We wouldn’t normally presume to offer unsolicited advice to an incoming president, at least in such detail, Mr. Trump–except that we may well be responsible for your surprise victory over “Her Magnificence” (a cognomen for Mrs. Clinton impulsively bestowed upon her by an effusive Tina Brown and used routinely by us here at WOOF ever since). But you probably know Tina, right? You seem to know all the glittery people. Anyway–we don’t suppose you had time to notice but we closed our October anniversary post with a suggestion that all patriotic Americans enter the voting booth and cast their ballots while chanting (quietly, of course so as not to distract others) “Klaatu barada nikto.”
The logic here is relatively obvious: If Patricia Neal’s recitation of those words saved the earth from Gort the robot in the 1951 screen classic The Day the Earth Stood Still, we were pretty certain they might work to save the earth from Hillary, too. It is, of course, impossible to authoritatively tabulate how many American voters actually took our advice and thereby sought to enlist extraterrestrial assistance in saving the United States from destruction– but it only took Patricia Neal in the movie–so you can see our point when we say that your shocker electoral triumph may be largely or at least partly due to us–and, of course, benevolent space intelligences who can presumably hack election results without leaving a trace…or perhaps simply transmogrify the hearts of thousands of voters–who knows? So, on this basis, we at WOOF are tendering a kind of desideratum for you to ponder during the lull.
On forsaking Christine…
And here’s another point. You may not read WOOF regularly, Donald, sir—and we understand if you don’t. After all, you actually work for a living, and you were busy on top of that getting elected—and before that, no offense, you seemed pretty liberal. So we can understand if you aren’t familiar with our editorial customs. But by way of demonstrating how united we became post-convention behind your candidacy, we want to point out that 2016 is the first presidential year we didn’t nominate a separate candidate for the White House. Usually, we nominate Christine O’Donnell—remember her? We just love her. After the 2012 fiasco, we mailed out a lot of our famous “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Christine O’Donnell” bumper stickers. We ran out of them…and since we didn’t charge money for them, we couldn’t afford to print more. But that’s not the point. The point is—and we hope you are properly impressed by it—that despite having a bunch of fresh bumper stickers ready to go this year, we hung fire! And this despite the fact that our planned “Christine in ‘16” slogan reflected the last presidential election year that rhymes with the comely Delawarean’s name until next century—so it took some restraint, believe us!
We’re here to help, Donald—and you’ll like our advice on these matters because it’s the best advice. It’s huge. And it’ll be great. Great. We promise! For example:
Immigration: You know you have to build a wall, right? It was hardly your idea, although because of your outspokenness on the subject, most people probably think so. Few, for that matter, realize that Peter T. King (R-NY) introduced the “Secure Fence” bill in 2006, and that it was passed by both houses of congress including a supportive vote from Hillary Clinton. When“W” signed it into law, he told onlookers that, “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”
Unfortunately, bills are just pieces of paper and they can’t do any of those things, and while fragments of a “secure fence” were built, mostly the fence remained unbuilt. In no time at all, wily illegals perceived that crossing the border in those far-more-numerous locations where there was no fence was as easy as ever. Eventually, this flaw caught the attention of the 110th Congress, which introduced the “Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008”, even though the 2006 act was never really un-instated. The reinstatement bill called for building enough fence to seal the entire border, which is what the original fence was supposed to do—but this version of the bill died in committee.
In 2010, waves of illegal aliens poured across America’s southern border at such appalling rates that Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) decided to take action by authoring the “Finish the Fence” amendment to Peter King’s original bill of 2006, requiring Homeland Security to complete the project by constructing an additional 353 miles of fencing, which wasn’t technically “additional,” because it was already supposed to be there, only it wasn’t. But the amendment to finish the fence that was already lawfully mandated by the original bill died in committee. By 2012 public outrage had grown to a level that the Republican platform that year declared, “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.” Strangely, however, the Republican congress seemed to forget all about this plank of the GOP platform in the wake of Obama’s re-election.
In fact, even defeated candidate Mitt Romney, whose platform contained the urgent language, joined a chorus of GOP luminaries calling for immigration reforms, which in Washington DC means the abandonment of all efforts at reform and the approval, instead, of blanket amnesty. Romney recommended “swallowing hard,” and passing “a permanent amnesty bill.” Nobody to our knowledge has figured out precisely what distinguishes permanent amnesty bills from ordinary amnesty bills or why swallowing makes them less stupid, but despite valiant efforts by congressional RINOs, no amnesty at all has passed—leaving it to President Obama to impose de facto Amnesty, accompanied by his peculiar resurrection of busing as a means of relocating masses of illegal, non-English-speaking immigrants to distant states—mostly ones that he hates.
