If You Hate Trump, You Hate Obama Too

Note: This post has been updated a couple of times to reflect the changing nature of the topic.

I'll just dive into this whole immigration over reaction in the United States.

The trick here is to contextualize what's happened and what it's origins are.

This is a pretty thorny issue with several moving parts and one in which is waaayyy beyond most people's area of expertise no matter how smart they may sound.

What do I think? I think there is some room for legitimate criticism but overall it has snowballed into something beyond 'simple concern for the children'. Indeed, the overly woke and virtuous have taken this to another level of outrage so familiar on the left these days.


It's an issue that Congress has persistently chosen to not solve since the 1990s when illegal immigration was seen as an epidemic. It's worth noting Trump's rhetoric on the subject echoes that of Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Essentially, the system people are reacting to preceded Trump thus poking a hole in the notion this was Trump's doing and the bureaucracy fulfilling his orders had been hired years before. These things don't happen in a vacuum.  Past Presidents (including Bill Clinton) played their part.

This policy, from what I can discern, of how to house children and parents had been developed over decades (going back to the early 1980s), that the facilities had been built years before (two detention centres were built in 2014 under Obama - see link below). 

The issue of separating children from families taken out of context makes it worse than it is because it conveniently overlooks the role of past administrations that brought it to this point. Among one being circulated is the Illegal Immigration and Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act signed by Clinton (recall Presidents don't write laws; Congress does) in 1995. Clinton:

"Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."  
Not that far off from what Trump is saying. Albeit in a more, erm, blunt manner. Anyway, the Act doesn't make law to separate kids from their families. Crackdown on immigration reached an apex under Obama and Trump is looking to further build on that framework built to this point.

Even Obama's own high ranking official Cecilia Munoz basically said laws needed to be enforced!

There is no law "law" separating families. Children are separated and detained until it's determined if the adults are actually family or if they're found to have committed a crime. This has been the procedure all along. 

This is where we move from an argument about the law and who did what, when and why to flat out an emotional attack on Trump for political reasons.

Consider this piece from Neil MacDonald (not one to keep his emotions in check) and what I can't but consider a specious and long-winded ad hominen agaisnt a President and its citizens. I pick a Canadian example because this is the prevailing view among people.

Some very selective quotes:

"....Most of the criticism has invoked morality, or Christian values. But this president is clearly uninterested in either, despite his closeness to evangelical Christian leaders and his own avowal of faith.He's sensed that his voters, which are really what count, want ruthlessness, and that they can easily be persuaded to see it as patriotic: a notion he eagerly promotes."
This is a sophomoric attempt - a rather predictable one by leftists like MacDonald - at trying to convey the notion that somehow Christians (remember, Pence is open season for faux-centrist left-wingers like MacDonald) and Trump are hypocrites. 

I wonder if Neil was concerned when this was happening under Obama? Doubt it. 
For more insights on how this works go here.  That's Neil MacDonald in a nutshell. 
As for the ridiculous assertion that Trump voters (his 'base' as they like to call them) want 'ruthlessness' this is disingenuous at best. 
Thankfully, the more asinine the media gets, the more Americans are having none of it. Most blame the Feds for this because they probably know it's been happening for years and years despite the little narrative Neil is trying to pass here. In addition, 54% of Americans agree with the President. 
The bottom line is the parents of these people are knowingly breaking the law. They're the ones putting these children in such a position. If activists and progressives care so damn much they can go over and sponsor one of these kids. Alas, that won't happen now will it?
He continues:
"...Politicians, caught lying, used to at least stop repeating the lie, even if they wouldn't admit having lied. Being a proven liar was just too uncomfortable. No longer. Trump lies easily and overwhelmingly; he couldn't give a toss about fact-checkers, and neither do his supporters. The brazen lie is now of no more consequence than serial philandering or consorting with foreign enemies who want to corrupt elections.."
Before I go on here's a report in the Chicago Tribune: "Obama’s silky lie and FBI bias in the Clinton investigation." 

Want a mulligan Neil?

