"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

There's an old saying that all good parents should ensure their children know: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

(If you're curious: That general idea was first stated in the 12th century as "Hell is full of good intentions and desires," updated to its current form around 1790.)

The relevance to us is that liberal Democrats want to invite all poor, illiterate foreigners to come to the U.S, NOT as visitors but to stay here forever, cuz..."We beez a rich nation, while dey iz poor, so we NEED to let them come here!  And we will cheer as the Democrat rulers we elect--Clinton, Obama and bribem--make this the policy of the U.S. government."

Wow, gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, eh?  For liberals and Democrats it's almost the highest form of virtue-signal:  "We will welcome everyone in, and then will give them "free" food, "free" housing, "free" medical care and schooling.  

And if they refuse to study and instead form...um...'affinity groups' dedicated to overthrowing ouah government, that's their absolute right, citizen!  It's jus' 'freedom speech!'  Thus the 'protests' in L.A. and other Dem-ruled cities against deportations were NOT riots!  Nope nope nope!  Cuz throwing rocks at police cars from overpasses and burning cars are, like, totally peaceful protests, citizen!  "Protected free speech!"  

"Cuz we CANNOT allow Rethuglicans to block us from continuing to allow anyone from any nation to come to the U.S. and stay forever!  And since they're poor, we are must then give 'em free everything!  And we know it's free cuz...um...everything the gummint gives pipo iz "free" by definition, eh?  Dems in congress say 'free' benefits, so mus' be true, right?"

This, citizen, is where we were under bribem/Democrat rule.  Dems and bribem (or his handlers) wanted a tidal wave of immigrants who would vote Democrat--so they claimed it was simply impossible to prevent millions of foreigners from entering the U.S. at will.  Just over half of American voters instinctively recognized this was a brazen lie, so we elected Trump to end the Dems' open borders policy.  And he did: today the number of illegal entries has dropped to almost zero, compared to 200,000 per MONTH under bribem.

As you could guess, Democrats are furious about Trump both shutting off their source of new voters AND making 'em look like liars--but most of their anger is NOT due to closing the border to their literally endless tidal wave of new Dem voters, but to something entirely different:

It's that Democrat leaders--like AOC and Bernie and Hakeem and Schumer--quickly realized that young Americans hated the Democrats' open-borders policy--for dozens of reasons.  Murders of Americans by violent gangs and drunk illegal drivers.  Having to pay billions to feed and house the illegals.  Dem-ruled states giving illegals of average IQ "free college tuition," while kids of U.S. citizens had to pay full tuition.  Watching dumb illegals being given government positions in Dem-ruled states.  The list is damn near endless.

So back to "The road to hell..."  GOOD people love to be kind and gracious and good.  So when Democrat politicians ORDER that we open our borders to everyone, Dem voters support it--cuz (wait for it) voters wanna be kind and gracious and good, eh?  It's no surprise.

And it's no surprise that Dem politicians constantly describe anyone who objects as "mean, cruel, heartless."  Finally, it's no surprise that RINOs vote with Democrats to keep the free shit flowing to illegals, because "Dey has kids, an' it's not dere fault dat de're po'!  So we cain't let dere kids suffer!"

And here's the surprise: I agree that once a Democrat president allows illegals into the U.S, we can't let their kids starve.  And soon a few thousand turn into 11 million or so.  Or maybe 22 million.  No one knows. 

Democrats: "SEE??  You agree wif' us!  Good!" 

Maddeningly, a shithead judge RULED that the Census Bureau could NOT put a question on the 2020 census asking "Are you a citizen of the U.S.?"  Can you imagine the sheer brazenness of decreeing the the damn federal government--which the courts have ruled is solely responsible for immigration--can't ask people if they're citizens?

Which brings up the next problem:  you've got a deadly time-bomb in the courts, after Democrat presidents appointed a thousand or so leftist judges for LIFE terms.  No one has the balls to impeach 'em, so they'll continue to sit in their oak-paneled chambers like termites, for LIFE, busily destroying what's left of freedom in the U.S.

Want just one example of thousands?  Sure: the "Keystone XL pipeline would have quietly carried 830,000 barrels of high-quality oil from Canada to the U.S.  The company that proposed to build the XL got ALL required environmental impact statements and permits, borrowed a couple of billion dollars, bought a billion dollars worth of top-quality coated steel pipe and started laying it.

On his first day in office, the senile, corrupt, moronic China-loving president, joe fucking bribem revoked the permit for the U.S. portion of the pipeline--AFTER they'd already borrowed billions and started building.  The communist sons of whores at Reuters sneered that this was trivial since the project was "only" 8% complete when the utterly corrupt bribem cancelled it.

All the costly, coated steel pipe that had been bought was scrapped.  But hey, not bribem's problem, eh?  He and his leftist handlers wanted to signal their great virtue by blocking it, and they did.  All Mainstream Media outlets gloated that the cancellation was a Good Thing.  

The company that had borrowed the money and started laying pipe sued, but knew they couldn't win in a U.S. court against the bribem regime so sued in a special "NAFTA" court.  The case was dismissed.  What a shock, eh?

For those who don't know jack-shit about the Constitution (and no one who's under 50 and not a lawyer knows more than a few amendments), that document expressly prohibits a thing called "ex post facto laws."   If you're curious, the bans--plural--are in Article I, Section 9 for the federal government, and Article I, Section 10 for the states.  

"Ex post facto" means laws written to make an act that was previously legal a crime *after the act.* 

English kings had apparently done this, and it doesn't take a law degree to realize ex post facto laws are written solely as a means to control those the king (i.e. the government) didn't like.  The brilliant, well-schooled men who wrote our Constitution recognized this, and were so determined that this never be done again that they inserted the prohibition in two different sections of their masterpiece, specifically to prohibit both federal and state governments from passing such laws.  

