Trump Wall Update: Maybe the Bill Doesn’t Do All These Bad Things?

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 18, 2019

There has formed on the internets a climate of hostility towards Donald Trump which is at least partially or mostly warranted. However, we should not let that hostility simply become festering rage that blinds us to what is actually happening.

We should note, for instance, that when he signed the alleged doom spending bill, he also released a statement on whitehouse.gov basically saying that he was going to ignore a bunch of different things in the bill. I am not any kind of lawyer, and I have no idea if he can or can’t ignore large sections of this bill, but he did release a statement saying he can and will do that.

Furthermore, I just listened to the Fash the Nation weekend show, and was told that basically everything is fine.

On the issue of section 224, which is one of the doom sections, host Jazzhands says that this is not a doom section.

This is the section that says “sponsors” of unaccompanied minors can’t be deported.

What Jazzhands says – and I have absolutely no idea if this is true – is that “sponsors” has a very strict legal definition, and these people have to show ID and register with the government to gain that status, and that most of these people are not willing to go through that procedure.

Furthermore, he says that the ability of local mayors to veto wall being build along their towns and cities is not in the bill.

This is section 232.

So I don’t have any idea what that means.

This is the problem with all of this. No one understands what any of it means, and there is no definitive authority saying what it means. It is truly a ridiculous situation which is in fact almost unfathomable.

Why should we not be given either

1. Text we are capable of understanding, or
2. An accompanying summary of the text

What is the excuse for not giving us one of those two things, given the monumental nature of this bill?

Legal Challenges

There are already a complete barrage of legal challenges against the emergency declaration Trump signed, and there are expected to be more.

However, on that front, legal experts seem to agree that the Supreme Court will side with Trump. I have no idea how long that will take, however. And no one else seems to know either. Apparently, the Democrat plan is to hit him with so many of these lawsuits that it just takes forever to work them out.

Their primary claim is that this is “not a real emergency.” However, no one complained when Trump signed national emergency orders declaring that the Rohingya genocide, Russian Facebook memes and Venezuelan communism are national emergencies.

There appears to be a very low bar on national emergencies in this country.

On that issue, Jazzhands addressed something I agree with, which is the allegation by the media and by many of the conservatives that this national emergency will mean that Democrats can do more national emergencies if/when they get into office. Nancy Pelosi actually baited the conservatives by saying that Democrats will do a national emergency on gun control.

However, Barack Obama was already using executive power to do insane, illegal things. He did DACA through executive powers. And this broke the law. Doing some kind of executive action on gun control would also break the law. Trump’s national emergency is simply to enforce existing law.

Furthermore, Democrats are going to do whatever they can get away with if/when they get in power. They’re not going to be restrained to some kind of “tit for tat” principle. Trump is not setting any precedent that was not already set by declaring a national emergency to enforce existing laws.

Ultimately, We Do Not Know

Because of the absolutely confusing nature of the wording and other legalese in this bill, as well as the backdrop of existing law, no one has any idea what is going to happen next. Making predictions is pretty much a pointless endeavor.

I simply want to say that people might be jumping the gun on getting overly angry about this situation, and we may end up with a wall having been started by the end of the year, which will help Trump’s 2020 prospects.

And everyone needs to remember that whatever Trump does (or more importantly doesn’t do), Kamala Harris – or whoever – will be 100 times worse. That is just the hard reality.

And as much as I see people in comments sections claiming that “worse is better,” and suggesting that eventually whites will rise up if enough of their rights are taken away, no one has yet explained to me how that applies to South Africa, where the white minority is being hunted down and exterminated.

This “accelerationist” argument appears to simply be designed to justify losing by saying that losing is actually winning.

And the fun and games will be over when you have a Democrat in power who is arresting people for “hate speech” or for being secret Russian collaborators and kicking in doors to take your guns.

We absolutely do not want Donald Trump to lose in 2020, no matter what. If he does, we are going to enter into a real nightmare realm.