Trump Fires Termagant

22
2446
Print Friendly

Washington just got a little less ugly.

President Trump has fired Obama’s acting attorney general, Sally Yates, over her refusal to enforce the travel/immigration restrictions the new president put into place. Naturally, Obamanauts are going berserk.

Even better!

It’s interesting to note the correlation between dreary leftism and dreary looking people – like Yates.

Her pussy is in no danger of being grabbed.

And her firing makes it a little less likely that our wallets will be grabbed – to pay for the human tsunami of Syrian refugees Yates and others on the left wish to import but not pay for themselves.

I know a guy who posts oh-the-humanity! lectures on Facebook about “opening our doors” to these refugees. Yet he does not open his doors to them. They are not staying in his guest bedroom, watching TV on his sofa, a plate of his food on their laps.

It is easy to be charitable with other people’s money.

It’s what the left specializes in.

The false kindness of proxy violence.

The guy I mention would never, himself, march over to his neighbors’ house, knock on the door and tell them they must “help” the refugees… while fingering a pistol, prepared to raise and use it if the neighbors say no.

Such people – who preen as moral lions – are physical cowards. They cannot face the violence that’s at the core of everything they demand and so have others exercise it on their behalf.

They are apoplectic now because their hoped-for queen termagant lost to (of all things) a man and one who seems to take the view that America’s pockets aren’t bottomless and that moderating who comes here is not unreasonable.

This unglues the left. Any suggestion of limits or restrictions when it comes to handing out other people’s property is taken as immediate, irrefutable evidence of racism. Which only makes the left even more rubber roomy than it has already shown itself to be.

Most Americans do not hate refugees or minorities. They hate being fleeced to pay for them – and that is a very different thing.

The contretemps over immigration – from Syria and otherwise – would dissipate among the still-sane if it were only a question of immigration. If Jose (or his Syrian equivalent) wishes to come to America, great! We – most people – would not object.

It harms me not at all if a Syrian or Mexican family buys the house next door. This is not what is being objected to – notwithstanding that the left is attempting to paint any objections in exactly this color.

It just ain’t so.

Objection arises because of the costs imposed on local infrastructure, schools for instance. An influx of refugees or migrants means more kids in the school and who is going to pay for the additional teachers, lunches and so on that attend?

It’s a reasonable question, not motivated by “hate.”

Americans are taxed to death already and find they can barely afford “health care” for themselves and their families yet are lectured to by rich DC termagants such as Yates and my Facebook friend that they must accept more and higher taxes to pay for an unlimited tsunami of immigrants.

Mark that.

Have you ever heard or read any “immigration advocate” toss out a number or percent that’s enough? That’s at last, too many?

Never.

There has to be a number, though. Is it 1 billion? 500 million? America can’t house the world. Not physically, not economically. There are limits. Ask the people on Titanic. Only so many lifeboats; not everyone is going to make it. Sad – but life isn’t fair.

It’s interesting that the same people who lecture us about finite resources and the “environmental costs” of things seem to think resources, in this case, are somehow infinite; that the “environment” can handle 400 million or 500 million or maybe even 1 billion Americans. The disconnect is fascinating.

So, again, what is the number?

Yates and those in her camp will not say. They will only say that we must accept – and pay – without limit.

Meanwhile, we must accept all kinds of limits. Which of course, they never do.

They will continue to live behind well-guarded walls, drawing fat government paychecks.

And they wonder why Trump was elected.

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Especially this month; we’re low – see the pie chart on the main page.

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. Please bear with as I have had to order a new batch; they should be here – and in the mail – within a couple weeks. 

  

 

Share Button

22 COMMENTS

  1. Somalia is 11 million people. At the age of 8 ALL girls have their clits and outer vagina cut out. The remaining skin is sewn up. A 5 mm hole is then created so urine and menstrual blood can get out.

    Once her marriage is arranged by authorities. The hole is widen enough to allow sex. When authorities deem her ready, the hole is further widened to allow her to bear children.

    This is currently the case for 200 million women worldwide.

    This is how life is for most in varying degrees. Our freedom is rare and fragile. We can’t just get along with most humans without our superior property and location.

