Pelosi, Schumer, and anti-Trump hysteria

With the new Congress getting settled in and the Democrats now in control of the House while a partial government shutdown exists, there appears to be no call for reasonable conversations and compromise from the Democratic side regarding the construction of a border wall.  No pun intended, but it seems that the Democrats have initiated a "Mexican standoff."

Senator Chuck Schumer and newly reappointed House speaker Nancy Pelosi have consistently made two arguments as to why they will not acquiesce to President Trump's request for five billion dollars to construct the wall.  On the one hand, both have cited the president's campaign promise, where he stated that Mexico would pay for the wall, so from their vantage point, funds from U.S. taxpayers should not be needed. 

Forgetting the fact that Trump may have a plan where Mexico will pay for the wall at some future point, resenting allegedly modified or amended campaign promises is not a rational reason to put American citizens in harm's way.  But in the interest of consistency, what are the excuses Schumer and Pelosi have for continuing to back the Affordable Care Act even though President Obama blatantly and routinely lied to the American people about being allowed to keep their doctors?   

Perhaps the rigid stand against the president's security assessment stems from Schumer's and Pelosi's assumption that they have much more experience in dealing with security issues than does Trump.  Both Schumer and Pelosi have contended that a wall would not stop the flow of illegal aliens from entering the country, even though Border Patrol agents on the ground, who are in the best possible position to judge what works, disagree.  It should also be noted that in 2013, Schumer voted for eight billion toward building or repairing 700 miles of fencing.  That's three billion dollars more than what Trump is asking for.  So somehow, over the past several years, the border's fencing must have repaired itself, because Schumer now declares that 1.6 billion dollars in additional security enhancements would be all that is needed to secure America's southern border.  

There is no question that these two seasoned politicians have a far more impressive track record than Trump regarding decisions dealing with safety and security around the world.  For example, both Schumer and Pelosi agreed with President Obama's actions for limited military intervention in Libya, which led to the execution of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi, setting Libya on a path to a chaotic civil war.  Obama later admitted that this was the biggest mistake of his presidency, one that ultimately resulted in the death of a U.S. ambassador and three brave Americans in Benghazi.  But what difference does that make? 

When Obama announced his plan to cut U.S. troops in Iraq to 50,000 in his efforts to end U.S. involvement, Schumer and Pelosi thought the troop number too high but agreed with the withdrawal.  That decision resulted in the rise of ISIS and the start of a bloodbath of Iraqi citizens, the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Christians, and the establishment of a radical Islamic caliphate.  But at least their intentions were good.

In short, Schumer's and Pelosi's track record for what is needed for adequate security has resulted in millions of dead bodies, U.S. military intervention, and one of the worst refugee catastrophes in recorded history.  So it stands to reason that even with that kind of disastrous record, the leftist news media would support any idea these two Democrats have if it runs counter to the plans of President Trump.

With the new Congress getting settled in and the Democrats now in control of the House while a partial government shutdown exists, there appears to be no call for reasonable conversations and compromise from the Democratic side regarding the construction of a border wall.  No pun intended, but it seems that the Democrats have initiated a "Mexican standoff."

Senator Chuck Schumer and newly reappointed House speaker Nancy Pelosi have consistently made two arguments as to why they will not acquiesce to President Trump's request for five billion dollars to construct the wall.  On the one hand, both have cited the president's campaign promise, where he stated that Mexico would pay for the wall, so from their vantage point, funds from U.S. taxpayers should not be needed. 

Forgetting the fact that Trump may have a plan where Mexico will pay for the wall at some future point, resenting allegedly modified or amended campaign promises is not a rational reason to put American citizens in harm's way.  But in the interest of consistency, what are the excuses Schumer and Pelosi have for continuing to back the Affordable Care Act even though President Obama blatantly and routinely lied to the American people about being allowed to keep their doctors?   

Perhaps the rigid stand against the president's security assessment stems from Schumer's and Pelosi's assumption that they have much more experience in dealing with security issues than does Trump.  Both Schumer and Pelosi have contended that a wall would not stop the flow of illegal aliens from entering the country, even though Border Patrol agents on the ground, who are in the best possible position to judge what works, disagree.  It should also be noted that in 2013, Schumer voted for eight billion toward building or repairing 700 miles of fencing.  That's three billion dollars more than what Trump is asking for.  So somehow, over the past several years, the border's fencing must have repaired itself, because Schumer now declares that 1.6 billion dollars in additional security enhancements would be all that is needed to secure America's southern border.  

There is no question that these two seasoned politicians have a far more impressive track record than Trump regarding decisions dealing with safety and security around the world.  For example, both Schumer and Pelosi agreed with President Obama's actions for limited military intervention in Libya, which led to the execution of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi, setting Libya on a path to a chaotic civil war.  Obama later admitted that this was the biggest mistake of his presidency, one that ultimately resulted in the death of a U.S. ambassador and three brave Americans in Benghazi.  But what difference does that make? 

When Obama announced his plan to cut U.S. troops in Iraq to 50,000 in his efforts to end U.S. involvement, Schumer and Pelosi thought the troop number too high but agreed with the withdrawal.  That decision resulted in the rise of ISIS and the start of a bloodbath of Iraqi citizens, the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Christians, and the establishment of a radical Islamic caliphate.  But at least their intentions were good.

In short, Schumer's and Pelosi's track record for what is needed for adequate security has resulted in millions of dead bodies, U.S. military intervention, and one of the worst refugee catastrophes in recorded history.  So it stands to reason that even with that kind of disastrous record, the leftist news media would support any idea these two Democrats have if it runs counter to the plans of President Trump.