By Benny Huang
In another episode of stupid “gothcha” journalism, the Washington Post recently reported that — despite what President Trump may have tweeted — Barack Obama does not have a ten-foot wall around his swanky D.C. home. In one of the most pointless stories to appear lately in an increasingly pointless newspaper, the Post described Chez Obama’s security features while citing anonymous neighbors who said that there was no wall.
In an attempt to fact check the fact-checkers, the Daily Caller’s Benny Johnson dropped by the Obamas’ to find out the ground truth. What did he see?
Trending: JUST IN: Laura Loomer WINS Appeal!
“Obama does not have one wall. He has many. He has barricades. He has armed guards entirely blocking the suburban road where he lives. Multiple cement and iron barricades block the road leading up to the Obama mansion. A Secret Service car and agent keep people from entering the stretch of road on both ends approximately 1,000 feet in both directions.”
So I guess Obama’s “neighbors” are liars — if they aren’t figments of the reporter’s imagination.
The question that both the Washington Post and the Daily Caller failed to ask is why Obama would even want a wall. If I’ve learned anything about the Democrats it’s that they build bridges when other less enlightened people build walls. Why hasn’t he built a footpath straight into his living room? Surely there are needy people on the streets of D.C. who might need somewhere warm to stay for the night. Some of those people are probably veterans and some of those veterans were probably sent to war by none other than BHO.
Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. Yeah, and send them to Barry’s house.
But seriously, is there a competent adult alive who believes that a former president living in a densely populated urban area would not be protected by walls? Everyone knows that walls protect current and former presidents, though plenty of people, I’m sure, forgot this fact just long enough to sneer at Trump’s latest “lie.” After reading the Post’s coverage they shook their heads and said, “My goodness, Trump is such a liar,” when they knew darned well that that it was the Post that was lying.
As far as I can tell, Trump’s big lie was the word “around.” There is not one large wall surrounding the entire property. Instead there’s a patchwork of security measures that includes walls.
The point here is that the Obamas depend on walls to keep them safe. That’s because walls are pretty darned effective, and everyone knows it. It’s why the Chinese built one to keep out the Mongols, and why Hadrian had one built in northern England.
Democrats know that they work too. In fact, they betray their cognizance of this fact every time they freak out over the idea of a wall. If we had an effective barrier between us and the impoverished hordes of Latin America, the Democrats would have to appeal to actual Americans to get elected. They would not have the underclass they need to stay in power and drive an economy that works for them alone. Democrats have thoroughly pissed off moderate, middle class Americans on this issue and all they can do is pray that the demographic change they’ve planned for arrives before the backlash.
Democrats don’t want to stop the flow of illegal aliens, so we should probably stop considering their advice on how to do it. They have an incentive to tell us that ineffective countermeasures are in fact effective, and that effective ones are not.
If the people pouring over our borders were self-sufficient, religious, conservative, white, anti-communist Poles, the Democrats might suddenly find some utility for a wall. But because it benefits them to have our country swamped with people who can’t care for themselves, they pretend that walls don’t work. Make no mistake about it: If walls were ineffective, the Democrats wouldn’t find them so threatening.
Our once-again Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, recently declared a border wall to be “immoral, ineffective, and expensive.”
And I always thought that liberals liked things that are immoral, ineffective, and expensive. They like the war on poverty, don’t they? That one is now entering its 55th year with no end in sight. As of 2014, it had cost us about $22 trillion (inflation adjusted), and its effect on reducing the poverty rate had been negligible. Other expensive boondoggles they’ve championed include Amtrak and forced busing.
Whenever I hear liberals harping about the cost of the wall I am always reminded of Anthony Weiner. Remember that perv? After the first time he got caught sending crotch shots to women he’s not married to, he tried to pretend he’d been hacked. He then called in a private security firm to investigate, supposedly to save the taxpayer money. Whenever liberals start counting costs, there’s an ulterior motive at play.
In reality, the wall is not expensive at all. It will pay for itself. Even if it ends up costing $21.6 billion,as the Department of Homeland Security estimates, it’s still a bargain. Doing nothing is costing us out the butt.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that illegal aliens and their citizen children cost federal and state governments about $135 billion per year. This estimate is likely a low-ball figure as it assumes only 12.5 million illegals in the country when there are likely many more.
One other reason that the $135 billion estimate is likely too low is that it doesn’t take into account the impact of illegal immigration on elections and policy. Simply put, the cost of big government liberalism is almost incalculable, and that’s what poor third world illegal aliens seem to want. Illegal aliens also warp the census data so that big, liberal states such as New York and California receive more representation in Congress than they are entitled to. They are literally stealing House seats from other states.
So no, a wall would not be expensive. It’s the most fiscally conservative idea anyone has had in a long time. The money that a wall would save us could be diverted to veterans’ services, education, infrastructure, paying down the debt, or it could simply be returned to the taxpayers who earned it.
Liberals call the wall “ineffective” because it isn’t foolproof. The classic argument against the effectiveness of the wall, which is always made in bad faith, is that people will just find a way to go over, under, around, or through any barrier. Again, this argument only seems to apply to walls that protect our country, not walls that protect their favorite ex-president. Those walls works just fine.
The logic of this argument is that determined people will defeat any security measures we try to throw in their way, so why even try? Let’s just make it easy for them. We will necessarily be making it easier for less determined people to succeed as well, but hey — there’s an odd fairness to that. While, we’re at it, let’s take the doors off of our houses, leave our keys in the ignition when we go into the store, and open all the jail cell doors because they aren’t really stopping the most clever and determined among us.
Yes, a certain number of determined illegal aliens would still find ways to criminally break into our country despite a wall. But how many? One percent of the current total that crosses our border? Two percent? Ten percent? A wall that stopped even half of illegal border crossings would be worth it. But liberals don’t want to stop half of them — or any of them.
The idea that a wall is “immoral” is almost too stupid to discuss. Liberals find the wall immoral for the same reason that they find anything else immoral — because it challenges their power. That’s the real reason and anyone who tells you differently is a liar.
Walls work and everyone knows it. The efficacy of walls was never in doubt until Democrats decided to bet the farm on illegal immigration changing the country so profoundly that their party could never lose. Then, suddenly, walls became supremely useless.
But they aren’t useless. If they were, Democrats wouldn’t shriek in terror at the sight of them. And they certainly wouldn’t shut down the government to prevent one from being built.