    Idealism is not a strategy that will keep you free. Face reality and eschew the fatal conceits of the controlled masses.

  2. Eric, you lay out the reasons quite clearly but, you don’t identify what the real problem is. It’s Socialism.

    Whether it’s the inter-generational welfare scheme known as the Public Schools, Welfare or Socialized/ist medicine the root of the problem is socialism. That, in and of itself, is bad enough. What exacerbates the problem is Americans love socialism…so long as they are on the receiving end, such as sending their kids to get a “free” education.

    You do point out that a respect for property rights would help in solving the situation. However, unless and until we are ready to purge the socialist soul that dwells in so many Americans the problem will only fester. But, try telling the School/Army/Cop vet/retiree that their welfare queens and see how far you get.

  3. “Only so many lifeboats; not everyone is going to make it. Sad – but life isn’t fair.”

    So much zero-sum game thinking in this dreary post. Using one government intervention against freedom — government schools and whatnot — to justify another government intervention against freedom — prohibiting people fleeing tyranny from coming here.

    Saying that living here is taking up a lifeboat, of which there is a limited number. Have you driven around this big, mostly empty country? Have you met and gotten to known people who fled places like Communist China and are now living here and supporting a more free society? I know such people.

    Here’s a more liberty respecting viewpoint — if there is even one person wishing to flee tyranny, anywhere in the world, that we argue to keep out — then we’re doing it wrong.

    • Hi Jim,

      I’m disappointed!

      Usually, you re extremely precise. But you appear to have missed the point of the article, which wasn’t that people should be prevented from coming here but that people are sick of being taxed to pay for people coming here.


      If
      we had a society/government that respected property rights, “immigration” would be a non-issue.

      But we don’t. The “people fleeing tyranny” will ratchet up the tyranny here; more demands for “free shit” (education, healf cay-uh, kolledge)… more and higher taxes to fund it.

      Open borders and a welfare state = national suicide.

      What Trump is doing is triage.

      • Hi Eric,

        I got the meaning of your article, as you explained above. But, I disagree with the notion that people fleeing, say, communist Cuba, should be shipped back to the dictators who view those fleeing as committing theft against the state, and who might kill the immigrants for their impudence in denying the state’s authority. The theft in question being the bodies of the would be immigrants, since the government does not recognize the principle of self-ownership.

        The wife of the former head of the Hawaii LP, who I got to know pretty well, had fled Communist China and was one of the staunchest proponents of freedom imaginable. Under Trump, she and similarly situated Cubans would be shipped back to enjoy the tender mercies of folks like the Castros.

        Saying we will shut off this escape valve for specific individuals because of collectivist arguments that you think those immigrants might, in the aggregate, be somewhat less freedom-inclined than current citizens (which is fairly doubtful, frankly — have you talked with people from, say, Manhatten?) — that’s playing into the hands of those people who seek to limit our freedoms, whether they’re on the right or the left.

        What Trump is doing is more akin to shooting the survivors.

        • I could not disagree more. The government of the United States exists to protect the freedom and interests of its citizens. It’s very hard for anyone to argue in good faith that admitting foreigners in large numbers — especially from cultures totally alien, hostile, or incompatible with our own — is in the best interests of the citizens of the United States. There isn’t any good or compelling moral reason to set at risk the lives of our citizens for the benefit of non-citizens. I would not expect any sort of reciprocity.

          Furthermore, you cannot have a responsible immigration policy while you have a gigantic, excessively generous welfare state as a magnet. It simply doesn’t work.

          Immigration restriction is not new, it is not evil or malevolent, under Trump still isn’t anywhere unique to the US, and discretion is only good sense. Maximum freedom and liberty within the borders are possible only with maximum scrutiny and discretion *at* the borders.

          If you worry for the freedoms and liberties of those around the world, the best idea is to export our principles, not import the rest of the oppressed.

        • Hi Jim,

          At one time, there was a requirement that immigrants demonstrate they would not be a burden on taxpayers if admitted; many countries have similar requirements today. Given the fact that a welfare state exists and native taxpayers must fund it, this is not unreasonable … is it?

