Thursday, September 14, 2017

TRUMP STIFFS HIS BASE: Democrats Have Reached a Deal with Him to Keep DACA; Ann Coulter Explodes

Oh, this is going to be painful for closed-border Trump fanboys. Steve Bannon won't shower for a week.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi have released a statement following a Wednesday White House dinner with President Trump.

"We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that's acceptable to both sides," they said.

Of course, I am in favor of private transactions so I am all for allowing dreamers to get jobs in the United States. I am against handouts to dreamers---which would then become a nightmare.
favor of private transactions so I am all for allowing dreamers to get jobs in the United States. I am against handouts to dreamers---which would then become a nightmare.

And the wall is all about statism.



As expected, Steve Bannon is flipping out.

From the front page of Breitbart



Trump appears to confirm:


The immigration-hating anti-worker base is losing it:




More from the immigrant hating Coulter:


  1. The wall is about keeping third world trash out of this country. But to you any immigration of especially incompatible cultures is good. We don't benefit by incentivizing more miscreants coming here and kicking out all illegals would send a great message to the world.

    LA is already mostly Mexico. We also need to kick out those from non-Western countries. Most are not adding any value. Too bad Trump won't end the H-1 and greencard and tell American companies you have 6 months to find an American replacement.

    1. This is so foolish. Kicking out all illegals would be an irreversible step in the construction of a police state. Think of the manpower you woukd need to make that happen. Think about the rights of Americans you would have to trample on. This is a silly statist trick to get decent people to cheer on state violence. Its not even a good trick, but you fall for it. We dont have an immigration problem. We have a welfare problem. We have a war on drugs problem. We have a minimum wage problem. Some of these may be exacerbated by unsophisticated immigrants, but they are created by foolish Americans demanding the state Do Something, just like you are demanding it Do Something now.

    2. We already have one, so we might a well use it to deport those who are stealing SS numbers and causing other problems. You don't really have to go door to door; just create conditions where they deport themselves which has been happening.

      I do agree minimum wage and other such labor laws need to be removed or diminished. If we really need these people, supposedly, then maybe a brasero program might be ok but I have my doubts about government enforcement.

    3. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- The wall is about keeping third world trash out of this country. ---

      The trash that doesn't fly, right?

      --- But to you any immigration of especially incompatible cultures is good. ---

      Projecting much? Most people are not as ridiculously and morbidly recalcitrant as you are. Many do change their ways and participate in tailgaiting parties.

      --- LA is already mostly Mexico. ---

      You only say that out of spite because only white dudes hold signs that say "Will Work For Food" along highway 101.

      --- We also need to kick out those from non-Western countries. ---

      Those damned Bulgarians!

      --- Most are not adding any value. ---

      You mean they refuse to give you food for work? Dastardly!

    4. This is dumb. What the hell difference does it make which government's territorial jurisdiction someone happened to fall out of their mother's womb in? The fact that you weirdos are so obsessed with this distinction is just creepy.

    5. Just get rid of welfare and the drugwar and see how big of an "immigration problem" we have!

      No need for fedgov to be in charge of who I get to work with.

  2. Sounds good, but I'm wary of "a package of border security", especially one that's "acceptable to both (evil) sides."

  3. If the 2 million DACA illegals are granted the ability to vote by Pelosi and Schumer, will the illegals vote for candidates who move us towards a libertarian society or candidates who move us further away?

    1. If the GOP was so worried about getting their votes, maybe they shouldn't have nominated a candidate who labeled them as murderers and rapists.

    2. We don't care about the GOP because it is not libertarian. The question is will the illegals vote for pro liberty candidates or the opposite? If no the impact of the 3rd world immigrants is we will never have a libertarian society.

    3. Marmite: the GOP has moved us closer to a libertarian society?

    4. *Voting* will never "bring us closer to a libertarian society."

    5. Marmite: Lolbertarians don't actually care about getting a free society, they just want to virtue signal to other austistes about muh NAP.

    6. @Paul Hansen

      What exactly is your definition of "a free society" if it's not one in which the NAP is observed? Did you mean to say "a white society"?

  4. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Drain the Swamp right?!?!?

  5. Lol this blog has gone full Silicontarian. Even worse than beltarian, Silicontarian is Elitist Libertarianism which distorts language the way politicians do to make a libertarian argument for a non-libertarian outcome. Libertarian support for DACA is Silicontarianism.

