Friends, I know that many of you will be big fans of the Republican effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. I get it! He's utterly failed to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border, and in fact his policies are calculated, seemingly, to increase the flow ad infinitum. Does that, however, amount to impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Well, the Democrats have established a precedent, insofar as their view is that you need not identify any crime in the statute book that's been committed before you impeach a president, let alone a cabinet officer. In fact, you need not call any witnesses or present evidence, either. You just have to hate whomever you're impeaching. Well, by that standard, Republicans are good to go. The truth, though, is that Mayorkas isn't corrupt, he's not incompetent, and his sins, such as they are, are sins of omission, not commission. He's failing to uphold numerous laws passed by Congress -- as indeed has every head of DHS for as long as the department has existed. Selective prosecution and enforcement is, sadly, the rule, not the exception, in this country of ours. Ergo, I conclude that, in essence, Mayorkas is being impeached because of policy disagreements. I mean, surely, when the American people elected Joe Biden as president -- to the extent that they ever did -- they must have known that border enforcement would go out the window and the numbers of migrants would spike. Well, that's what happened. It's not a mistake or a surprise -- it's an entirely predictable outcome, and it reflects an intentional, deliberate series of policy choices. My view, therefore, is that the best and only solution is not impeachment -- it's the defeat of Joe Biden in 2024 and his replacement with a better president, i.e. one who believes that the territorial integrity of these United States is worth defending.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68143888
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_4a4382a2-bd5e-11ee-a796-f3981874f7e4.html
Finally, note that DJT retains a lead, albeit a slim one, in this poll, which is helped, not hurt, by the presence of additional candidates in the race. The truth, though, is that this race is way too close for comfort, and neither Trump nor his supporters should take anything for granted.
Polls are not worth much right now. There is so much that could happen to swing the election. The present strength of the economy might weaken. The conflict in the Mideast could expand. The border issue could get worse. Trump could get convicted, or the investigation of Biden might find something that will stick. Biden or Trump could have a serious health event. A legitimate third party candidate could emerge. A completely unexpected event could happen (like COVID was).
ReplyDeleteSo, the polls, while interesting, are fairly worthless at this point.
Yes and no. The polls are not all that predictive at this stage, but they do tell us that the baseline for Trump and Biden is way different in 2024 than it was in 2020 -- and way more favorable to Trump.
ReplyDeleteRay to Dr. Waddy
DeleteMay the best egotistical asshole win in 2024.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: This administration's fundamental motivation is clear. It is to "fundamentally transform" our unforgivingly erring country by bringing unlimited ,unexamined foreign multitudes into the US and using them and their lawless advent to that end. The administration can be prevented in this only by its disempowerment in 2025. Should it lose the election we can expect extreme crisis manifesting frantic measures to bring as many illegals across the border before its assured closing on Jan. 20. The GOP House is doing its duty by seeking to remove a grossly unlawful administrator but he would surely be replaced by one just as bad. The left is fanatically determined to close this deal before its distinctly possible defeat.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Your concern for the recent repeated cynical and vindictive (you impeached our guy, now we'll get yours) misuse and discrediting of the federal impeachment procedure is very well taken. And your argument that Mayorkas should not be impeached has much merit. The real culprits are the far leftists who direct pore 'ol guilt ridden Pino Biden and we can't get at them until their traitorous misguidance costs the dems the election.
ReplyDeleteYes, only replacing Sleepy Joe will bring the border "under control", and even that is optimistic. Remember, it took Trump about two years to get migrant numbers down to a tolerable level. The same may well happen if he wins in '24. The Dems may assume, not unreasonably, that, by the time Trump gets Mexico in line and throws up enough of his wall and deports a sufficient number of migrants to repel the ones still thinking of coming, he'll be almost done with his term, and the next president -- quite possibly a Dem -- can unleash glorious migration chaos all over again.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Yeah, turning a free nation into a fief does take time. But the only ones truly desperate about it are the aging faction of the radical boomers; they know they will never see the culmination of their inspired trashing of a US which gave them theretofore unimaginable benefits growing up. Such injustice!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack : Your title in this post, which I believe , brings to mind the Church's savage campaign to suppress the Albigensians in the High Middle Ages, is apt. Marxists have no compunctions over employing comprehensive onslaughts on great swaths which may include their despised opponents , in order to ensure their unquestionably just triumph. Their misuse of the impeachment process is exemplary of this and it is inadvisable for our side to endorse it by imitating it.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know how "inadvisable" it is. Impeaching Mayorkas would be futile, yes, and probably wrong, but it might be politically effective. And, let's face it, when the Dems retake the House, and when/if they find themselves groaning under a Republican president, they WILL impeach everything and everyone in sight, regardless of what precedents we've set, or haven't set, in the meantime.
ReplyDelete