          I’d prefer something simpler – such as an absolute understanding that an immigrant is welcome to come live and work here but will not become another leech. That legal leeching be rendered impossible. And not just for immigrants.

          The problem is vicious because socialism. Each new person represents yet another potential (and often, likely) tax feeder. So – reasonably – the taxpayers resent it. Resent them. People grow to view one another as a threat – which they are.
          Because socialism.

          Until socialism is trampled for good, there have to be limits and condition on immigration.

          Otherwise, we are assuring our own economic doom.

          Let the millionaire celebs in Hollywood (and my Facebook friend) open their homes – and wallets – if they feel the urge to help refugees and immigrants. I think that’s admirable, putting your money where your mouth is.

          But this business of preaching “humanitarianism” while foisting the bill and the consequences on other people is despicable.

    • Immigration from third world countries is a government policy, too. There is a reason why these countries look the way they look – that`s the people of these countries. Because a country is what its people are: good people – good countries. Sweden for example. Shit people – shit countries. Somalia for example.

      Nobody with a straight mind would take a bunch of Somalians, about whom he knows nothing, on his property in an ancap society. Only governments do such things. And governments are with us for the forseeable future, wether we like it or not. So we better make governments emulate the behavior of property owners in an ancap society – make them keep shit people out and only let good people in.

  4. “I know a guy who posts oh-the-humanity! lectures on Facebook about “opening our doors” to these refugees. Yet he does not open his doors to them. “

    I have found that the cheer leading for team left is often inversely proportional to how much they are personally exposed to the consequences of the policies of team left.

  5. “Her pussy is in no danger of being grabbed.” LMFAO, this alone made reading this article worth it. FYIW, I’m a minority and I hate being fleeced to pay for other minorities myself. I don’t understand why anyone should be forced to pay for anyone they don’t want to or can’t afford to with their hard earned cash. How does THAT make sense?

  6. Definitely a far more interesting president then Killary would have been. If he manages to help unchain the economy, I will be more then happy to reelect him in four years. I need the economic break badly, and I knew Hillary would only be the third term of no growth. The wailing of the lefty’s is just a bonus.

  7. Yup, do as I say, not as I do.
    How many “refugees” are being housed in Chappaqua, Palo Alto, or on the campuses of Yale, Harvard and Princeton? Not like they lack the money…

  8. Trump has, in a week or so, put in place a hiring freeze, a halt on any newly passed regulations by proactively defunding them, and has taken steps to eliminate or stop enforcing regulations that are thought to harm small businesses.

    What kind of dictator removes government power over the people?

    One has to wonder, who is going to lose out if Trump is successful in reducing the size of government? The SEIU and AFGE unions for sure. The crony capitalists …remember, every TV station in the country is highly regulated by the FCC, as is every cable company, satellite TV company and phone company (most of your Internet traffic travels over a phone company owned fiber optic cable at one point or another). Potentially the three letter agencies. The states who are addicted to federal handouts. People who own land adjacent to public land and want to keep the riffraff out. You get the idea. I’m certain there are many many more.

    But who’s going to win? Well, the pro-abortion crowd for sure. They’ll have all kinds of new ammo to raise big dollars for the morons who don’t want to make anyone pay for their daughter’s mistake. The environmental think tanks who are “deeply concerned” about the Earth and want you to feel guilty about your success. The media is loving the increases in viewership that Trump’s “insane” storyline brings to the news (although the rumor that Time Warner might have to spin off CNN is more likely a trial balloon to see if there’s any interest in dumping the viewership losing network).

    • “who is going to lose out if Trump is successful”
      Unfortunately it seems Trump has no plans to try curbing the most dangerous union, the NEA.

      • Pick your battles. Know when you’re outgunned. I’m sure he’ll find a bunch of new funding to help out the local police too, since they’ve been “woefully” underfunding their pension plans for decades now at the expense of services.

    • ” They’ll have all kinds of new ammo to raise big dollars “
      So long as they raise it privately. I’m tired of explaining to the team left types that money is fungible. That funding the Sanger organization with taxpayer funds with the ‘but you can’t use the money for X’ funds X anyway because its merely an accounting exercise to fund Y with the taxpayer money and X with the now freed up privately raised money.

LEAVE A REPLY