For Democrats and the slow-witted: it should be obvious that changing laws or mere rules to make something that was formerly legal retroactively illegal would hamstring all manner of creativity, since one could never be sure that enemies in government wouldn't make whatever you just made or did retroactively illegal.  

What bribem did by cancelling the Keystone XL after the company had completed every environmental impact statement, gotten all required permits and started construction was tantamount to an ex post facto law: They jumped thru all the gruberment hoops, then the dictator (and he was) revoked the permit for the U.S. section.  

Again, not my problem: I've got a fabulous education, and money, but have deliberately avoided starting a business, because today you can't run "your" business by your own decisions.  (And I don't mean wanting the right to dump toxic waste into rivers.)  Instead leftist judges and the government have special rules for what businesses MUST do that have nothing to do with the environment:  the gruberment decrees who you MUST hire, or face ruinous, bankrupting fines.  Orders minimum wages--even orders extra pay for voluntary overtime.  It even orders businesses to post certain fliers in the workplace.  

Nah, thanks, I'm fine.  But once you start a business, maybe mortgaging your home and borrowing money from your parents and friends to start the thing, and have built it up to a going concern, you're trapped:  If you disobey even one of their rules, they come after you with infinite taxpayer-funded attorneys, like a pack of hyenas.

So...go fuck yourselves, gruberment.  I'm delighted that at least some men are willing to become government lackeys and build massive companies. 

So are there any options, other than just sitting with hands folded as the U.S. goes down like an anvil?  Of course.  The Dems won't let you do any of 'em, but they exist.

Deport all illegal aliens.  How can anyone believe that entering the U.S. illegally entitles you to be a citizen, or a non-citizen who can stay here forever, eh?  Re-impose work requirements for able-bodied citizens who want to receive taxpayer-funded freebies.  Imagine how much money both fed and state governments would save if 20 million illegals were deported back to their home countries!  Use the freed-up billions to cut the ghastly, ultimately fatal national debt, if only a bit.

And speaking of the national debt: Forty years ago (December, 1985) congress recognized that constant deficits (thus ever-increasing national debt) would eventually kill us, so they passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Law of 1985.  That lasted about ten months before the Democrats figured out a way around it.

A dozen years later, in 1997, with the corrupt rapist Clinton trying to look reasonable instead of utterly liberal, congress tried again, passing the

Balanced Budget Act of 1997, signed into law by Slick Willy on August 5, 1997.  This time it took the Democrats even less time to find a way around it, because they knew how from looking for a way around the 1985 law.

Clever, clever Democrats, eh?  This is who they are, and what they do.  They know how to get around EVERY law...and they do it VERY well. 

They know their voters love "free shit"--even though a moment's thought is enough for rational adults to conclude that there's no such thing as "free."  If the gruberment gives something to someone, someone else has to pay for it, eh?

Average Democrat voter: "NOooo, dat fake newz!  See, duh government can just print as much money as they want!"

And there, friends, is one of the biggest problems: My guess is that half of Dem voters actually believe that.  

So back to "The road to hell is paved...:"  Democrats see people from shithole countries who'd LOVE to live here, and think "It would be charitable and virtuous to let them come here!  And I am a good, charitable person, so I'll vote for rulers who will open our borders.  Problem solved!  Yay!"

Those self-proclaimed "good Americans" either never imagined their Dem rulers would give the "undocumented Americans" hundreds of billions of dollars of "free shit."  Or they did but didn't care.

I get it.  Really.

After flying jets for a decade, then the family oil business, for the past 40 years I've tutored college students in all the hard sciences.  And I've found a hundred or so who couldn't multiply four times eight without a calculator.  They were kids of average IQ, from good families, but following the lead of communist professors at Hahvahd and Yale, their public skools just didn't teach 'em basic math.  As one result (of many), they didn't know how many millions in a billion.  And yet they vote.  The fatal flaw of all democracies is that stupid and uneducated people (and yes, there's a difference) are allowed to vote.

And which party do they always vote for?  The one that promises 'em the most free shit, of course. 

If, by an astonishing miracle, we were able to deport all illegals, that would postpone the implosion of the United States due to debt by a few decades.  But just as the Democrats quickly found ways to defeat the two "balanced budget LAWS" of 1985 and 1995, they'll find a way to spend ALL money saved by deporting illegals, and we'll quickly be back to square one. 

Short answer: the U.S. is doomed as long as Democrats can use even a MINORITY to continue to rule.  And make no mistake: they rule even when Republicans have the presidency and majorities in both chambers of congress.  It's why senate Democrats--on the orders of Chuckie Schumer--have used their MINORITY to refuse 13 times to pass a "clean" continuing resolution to reopen the federal government.

I'm an 'old guy' with no kids, so whether the U.S. survives or collapses is of only academic interest to me.  I've got no dog in this hunt.  But if you have kids, you might have a different feeling.  

So the question is: Do you want your kids to live in a free, prosperous nation, or would you prefer they live under socialism/Democrat rule?  I truly don't care...but you might.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," eh?  You can continue voting for Democrats,  and they'll continue to block GOP bills--like the "clean" continuing resolution to re-open the government--with just 41 votes in the senate (and Dems have 45), or you can vote the stupid bastards out. 

Again, which path voters choose is only of academic interest to me, since I don't have children and my siblings are liberal Democrats, so as far as I'm concerned the fate of my nieces and nephews was selected by my siblings.  Will I feel sorry for them?  Of course.  What will that accomplish?

He doesn't just hate the U.S.--he wants to take it over

 

Okay, a bit of dark humor--but I think we could use some!

(Kudos to "King Bishop" for this)