Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.
Today I want to make three points regarding the current, artificially created emergency on the southern border, as children are used as innocent pawns to force an issue in order to gain political power.
President Obama has said that if congress does not act, he will, through executive order, simply dictate a solution.
Godwin’s Law states that the longer an internet discussion goes on, the likelier it is that someone will invoke the Nazis. Invoking the Nazis is considered bad form, you see – it’s a sign of desperation and hyperbolic exaggeration.
Well, I’m not going to invoke the words “Nazi” or “Hitler.”
So: shortly after assuming power, the legally appointed chancellor of Germany and the leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party was faced with a looming national crisis. The National Socialist Chancellor appeared before the democratically elected parliament of the German Republic, known as the Reichstag. This Chancellor asked them to vote on what became known as the Enabling Act of 1933. It was pretty simple, really: he asked the legislature to approve his ability to create law on his own – through what could be best described as emergency executive orders. The Reichstag approved this request by the National Socialist Chancellor of Germany, giving him the power to dictate law as he saw fit.
The constitutionally limited, democratically elected German Republic simply voted itself out of existence, and half of the representatives of the Reichstag were cheering the National Socialist leader of their own party as they did so.
Now, of course, that could never happen here – not in America. Why if an American President were to stand before congress and tell the legislative body that he would assume the power to write his own laws if they did not provide the legislation he desired – well, here in America that President would be booed and mocked and jeered out of the room – he’d be arrested and impeached. Right?
If these children – these innocent pawns in both international and domestic politics – are granted Amnesty through executive order, then what about their parents? Are they to live here as orphans? And what about the tens of millions of people who have been living here for decades, in many cases? Surely they deserve amnesty too. But where do we draw the line? If you’ve been here for ten years you can stay, but if you’ve been here for nine years, eleven months and twenty nine days you have to go home? Surely that’s not fair. So if you get here before a certain date you can stay, but after that arbitrary date you have to be deported? And since we don’t have any documentation on when these people actually arrived here…
And if these thirty million or so Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans and so on deserve US Citizenship, how are they different then their relatives at home? Is it a Western Hemisphere privilege? What about the starving masses in Africa? Why do Mexicans deserve amnesty and not Nigerians?
Why do we grant amnesty to some people with children in need, and not any of the other six and a half billion or so who also have children and are also in need. What about them? Why are they excluded?
If we were discussing blanket amnesty for 30 million white German, British, Czech and Polish businessmen: people who knew how to make money and wanted to come here with capitol, business plans and a tradition of hard work – you know, 30 million Republican voters – would they get a blanket amnesty through illegal executive order from this President. And if not, then is this really about immigration? Or is it about a domestic political power base?
Where do you live, Mark Zuckerberg?
Like America, you’re rich. I don’t have a problem with that: you earned your 30 billion dollars and the very nice house that you live in. But I want to know where you live – not just generally. I want the exact address. Because I want to put up flyers all around your neighborhood – and on the internet, so it can go all around the world – telling people that you don’t believe in borders, walls, locked doors or property rights. I want every homeless person in America – in fact, everyone in greater need than you – to know that they can come to your home, walk in the front door, hit the refrigerator and sit on the couch and watch your amazing home theater.
Because I suspect that if people were to do to your home and property what you advocate is already happening to the non-billionaires living on our southern border – you know, armed bands of people breaking into their houses, destroying their property, murdering them and their families and leaving the odd dead body in their back yards – I don’t think you or any of your rich liberal friends would live up to your principles of no borders, no walls, no lines, no security, and no such thing as an illegal person.
We all know that should someone try to get onto your property, Mr. Zuckerburg, the police, or more likely your private, armed security force would arrest that person before they got within a half-mile of your house. They’d ask for identification, and if a homeless person said they had a right to live in your house, the police would ask for documentation. And when the visitors to your house could not provide documentation, men with guns would take them away.
Like every other limousine leftist, you are a hypocrite who says one thing to look and sound good in public, and then does precisely the opposite – the exact thing he condemns other people, like people on the border in Arizona and Texas for doing when it’s someone else’s house and property, and not their own.
That’s not moral goodness. It’s not kindness. It’s not selflessness. It’s a pose. It’s Unearned Moral Superiority.
It’s a lie. And you know it, and I know it. And now everybody knows it.