And how to treat a lie anyway? Well, with lies! In this instance, Neil applies the George Costanza 'it's not a lie if you believe it' theory. The media protected Obama's lies while going into over drive exaggerating Trump's lies. Notice how well represented the New York Times is on this list highlighting how the media misrepresents Trump.

Slight digression. I learnt this lesson years ago. I used to hear a lot about how 'evil' Rush Limbaugh was. After hearing it for the zillionth time, I began to wonder if it was true as I was getting fed second hand information from the media. So I decided to listen in for myself. No sooner than I did on the first day, the media completely misrepresented one of his comments. So much so I blurted to myself, 'that's not what he said at all!' From that point on, I simply never listened to the media and decided to discover and investigate things for myself. 

First of all, Neil, a large portion of Trump voters voted for Obama. Square that. Are you suggesting people who voted for Obama suddenly are irrational and racist Trump supporters? How do you think banging on the 'you're a racist dummy' drum will turn out for Democrats? I have no idea what will happen in the November mid-terms but one would have to conclude this is not a winning strategy. 

Not content with generalizing without a single damn fact, he mentions collusion. Not a single fact of evidence has ever been presented that there was collusion with Trump.
The IG report pretty much put the nail in the head on the matter. Never mind that Glenn Greenwald has been on this since the beginning and basically called it a fabricated narrative and lie by the DNC.
Stated otherwise: There was no fricken collusion.

Or hacking from Russia for that matter. Obama on the other hand...
The IG report, in addition, revealed some disturbing activities that confirmed what Trump has been saying all along: There was indeed a soft coup orchestrated within the FBI as the Strzok/Page texts show. Moreover, it brings up what most of us already suspected, that the DNC had its own dubious ties to Russia. Come on. Hilary's Foundation and speaking gigs anyone? It all makes sense now why Hillary was never indicted. 
But this is an inconvenience to the narrative Neil attempts to build. One in which a President is so mean, he literally is Hitler. Or something. So out to left field the left have become they even go as far as to believe Trump became President to enrich himself with Russia and North Korea. And they say Alex Jones is cra-cra?
Yes. That's what he did. Donald got up one morning and decided 'Imma gonna run for President. And if those odds aren't long enough, Imma gonna make them even longer with a quixotic campaign, and then Imma gonna show everyone I love the KKK so as to they think Imma mentally unstable and then I'm gonna really break Vegas odds and sign a peace deal with one of the most unpredictable and nutty regime on earth so Imma gonna build condos and then just to make sure Imma hated more Imma gonna put kids in cages and get myself on Time magazine looking like an evil twit!
Yes, it's that stupid. This is what happens when you abandon your senses. 
"...Donald Trump, who loves winning, is winning. He is beating America's allies, he is crushing America's media, he is demonizing and desiccating American law enforcement, and hinting that in the end, he might even use his pardon power to sweep away rule of law. He has in fact already done so."
It's been also said there's a cult of the personality around Trump. I don't see it. I see plenty of people who have had it. In any event, that's just the usual projection on his part because one just has to Google or go on youtube to see what a real cult of the personality looks like during Obama's tenure. I've even posted about it over the years. 
Trump is not winning anything. The media is doing it to itself. Puerile hit pieces like this one is what does it. It turns people like me away in disgust. 

Oh, about the 'war on the press' consider the most recent example is Time caught with its pants down. That kid on its cover looking up at Trump? Yeh, here's the story on that.
Think of it. Either Time didn't know about it - which would make them incompetent - or they flat out lie to emotionally manipulate people - which makes them deceivers. It took real journalists to investigate because the truth still matters to people.

In fact, I think it's the opposite. If anything, the media has learned to master the art of preying on hypocrisy and passing it off as journalism. People want to be deceived and media knows this so they can go out and have left-wing agitators and activists go out and attack politicians.
Amazing eh? As if the shooting of Scalise wasn't enough, Nielsen is now under attack! This is not a group of people looking for justice. This is mob rule. And some will get hurt - or worse. 
Could you imagine an Obama official being accosted like this at their home?! Ole Neil there would be all over it for sure. The best his kind would do here is say, 'yeh this is not right....but they're asking fo it! They're heartless Republicans!"

