACA. And he loaded up his proposal with so much good stuff – not budging an inch on the wall funding of $5.7 billion, adding thousands more border enforcement agents – that it wouldn’t have been horrible even if they’d accepted it. But really, he knew they wouldn’t.

Another commenter at Vox Pop: “Trump is playing with them.” Yes, he is. The most remarkable thing about his speech is that he managed to deliver it with a straight face.

pelosicorner

The black-pill crowd in the right-osphere is saying, “Wah, I want the wall now!” Me too, but people, battle-space preparation. Think about what it comes down to, if President Trump declares a national emergency and funds the wall with military funds, and tells the Army to start building it. The Dems will instantly get a judge to say this is illegal.

Then Trump says to the Army, “The judge doesn’t have jurisdiction over this matter; I as the President have jurisdiction.”

At that point it comes down to actual Army privates with their hands on the shovels having to decide whether to heed the judge or the President.

If any decide to disobey the President, they can and will be subjected to military discipline, I trust. Obviously there won’t be many, if any. But the point is: The fewer such soldiers there are, the easier our task is, and the more swift, sure, and overwhelming our victory. The more thoroughly we crush the left, the better.

Trump’s proposal and the Dems’ predictable lunatic response preps the soldiers to see the truth, that our side is the reasonable side and the other side is insane. The more obvious it is that the Dems are beyond the pale, the more of those hands-on-shovels privates are on our side.

The President is raping the Dems so hard that I wonder what the fuck they’re even thinking. Perhaps they’re hoping they can force him to go the emergency route and then get a judge to swat it down, and he will cave in. If so, they’re putting all their chips on the table and betting everything that he won’t go Jackson.

Plainly, at some point the President will have to go Jackson on the judiciary. The judiciary is an enemy camp. We can’t simply let a bunch of – unelected! – judges say, “Sorry, the U.S. is not allowed to have borders.” That is so insane, so unreasonable on its face that it’s absolutely worth provoking a constitutional crisis over. There are few things that judges are likely to do that would be more obviously casus belli for a Constitutional crisis or even civil war. I just hope the President understands that.

We’ll win. How many liberals are actually willing to fight, as in risking death in a hot civil war, over “The U.S. doesn’t have a right to control its own borders.” LOL. All we have to do is make it clear that we aren’t going to back down, that we actually ARE willing to fight over this.

The judiciary is a minefield for the left anyway, given Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s rapidly deteriorating health. Tick tock, Ruth.

Meanwhile, I think a palace rebellion that ousts Pelosi from her Speaker position is increasingly likely as Dems’ constituents start screaming at them due to the shutdown blocking their gibs. Or a false flag assassination of Pelosi by the left, designed to look like it was done by the right. It’s absolutely the sort of thing they’d do.

Barring that, until she and the other Dems cave in to reality, it’s “Squeal like a pig, Nancy!”

Who Supports Walls?

Every now and then some fuck-witted liberal, or occasionally a libertarian, will say that the human species really is not that violent, and that we’d all just get along if only (etc.).

This is dangerously naive. Anthropologists, before modern political correctness became a big problem, documented how very murderous our species is. There are cases in which a village in Africa will do a night raid on another village and kill every man, woman, and child in it. Also, western intellectuals sometimes say (either with self-flagellating guilt or chest-puffing pride) that Western culture’s militaries are the world’s deadliest. Well, in terms of raw numbers I’m inclined to believe that (if we ignore Mao, anyway), but it seems to be just a fact about military technology. In proportional terms were are not especially lethal.
(The content of this paragraph is drawn from Steven Pinker’s wonderfully heterodox The Blank Slate.)

This also explains why people who aren’t completely insane have a gut-level instinct against admitting people from other cultures into their societies, at least in large numbers. That’s an instinct, plainly; it’s not learned, no matter many idiots insist it is leaned. Consider those African night raids again.

In this regard, the difference between male and female instincts is, once again, clear and relevant. Men vote against invaders and political groups that want to admit invaders. Women are more complicated. I have noted before that many women will work to admit invaders into their home societies so they can play a game of Let’s You and Him Fight. For real-world examples see the USA and Western Europe lately. For a fictional example see my review of Justina Robson’s Keeping It Real.

Note, though, that while men clearly want to exclude invaders, women are split. In the 2016 election, “only” 43% of white women voted for the pro-invasion candidate. 53% of white women voted for the anti-invader candidate. The rest threw their vote away on third party candidates rather than vote for the pro-invader candidate the media was telling them to vote for. This has to do with the African slaughter I mentioned above: Women are sometimes prizes in war, but sometimes victims of war. Being invaded is a gamble from a woman’s point of view. From a man’s point of view it’s always bad.

Thus we have some women in some contexts supporting invasion of their own societies; other women in other contexts oppose it.

