RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-baseless-trite-arguments-against-walls/

Of all of the flatulent memes that have been running low on gas since the late 1960s, the most aggravating — against stiff competition — are probably all variations on “Build bridges not walls.” The bridge I must cross most often in an average year is Westminster Bridge. Since a jihadist plowed a car along the pavements of one side of the Westminster Bridge (killing and wounding dozens of locals and tourists) a couple of years ago, it has been covered in walls. Specifically, it has been covered in metal crash barriers erected to stop replays of that incident. So as I find myself reminded on a weekly basis at least, when it comes to bridges and walls, the world is not necessarily an either/or choice. Who could have guessed?

Well, a lot of the president’s opponents by the sound of it. There are satisfactory arguments on both sides about the utility of building a wall along the southern border of the U.S. My personal view is that since the president was partly elected on the promise of building this wall, he should probably get a chance to build it and give at least some voters what they asked for.

But it is not the practical but the moral objections to the president’s initiative that are so unutterably tired. For instance, one objection just made by Nancy Pelosi is that building a wall is “an immorality” and “not who we are as a nation.” Walls are also, according to Pelosi an “old way of thinking.”

In fact, in Europe — among many other places — walls are not an old way of thinking at all. In fact, they are a much newer way of thinking than anything Nancy Pelosi is offering. Since the European migrant crisis was at its height in 2015, countries across central and eastern Europe have begun erecting walls. I have gone to see a number of them, and very smart, modern fence-like things they are, with movement-detectors, drones to fly overhead, and more. When the Hungarian government erected their first wall (having had hundreds of thousands of people pour across their previously un-walled borders in a few months), they received some criticism from their neighbors.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/41874/nancy-pelosi-says-wall-immorality-james-woods-asks-amanda-prestigiacomo
Pelosi is not alone regarding such double standards, of course. A house owned by the Obamas is barricaded by a ten-foot tall wall, too.
Reacting to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s anti-Trump and anti-wall speech last week, successful actor and outspoken conservative James Woods asked the Democrat one simple question: Why do you have a wall around your property, then?

Like many politicians, Pelosi apparently lives by a set of politically-expedient double standards. Though she has repeatedly slammed President Donald Trump for his goal of funding a wall at the Southern border, calling it an “immorality,” she’s perfectly fine with securing her own property.

“The fact is, a wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation,” Pelosi told a crowd of reporters Thursday. “We are not doing a wall. Does anybody have any doubt? We are not doing a wall,” she added.

Woods replied to the tweet, asking, “Well, then, why do you have one?”

According to a report from right-wing outlet The American Mirror in 2018 (see photos, here), and begrudgingly backed by left-wing fact-checking site Snopes, Pelosi has a barrier around a multi-million dollar property she and her husband own in Napa Valley.

According to The Washington Post, the estate was worth around $5 million in 2011, and brought in “at least $5,000 worth of grape sales from the vineyard, according to financial disclosure forms for 2010.” (Nancy and Paul Pelosi, by the way, are estimated to be worth somewhere between $58.7 and $72.1 million.)

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272473/opposition-border-wall-opposition-public-safety-michael-cutler

The battle between the Congressional Democrats and the Trump administration continues over the construction of a border wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

Many political battles are fought over hypothetical arguments. This debate, however, is well-grounded in cold, hard, irrefutable facts and in the deaths of far too many innocent people, who have fallen victim to aliens who entered the United States illegally, often repeatedly.

Let me be clear, in my judgement, the Democrats have left the administration with no choice but to take the action of shutting down a part of the government. As a former INS agent I can certainly empathize with the federal employees. All too frequently the employees of the government suffer from the bad decisions of our political leaders. However, America faces many threats and challenges that are the direct result of multiple failures of the immigration system and our nation must finally address these failures beginning with securing our borders.

The most critical issues that the federal government must address are national security and public safety.

On January 3, 2019 I participated in an interview of Fox & Friends First to discuss the senseless murder of 33 year old police officer Ronil Singh, from Newman, California, by a citizen of Mexico who was allegedly an illegal alien: 32 year old Gustavo Perez-Arriaga.

The Washington Post’s December 29, 2018 article, Suspect, 7 others, arrested in fatal shooting of California police officer, noted that this arrest that has sparked a debate about California’s sanctuary policies began with this excerpt:

The arrest Friday of a man in the shooting death of a California police officer has renewed criticism of sanctuary laws, with a local sheriff suggesting that the state’s efforts to protect undocumented immigrants could have contributed to the killing.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga, a 32-year-old undocumented immigrant, was charged with homicide in connection with the shooting death of 33-year-old Newman police officer Ronil Singh, according to law enforcement.

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson assailed sanctuary laws that limit state and local governments’ cooperation with federal immigration agents, but he did not detail how those rules applied to Perez’s case or how they would have prevented Singh’s death.