    There is no valid libertarian argument in support of DACA.

    1. Sure there is. These immigrants did not violate the NAP. so there's no justification for using force to evict them.

    2. Evan,

      It is well known that libertarian scholars are split on the legitimacy of border controls by a State.

      It is also indisputable under libertarian principles that in a private property order, no individual has a "right" to immigrate. Those on the borders, and all owners/controllers of private roads, would more or less control access.

      Being able to go across a 'border' and work for anyone would most definitely not be a given.

      In a world of the state, the question turns on how to treat "public" property. The state denies the rightful owners of property the necessary tools to govern ingress and egress to their communities, and other rules. It also denies them control over parks and roads. So there is a debate as to the legitimacy, in an imperfect world, of owners of a neighborhood using the imperfect tools available to them - voting that the state more prudently manage the borders, despite how terrible states generally are at that task.

      Bionicmosquito's blog provides an excellent introduction this topic.

    3. Who owns property financed by the taxpayer? The taxpayer. The majority of tax payers do not want the illegals. The NAP violation is the illegals using property owned by the taxpayer.

    4. Perry Mason,

      Buy that logic, there’s no right to free trade or human movement anywhere in the US or world, since public roads are necessary to do them. Libertarianism is the opposite of that.

    5. @Perry Mason

      I'm aware that there are divergent viewpoints on immigration among self-described libertarians. However, to me the matter is fairly clear.

      If state agent A extorts money from taxpayer B, that means that B has the right to be made whole (recover his stolen property from B, plus damages). But he does NOT thereby acquire any right to ban uninvolved parties C and D from freely associating. That would be a total non-sequitur.

    6. Re: PH,

      --- Who owns property financed by the taxpayer? The taxpayer. ---

      That is a lie.

      --- The NAP violation is the illegals using property owned by the taxpayer. ---

      That statement leaves no doubt you do not understand what the NAP implies. It doesn't imply stopping a person *I* want to trade with HERE because you feel you own a puny piece of the tarmac.

      That same argument was made by Bionic Mosquito. I countered that with the simple principle that Ad Numeram arguments ("because we're many") are STILL fallacious even if these are taxpayers.

    7. In addition to the astute statement by PH the state would play hard enforcer on nearly any law on the books. Illegal immigration starts with the only word we need to focus on. If you want to unconditionally open borders to allow anyone in ... then make laws to support that. Until then it isnt a political debate it is a criminal one.

    8. PH: I don't know how you know that "the majority of tax payers do not want the illegals" (who has ever done an accurate count?) but, even if that were the case, are you suggesting that the view of the majority is automatically the just view? Morality is simply an arithmetic function?

    9. You people are in favor de facto of higher taxes, borrowing, government administration, control and spending. Very queer for this blog.

    10. @Shegottawideload

      So would you say that Underground Railroad workers who violated fugitive slave laws were also wrong, since they were breaking "the law"?

    11. @Stuffed Pimento

      So those who oppose a state program of centrally planning the composition of the country's population are "in favor of higher government administration and control"?

      How Orwellian can you get?

    12. Re: Stuffed Pimento,

      Looks like you have only a very tenuous understanding of what "de facto" means and is used for. It doesn't mean "pretty much". It means by fact alone and not by decree. By "fact alone" we don't have higher taxes just because there are people producing HERE who happen not to be born in the same place as you did.

    13. Re: Shegottawideload,

      --- Until then it isnt a political debate it is a criminal one. ---

      How easily ignorant people criminalize actions only because the government makes those actions illegal and not because the actions are criminal per se.

      Crossing the border doesn't turn you into a criminal. Overstaying your permit doesn't turn you into a criminal. Getting a jib from a willing employer when you're not born in this country doesn't tuen you nor the employer, into a criminal. If there's no victim, there's no crime - period.

    14. @Francisco: "de facto" describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized. It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure ("in law"), which refers to things that happen according to law.

      Again, you are de facto in favor of higher taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more government control. Democrats, RINOs, beltarians, Teacher Unions, CFR, MSM, left wing Mayors, Silicontarians, Hollywood Elite agree the DREAMERs are good. What fine company you all keep.