It is also a fact that women try to gain sexual access to alpha men and prevent contact with beta men. This affects sexual harassment procedure, mostly designed by women, as it applies to the workplace, e.g. They try to exclude sub-alpha males from social-sexual contact with them. The point is, women don’t always want an influx of any men into their sanctuaries. Reproductive optimization from a female’s point of view is more complicated than that.

Additionally:

In Nash Equilibrium, we would not expect all women to be genetically programmed to issue society-threatening shit tests. The reason is that, if say half the women start such, the other half will also gain the knowledge or benefit from the results (whatever those benefits are). Furthermore, a woman who doesn’t shit test is more attractive to men than one who does. She free rides on the shit-testers, at their expense. Free riding generally plays the villain in discussions of human interactions, and often rightly so, but this is a case in which free riding has good consequences.

(A reminder to any chicks reading this: The fact that you find shit tests and the associated drama and strife to be fun and exciting, doesn’t mean that men do. Any more than the fact that dung beetles like eating poop means that you also like eating poop. Men and women are really different, biologically different.)

It might be objected that maybe there is just one kind of psychology of shit testing, so any woman who has the “shit testing genes,” i.e. all women, will potentially throw out a society-threatening shit test. But still: some women are more shit-testy, some less so.

San Francisco to Let Non-Citizens, Including Illegals, Vote

WHAT THE FUCK?

San Franciso to let non-citizens, including illegals, vote.

Monday the Department of Elections Issued Voter Registration Forms for non-citizens who are eligible to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the November 6th 2018 election. The measure passed in 2016 with a close vote of 54 percent to 46 percent following two failed previous attempts.

…“Third time was a charm,” said San Francisco School Board member Matt Haney.

Smug little bitch. In other words, “We didn’t like the decision the first two times, so we just kept re-doing it until we got the outcome we liked.” Even more plainly, “We don’t accept democracy unless the people vote they way we want.” Which is not democracy. This is another thing the Left does that must be squashed. The British Left keeps trying to do the same thing; they’re now saying the Brexit vote should be subjected to another referendum. Well, I don’t like the San Francisco outcome and I want yet another vote on it.

The San Francisco measure includes illegals, in that (1) the voter registration form has no provision to preclude illegals by making voters prove they’re here legally, and (2) the form includes a warning to illegals that voter rolls are public info so that ICE has access to them. But the way this is presented is not “So if you’re illegal you’d better not vote,” it’s more like, “So to protect you, we’re urging you to think about whether you can afford to take this risk.”

E.g., one treasonous asshole says,

“The victory is that San Franciscans voted for this. … But there is also a risk. So we as San Franciscans have set aside a fund to make sure that these immigrant communities are fully educated on their rights, but also their risks in this time and place in our country,” Fewer told the Chronicle.

Boston gets in on the act: Boston to hold vote on letting non-citizens vote.

This must be defeated.

It is a line we cannot allow to be crossed. To let this be normalized is to assent to the destruction of the American Republic: A couple of centuries ago we had a revolution to establish that we would not be ruled by foreigners. Now San Francisco and Boston want to undo all that, and let foreigners choose our government for us. And it will come down to that – there will be close elections in which the non-citizen vote makes the difference.

If we’re going to be conquered, for God’s sake let’s at least put up a fight and make them work for it.

Make no mistake, Mr. President, these are trial balloons. The Enemy is intently watching to see what happens. It must be squelched utterly. There can be not even one iota of compromise or handing them something they can point to as a face-saving victory. Letting the enemy “save face” is for some situations were you want them to sneak away instead of fighting. This already is a fight; it’s a test declaration that the United States people will be ruled by foreigners from now on. Jesus, that’s brazen. It cannot be allowed to stand. And the people who attempted it must be punished. If some or all of them are accidentally shot and killed resisting arrest… oh well.

And while this is partly a propaganda war – since it’s about whether having and enforcing borders is within the Overton Window – it’s not mainly a propaganda war. It is actual war. It doesn’t matter that the Enemy Media will be portraying you as a fascist for stopping this. They’re already calling you a traitor, and no one is paying attention to them anyway, but even if they were, it wouldn’t matter, because this is existential.

It’s not a fight we can choose not to pick.

The God-Emperor must do something, as in, send in the National Guard and arrest the Mayor of San Francisco, or whoever it was that drafted this measure and put it up to a vote.

And whether or not it is possible to kill this before the November elections, then we must at least make the Democrats pay the price for it politically. Specifically,

(1) For normal people this is a horrifying thing and we can tie it to the party responsible for it, the Dems, as they deserve. (Even better if we can prosecute them for it at them same time.)

(2) It does have a certain devastating effect on their Fake Outrage about how if Russia exposed Hillary’s corruption, that’s “foreign meddling” in our elections. Every time one of them says that, the GOP should speak with one voice: “So are you for San Francisco letting illegals vote?”

But the main thing is to do whatever is necessary to stop this at this early stage.