The way to lose the House is to cave to Democrats and the WSJ on immigration

The WSJ, including even its editorial page, is getting more worthless every day.

This week, one of its top editorials said President Trump's threat to shut down the government over Congress's failure to finance a border wall is the way to lose the House.  The story is titled "Trump's Lose-the-House Strategy."

Actually, they have it bass-ackwards.  If Trump gives in to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and the WSJ itself in its longtime open-borders stance on immigration, that is the real way to lose the House.

In the article, the Journal makes one of the most condescending statements right here: "It's always risky to use the word 'strategy' about Trump because he's so impulsive and capricious."

I believe that a lot of us can understand Trump's strategies on many subjects.  He does things with the aim of achieving results, whether directly or by confusing his adversaries.  That's a strategy.  What a shame that the WSJ writers don't seem to have the ability to analyze or independently think about this, and recognize the man's work by his results.

On immigration, Trump's policy is to follow the immigration laws that Congress passed.  Most Democrats voted in 2006 for a border fence, and Trump wants them to finally fund it.

In the past, Democrats, including Durbin, have been in favor of ending chain migration and the stupid lottery system for immigrants.  Trump is trying to make them actually do it.

If Trump doesn't hold career politicians' the feet to the fire in both parties, he will never get the border enforced.  Meanwhile, polls show that the public is against sanctuary cities and is all in for legal immigration.  It just doesn't want to reward illegal immigration.

Trump's strategy on foreign policy is for America to be strong instead of appease.  He is finally getting NATO countries to pay.  He is defending Ukraine, and I believe that North Korea now knows we have a serious leader.  Somehow, North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong-un, stopped testing missiles last November.  If Kim reneges on his commitment, Trump will change his strategy  Is that capricious?  Should Trump do what previous experts and presidents did?  (Since it worked so well?)

On Iran, Trump is trying to get the dangerous country to collapse in the same way Ronald Reagan got the Soviet Union to collapse.  Was it better to pay the Iranians ransom and give them hundreds of billions of dollars, all for a pretend, non-binding deal so they could continue their terrorism policy?

On trade, Trump's strategy is to get other countries to get rid of their tariffs and taxes after we have let the problem compound for decades.  Did talking to other countries nicely help or compound the problem?  Trump's strategy is obviously working and working quickly when we look at what the E.U. gave in to.  Yet every day, we get garbage articles in the WSJ about how bad Trump's policy is on trade.

On the economy, Trump is moving as fast as he can to remove barriers and lower taxes to give the power and purse back to the people, where they belong.  Career politicians from both parties, lobbyists, and bureaucrats (the swamp) are fighting Trump and seeking to destroy him every day.  They are getting a tremendous amount of help from the media, including the WSJ.  The swamp has amassed a lot of power over the years, and it doesn't want to give it up.  For eight years, Obama sought to increase the power and money that the government confiscated from the people, and he was helped greatly by complaisant journalists.

President Trump appears to be working on a hundred things at the same time in an attempt to reverse all the harm that Obama and other bureaucrats did over eight years and longer.  Obama wanted to remake America, and Trump wants to make America great again.  There is a heck of a lot of difference between those two poles, yet somehow the WSJ derides his fantastic progress with the quote "Trump is impulsive and capricious."

Trump had better keep hammering to fix the immigration system, because otherwise, the Democrats, with the help of the media, will walk all over him and weaken him.

Trump has made gigantic progress in 500 days, and Obama did little in eight years other than transfer power to himself and the government.  Obama also gave in a lot on foreign policy, including to Russia.  I'll take Trump, who knows how to change directions when something doesn't work, versus those who always have done things the same way no matter how much of a failure the policies are and who are too stubborn to admit they don't know what they are doing.

Maybe the WSJ writers should actually observe and study, and then maybe they will spot the strategy.

The WSJ, including even its editorial page, is getting more worthless every day.

This week, one of its top editorials said President Trump's threat to shut down the government over Congress's failure to finance a border wall is the way to lose the House.  The story is titled "Trump's Lose-the-House Strategy."

Actually, they have it bass-ackwards.  If Trump gives in to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and the WSJ itself in its longtime open-borders stance on immigration, that is the real way to lose the House.

In the article, the Journal makes one of the most condescending statements right here: "It's always risky to use the word 'strategy' about Trump because he's so impulsive and capricious."

I believe that a lot of us can understand Trump's strategies on many subjects.  He does things with the aim of achieving results, whether directly or by confusing his adversaries.  That's a strategy.  What a shame that the WSJ writers don't seem to have the ability to analyze or independently think about this, and recognize the man's work by his results.

On immigration, Trump's policy is to follow the immigration laws that Congress passed.  Most Democrats voted in 2006 for a border fence, and Trump wants them to finally fund it.

In the past, Democrats, including Durbin, have been in favor of ending chain migration and the stupid lottery system for immigrants.  Trump is trying to make them actually do it.

If Trump doesn't hold career politicians' the feet to the fire in both parties, he will never get the border enforced.  Meanwhile, polls show that the public is against sanctuary cities and is all in for legal immigration.  It just doesn't want to reward illegal immigration.

Trump's strategy on foreign policy is for America to be strong instead of appease.  He is finally getting NATO countries to pay.  He is defending Ukraine, and I believe that North Korea now knows we have a serious leader.  Somehow, North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong-un, stopped testing missiles last November.  If Kim reneges on his commitment, Trump will change his strategy  Is that capricious?  Should Trump do what previous experts and presidents did?  (Since it worked so well?)

On Iran, Trump is trying to get the dangerous country to collapse in the same way Ronald Reagan got the Soviet Union to collapse.  Was it better to pay the Iranians ransom and give them hundreds of billions of dollars, all for a pretend, non-binding deal so they could continue their terrorism policy?

On trade, Trump's strategy is to get other countries to get rid of their tariffs and taxes after we have let the problem compound for decades.  Did talking to other countries nicely help or compound the problem?  Trump's strategy is obviously working and working quickly when we look at what the E.U. gave in to.  Yet every day, we get garbage articles in the WSJ about how bad Trump's policy is on trade.

On the economy, Trump is moving as fast as he can to remove barriers and lower taxes to give the power and purse back to the people, where they belong.  Career politicians from both parties, lobbyists, and bureaucrats (the swamp) are fighting Trump and seeking to destroy him every day.  They are getting a tremendous amount of help from the media, including the WSJ.  The swamp has amassed a lot of power over the years, and it doesn't want to give it up.  For eight years, Obama sought to increase the power and money that the government confiscated from the people, and he was helped greatly by complaisant journalists.

President Trump appears to be working on a hundred things at the same time in an attempt to reverse all the harm that Obama and other bureaucrats did over eight years and longer.  Obama wanted to remake America, and Trump wants to make America great again.  There is a heck of a lot of difference between those two poles, yet somehow the WSJ derides his fantastic progress with the quote "Trump is impulsive and capricious."

Trump had better keep hammering to fix the immigration system, because otherwise, the Democrats, with the help of the media, will walk all over him and weaken him.

Trump has made gigantic progress in 500 days, and Obama did little in eight years other than transfer power to himself and the government.  Obama also gave in a lot on foreign policy, including to Russia.  I'll take Trump, who knows how to change directions when something doesn't work, versus those who always have done things the same way no matter how much of a failure the policies are and who are too stubborn to admit they don't know what they are doing.

Maybe the WSJ writers should actually observe and study, and then maybe they will spot the strategy.