In a startling turn of events, the leftist/socialist/democrats came together with the RINO class of republicans to push forward legislation that added more to a bill they had previously said was cost heavy and wasteful.
Excuse me, but Congress whining about costly legislation is like Hannibal Lecter complaining there’s too much flesh on his plate. It’s this kind of doubletalk and falseness that has led to our borders being unsecured after all this time, even as we continue to spend at an astronomical rate.
By presenting a bill absent of most of the money the president had sought to obtain to begin building a wall across more than 12,000 miles of unfenced open border, Congress succeeded in perpetuating their false crusade of fiscal responsibility.
Whether or not the president should’ve signed the bill is a topic for another post. What’s done is done, and the bill was signed into law. My concern is the amount Congress settled on, and how disgusting their conclusion was to me.
Question: Why didn’t Congress fight their false crusade when the previous president was funneling out $1.7 billion to Iran?
The previous president and Congress feel it’s okay to release billions of dollars to a hated enemy of our country, but not invest billions of dollars to preserve the safety of our citizens.
Not only is it insanity, but Congress issued further insult by committing the exact amount—$1.7 billion—to wall funding as they did to a sworn enemy, who just so happened to unveil their Fateh “Conqueror” submarine, able to be armed with cruise missiles that can be launched from a submerged position.
Iran was represented as a peace-loving country by the previous president, which set the stage for him signing a peace treaty with them and releasing billions of dollars of frozen assets.
During the entire money transfer, the so-called money conscious Congress never said a word, yet now can’t provide funding so our citizens can have some security and safety.
No Need for the Wall, Crimes Rates Are Down
Many wall opponents say a wall’s not necessary because illegal alien crime rates are much lower than US citizens, and the areas mentioned by the president are low on crime.
This is an absurd argument, on many levels.
First of all, the term illegal alien delineates criminal activity. But beyond this, what do crime rates, or levels of crime, have to do with keeping our loved ones safe?
Whether criminal activity is up or down, would you want to chance the health and wellbeing of your loved ones by not locking the front and back door of your home based on low or high crime rates?
I think we can all agree locking the doors to our home is the best approach to protecting our loved ones. Taking unnecessary risks by not locking our doors is foolish practice. Following this line of thinking, the choice of whether to secure our borders (lock our doors), or not, is an easy one to make.
Photos: Bruce Rottgers, Bruno Figureredo, Emiliano Vittoriosi