Results

Trump gets ‘em.

Trump’s Use of National Guard Has Been Successful--and Welcome
It is now indisputable that President Trump’s use of the National Guard to reinforce local law enforcement and crime-ridden cities is successful and welcome when applied.

The rabidly partisan Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, had opposed the introduction of the National Guard but after the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department disclosed that violent crime had fallen by half during this period and even relatively minor offenses such as evasion fares on the subway system were practically eliminated.

The National Guard reinforcements were naturally not deployed in low crime areas like Georgetown, but in crime-ridden areas where over a thousand serious arrests were made and a large number of firearms seized and 50 homeless encampments were cleared.

Mayor Bowser commendably expressed her gratitude for the National Guard, whose arrival was greeted by the Senate Democrats’ principal hobnobber with criminals, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, with the customary incantation that Trump is a “dictator… pushing democracy to the brink,” (by drastically reducing crime). As the Washington Examiner remarked, “There was a lot of more nonsense where that came from.”

The second focal point of this effort was Memphis, a Democratic-governed city in a strongly Republican state where the governor and the mayor both cooperated. More than 2,000 federal law enforcement officers and national guardsmen were deployed in the crime-ridden city. Over 2,000 persons have been arrested, and robberies and vehicle thefts have been reduced by 70 percent, serious assaults by 50 percent and murders by 43 percent.

And then hey presto!, off we frolic into the weeds of “unConstitutional” and “Is this still ‘Murrka?,” as if any sane, sensible person deluded him/herself that, against all evidence, it still was. Follows, much unnecessary harrumph-harrumphing over some imaginary need to focus on meeting the needs of “deserving” illegal aliens, to wit:

If that is accurate, and it would need to be verified, it would mean that 26 percent have not (committed more serious crimes since breaking into the country as if they were cat burglars and not “immigrants”—M) and if, as is widely alleged and is not implausible, those 26 percent, hundreds of thousands of people now, had effectively settled in the country, were gainfully employed, and had lived responsibly. Such people should be fast-tracked to citizenship without being deported.

To those who wish the administration well, it is disconcerting to see this level of overkill in what was a desperately needed and has been a heroically implemented reversal of the prolonged and profoundly dishonest attempt of the Democrats with some Republican collusion to swamp the country with destitute foreigners who have no allegiance to the United States and no sense of taking a new nationality and among whom are many hundreds of thousands of dangerous and violent criminals.

This is such an outstanding and successful policy initiative by the Trump administration, that it has to be clarified to focus altogether on migrants undeserving of public sympathy. The administration deserves a huge boost in public approval for this program, not a moral question mark.

Sorry, Charlie, but the only “moral question mark” I can descry here is the unfounded assumption that immigration, legal or otherwise, is always and forever to be considered an unqualified Good Thing.

PROGRAM NOTE: My apologies, folks; had this post all wrapped up and ready to put under the tree for ya, and then for some unforeseen reason forgot to hit “Publish” last night. No excuse, Master Sergeant.