It gets better a DOJ employee has been harassing her as well. Justice doesn't mean what they think it does and sure as hell doesn't mean the same thing as the people perceive it.

Like Trump said. It's a swamp.
Very dumb. And very dangerous behaviour from mainstream journalists acting irresponsibly on this. They're opportunists and we all know where Dante had opportunists pegged, eh? 
About the press, here's some reading material I mentioned up to for Neil (who is hardly alone in this kind of empty headed, faux-outrage) about how it was treated under Obama. If they're mistreated now, they have Obama to thank for that. 
Another on press freedom under Obama.

Not convinced yet?

What's next Neil? Are you gonna lose your mind when - shock! - you find out the USA under Obama has been drone killing American citizens without due process? Oh, right. Only when (and if) Trump does it will your feign outrage and suddenly care for the rule of law.
So Neil. Fuck you for insulting my intelligence.
I want a refund.
Why Trudeau felt compelled to comment on the subject is somewhat perplexing. I doubt he fully appreciates or knows the complexities of the issue. If he does, then he's just looking to pile on to score cheap political points off Trump. If millions were pouring over into our country illegal, I'm also certain Canadians would want the border enforced. Judging by how Canadians are discussing the topic, I don't think they grasp the scale of the problem facing the United States.
We simply don't have such problems. Lucky us.

Problem is, as discussed, Trump is acting within a framework, as discussed above, built by previous administrations starting with Clinton with the IIRIR Act. From that point on, administrations put their spin or interpreted this act as they saw fit including Trump.
You don't like Presidents doing this? Don't ask them to issue an EO. Ask Congress to change or enact new immigration laws. You don't get to demand a sitting President to ignore it because you're feelings are hurt.

Or you can try and follow Hypocrite Hillary and consent to illegals breaking the law. At which point this pits you in the 'open borders' camp which suddenly the idiots in the DNC have painted themselves into a corner after decades of urging for stronger borders.

Forming policy around the simplistic idea that Trump is bad defies logic.

As far as I can tell, this began when photos on Twitter went viral causing outrage. Just another example of Trump's madness right?

Except those photos were from 2009-2014.

Which makes me wonder about the timing of this leak. It stinks like a manufactured DNC crisis designed to continue to try and mount outrage for the mid-terms. Just a guess on my part.

This sort of stuff distorts the reality of migration into a hyper-romantic one in which all migrants are peaceful and should be granted citizenship because that's what Jesus would do. The left absolutely love invoking the Bible when it suits their political aims and as a wedge to try and expose Christian hypocrisy. Problem is, their musings and interpretation of Biblical history is shockingly superficial and often plain wrong.

Anyway. So why didn't Obama make the cover of Time for his role in setting deportation records?

And to be fair, I'm not so sure Obama was wrong either. He did what he had to do to deal with immigration which is an issue of national security.

Nonetheless, Trump signed an EO and still people are bursting blood vessels over this. Those people protesting Nielsen did so after he signed it which suggests they don't give a shit about the kids. They care about taking down Trump.

Indeed, while signing the EO (who by the way the left wanted to stop Trump from exercising because's 'mentally ill' demanded he do so here! The same Trump they demanded - listening Neil? - unilaterally act and restrict guns like a....dictator!) is all theater and probably wasn't necessary, it does expose the utterly disorienting hypocrisy of Democrats. In effect, I suppose, it's actually a smart political play because it flushes them out as 'open borders' which is enormously popular in the West; including in Canada. But the Liberals aren't listening. Better to call people 'xenophobic' for having the temerity to demand the law be followed in preserving the sanctity and sanity of the borders.

They also don't realize, by doing stuff like this, they keep Mexico in a state of chaos wallowing in a cess pool of violence and astoundingly astonishing corruption. A failed state in some ways; or a shithole if you prefer. Here, read about the violence it perpetuates 

All the more why Americans are less likely to support stricter gun control.