      Mexico must really be the worst kind of nightmarish hellhole if it's a death sentence to send her own people back there. We should invade to liberate the people of Mexico. It's a full blown humanitarian crisis.

    15. @Stuffed Pimento

      Nazis and Republicans agree DREAMERs are bad. See, two can play your stupid guilt-by-association game.

      Also, do you favor the forced sterilization of the poor, since they tend to vote for redistributionist policies?

    16. @Stuffed Pimento,

      ---Again, you are de facto [sic] in favor of higher taxes[...]---

      Now you're using "de facto" instead of "implicitly" or "by implication".

      Do you like to showcase your ignorance that much? Maybe you should consider therapy... Or decaffeinated coffee.

      ---Mexico must really be the worst kind of nightmarish hellhole if it's a death sentence to send her own people back there.---

      The United States would be an equally bad hellhole if you uproot people from their homes and possessions from wherever and drop them right in America in the course of a couple of days, because that is what your "shove them into railcars" pornographic dream entails.

    17. Open borders can only exist if private ownership is abolished. Private individuals own the land along borders that must be violated without the owners permission. Would it make you feel better if private security put a stop to trespassing rather than government? That certainly would be the case in your borderless world.

      I would argue it would be much more brutal in its application just as vigilante justice. This isn't even a debate about "borders", it is about lawlessness. There is a legal way to immigrate that is not difficult.

      Libertarianism is the other side of the coin of communism, neither survives the first encounter with the real world and so are theoretical exercises with almost no application in the world we are in.

      As an anarchist I am always amused by the libertarian "brains" and the theories they work out in such detail that are as practical as the Marxist "whithering away of the State" theory.
      The truth is there are only 2 choices for "government" in this world, bad and worse. The same choice is had by all of us, either follow the law where you are, or move some place else, change the law legally, or feel the consequences of breaking the law.

    18. @a ware

      Your first point is a total straw man. No one is arguing that anyone should be allowed to trespass on private land.

      And I think you're the first anarchist I've ever heard tell me to move to Antarctica if I don't want to submit to the will of the government. Congratulations! You honestly find no virtue whatsoever in civil disobedience?

  6. Politicians don't care about border security or dreamers. They care about power. They use these issues to divide the plebs to gain more control. We should not want to give them more control. Especially over who we associate with.

  7. Outstanding. Let's flood the country with third world socialists to create a libertarian paradise.

    1. What is libertarian about seeking to gain control of the state so that you can use its coercive power to create a cultural make-up for society that pleases you? I thought libertarianism was about being anti-state, always, and everywhere. Libertarianism is about means -- no initiation of force -- not ends.

    2. Libertarianism is about the proper use of force in society. There's an order of operations here. You have to remove the nation-state and privatize all property before you can remove borders. We can't even get rid of the income tax. We're a long ways away from open borders, which without the nation-state is a misnomer in itself.

      The culture within society can and does change. Is the culture today the same it was in the 1950s? That's not the same as importing a bunch of mouth breathers or goat fuckers and celebrating freedom and diversity. By your logic, you'd accept all refugees and non-refugees from anywhere in the world all the time. Not just accept, but you wouldn't even check on it. They'd just come. The federal law says no welfare - so everything is hunky-dory according to you people. This is so obviously wrong and poorly reasoned.

    3. @Stuffed Pimento

      What you're saying is basically the same as when GW Bush said we had to "abandon the free market to save the free market." You can't centrally plan your way to freedom.

    4. Re: Stuffed Pimento,
      ─Libertarianism is about the proper use of force in society.─

      That's actually a lie. I wouldn't expect less, though.

      Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds as the only political goal worth achieving is the greatest possible freedom for each individual human of will. That has nothing to do with establishing how much force is "too much".

      ─The culture within society can and does change.─

      Are you afraid of change?

      ─By your logic, you'd accept all refugees and non-refugees from anywhere in the world all the time.─

      "By my logic" I only accept one thing: I am NO ONE to tell others with whom they should associate. immigrants have the right to come to the US and be hired by whoever is willing, or have a house rented to them by whoever is willing, and so on. You are, on the other hand, in the Trumpista/Buttinsky camp willing to tell ordinary folks to not mingle with those yucky immigrants who want to "takum er jebz!" and have sex with our daughters or something.