Alas, that don't matter. Just blame Trump - or the USA. Which ever is easiest.

How lost in their own drunken sophistic stupor have they become? They'd probably eat Chick-fil-A if Trump said it was the best. They'd probably go pro-life if Trump came on the side of abortion.



Here's where it gets - ahem - tricky.

They call bringing this up 'whataboutism'. The technical term in logic is tu quoque.

Taking a fact and then rather than address the assertion turn around and say, 'yeh but' or 'what about...?'

Except here it's not a deflection.

What's going on is an attack is launched and when the basis of the assertion is scrutinized it's discovered there are hole; if not groundless.

So when ABC News abandons all journalistic integrity as Cecilia Vega did claiming Trump 'owns this policy' she's taking a partial truth and making it the whole truth to deceive.

This is counterproductive. Once the truth ekes out, and it always does, the Trump is an 'asshole' narrative dissolves and we're back to questioning the legitimacy of the press.

If someone makes an assertion about you that you feel is wrong or even a threat to your character, are you not allowed to defend yourself? Of course you are.

The same could and should be extended to leaders as well.

Saying or believing Trump did this without consulting the facts and questioning his humanity is basically an ad hominen and it's not a logical fallacy to defend yourself.


A good example is what we're seeing on college campuses. Left-wing groups are running amok (with the worse cases being in place like Evergreen. In addition to episodes in respected institutions like Yale, Harvard and Berkley) shutting down free speech either by getting guest speakers censored or canceled, introducing bizarre SJW courses, drowning out professors they don't agree with, and even professors who claim conservatives have no right to free speech.

One can quibble about the degree to which this happens, but I argue it happens too much if one reads The College Fix, FIRE and Campusreform.

Yet, when conservative students or speakers mount a defense (or maturely move their venue - where even then activists disrupt them) it's considered an example of conservatives being 'snowflakes'.

Conservatism (and libertarianism) is always on the defensive. Always has been in North American and European political history. It's only natural.

Apparently you have to take shit if you know what's good for you. You know, like when people had to shut up and take their sentences to the gulags.


If you hate Trump, you must really hate Obama.

This wasn't about the children. Had it been so, Obama would have made the cover of Time too.

They just want to stick it to Trump.


Some claims made about Trump:

-Trump is mentally unstable and won't listen to reason.

North Korea, tax reform and other measures, and the fact he signed the EO to shut everyone up (it doesn't change the law in any meaningful manner because that's Congress's job) is actually a sharp and shrewd political move to quell hysteria.

- Trump made a deal with North Korea so he can enrich himself. In fact, the whole purpose of his Presidency is to make money.

The same people refute that Hillary made millions via her Foundation and speaking gigs as well as the DNC's own financial connections to Russia (the Podesta brothers made a killing in Russia) despite all of this being verified.

So far, nothing has been proven about Trump's alleged collusions. And you even have Riotta over at Newsweek claiming the book sales of 'The Art of the Deal' is a conflict of interest. Right. Because Obama wasn't getting royalties for his books. Same with Hilary. Riiiight.

Heck, Obama signed a $65 million book deal and Netflix series! Sa-weet!

Aside from that, plenty of politicians who eventually retire leave with a much higher net worth than when they came in. Something, something swamp.

As for North Korea, yes. Trump's plan was to enter politics as one of the longest-shot in political history (remember the polls) filled with impractical promises (though he incredibly managed to pull off a couple), then put his bet on a diplomatic issue that has eluded many for 50 years ruled by a nutty  and unpredictable family all to score a business deal with one of the poorest nations on earth?


And they say Alex Jones is a conspiratorial nut?

- Trump's base is ignorant.

Problem with this is a large portion of them voted for Obama too.

Try and square that.

Well, they can't really.

-Trump is ignorant and dumb.

This is an oldie and classic from the progressive play book. They did this to Reagan and they did it to Bush. It's been done. 

Obama, by contrast, is a genius to them.


And just in case you're still not getting it....take a look at the freaks running on the DNC ticket:

Yeh. Get rid of ICE because people break the law. See how that plays out.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.