The situation persists. In fact, only recently, the New York Times even noticed it. The Times was quick to assert that building a wall is “impractical,” commenting that “more restrictive immigration policies” would be better. The Times may have forgotten that such immigration policies (indeed, immigration laws) already exist, but are no longer enforced. So, yes, we really need a wall. And don’t think a Republican House and Senate necessarily means this will be easily achieved. Look at their record. Guts are in short supply in Washington, Donald sir, and money talks. A lot of your superficial supporters on the Hill continue working for business interests seeking cheap labor, and the pro-immigration groups (almost all of which represent the Worldwide Totalitarian Socialist Conspiracy that Governs Us) seeking to deracinate our culture and subvert our constitution. These interests must be crushed. Not negotiated with–crushed. So build the wall, Donald, sir—and yes, make Mexico pay for it. There are, in fact, several ways to do this—and you probably know what they are. The two most obvious are impounding the 25 billion that flows back into Mexico from Mexicans working in our country—or you could simply redirect the 25 million that Mexico receives from us in the form of foreign aid annually, or both. The academics and media pundits who maunder on piteously that the ramifications of such moves would be horrendous for Mexico have at once grasped and missed the point. But you grasped that a long time ago—didn’t you! Build the wall.
Congress—your new “allies” Even long-time spokespeople for the political right—people who, in other words, should know better—are waxing ecstatic over the fact that the GOP outperformed all expectations in retaining control of the House and the Senate. Granted, this is much better news than losing these institutions to the leftist hordes, but that doesn’t amount to unicorns and sunbeams…far from it. Any supposition that the majority of GOP members in these crucial governing bodies “got the message” can be immediately dispelled by the consideration that both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan were immediately reinstated to their leadership positions. We aren’t certain that you understand what appalling news this is, Mr. Donald—but believe us when we tell you, it is an absolutely dismal beginning, signaling a difficult and treacherous road ahead.
Smiling men with bad reputations…
You probably recall that Mr. Ryan has been an outspoken critic of practically everything you’ve proposed, said, or thought throughout the nominative process and general election. When you suggested banning Muslim immigration for a period, he professed to be horrified, moaning that such a moratorium was “not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.” Absurdly, Mitch McConnell found grounds to object to your proposal (no different from Jimmy Carter’s temporary ban of the same nature) because “It would prevent the president of Afghanistan from coming to the United States. The king of Jordan couldn’t come to the United States. Obviously we’re not going to do that.” Senator McConnell did not indicate why either the King of Jordan or the President of Afghanistan might wish to immigrate to America, which would be the only condition under which your ban would apply to them—but Mitch has never been a deep thinker.
It wasn’t that long ago that McConnell was assuring the media elites that his senatorial leadership would spell doom for the cursed Tea Party. When McConnell crowed to his allies at the New York Times that “…we are going to crush them everywhere,” he wasn’t talking about the Democrats—he was talking about his own party’s conservatives. The primary victories of RINOs like John McCain, Thad Cochran, Kelly Ayotte and yes, Paul Ryan, all won against first rate tea-party-style challengers, are tributes to McConnell’s jihad against the GOP’s conservative element. And because American voters still prefer RINOs to radical leftists, all but Ayotte (who went out of her way to trash your candidacy on the advice of her expert consultants) won their elective contests.
You must have noticed that guys like Ryan and McConnell were sniping at you the whole way for the amusement of the inside-the-beltway gerbil pack—and they haven’t changed any, and they can’t stand you, Donald. As soon as they can bad mouth your presidential performance to the piranhas at WaPo or the lynch mob on Meet the Press, they’ll jump at the opportunity. And the rest of “your” Republican House and Senate voted for them to retain their leadership roles—so don’t think that you have a GOP wind at your back—it’s really a RINO dirk. Wasn’t it the Incredible String Band’s Mike Heron who recorded an album back in the day entitled “Smiling Men with Bad Reputations”? The description was never more apt!
Some giddy optimist at National Review (which we know you declared a failed publication, but just the same) wrote recently that “Conservatives should hope for a synthesis of Trumpism and Ryanism that improves on both.” There are several flaws in this argument. First, there is no such thing as “Ryanism” in a strict sense. Ryanism, unlike Reaganism, or McCarthyism, or for that matter Trotskyism, is an ism without viscera. A smarmy willingness to compromise with the very forces one swore implacable opposition to only months earlier, while doggedly serving, no matter how underhandedly, whichever interests may currently offer maximum media strokes and establishmentarian approval, is less an ism than a personality disorder.
Second, we are fairly certain that Paul Ryan is not a student of Hegel, and we are willing to bet that you aren’t either…sir. So the idea of synthesis, while philosophically charming, is almost certainly inapplicable in praxis. More probably, Ryan will spend his time and energies half-consciously assessing your perceived gains or losses in the matrix of power politics, all the while maneuvering in accordance with his perceptions. This is not a guy you can merge with synergistically. Nothing about the man will hold still long enough to merge with.
And finally, sir, “hope” is not a policy—and Conservatives are better advised to spend their time creating (and in many cases, remember, tenaciously obstructing) change, than hoping for it or against it. Let the liberals do the hoping.
Congress—your former friends Now about your “friends” from the old days—and in particular, since you recently made mention of him, your relationship with Chuck Schumer. We know you probably don’t like us iterating this unattractive concern, Donald, but to run the detail past you one final time, you seem to have been a rather liberal and Democrat-oriented guy for the majority of your time on this planet, and we can definitely understand that—up to a point. After all, when it comes to the particulars of doing business, whether in New York or internationally, one must deal with, befriend, play golf with, and express common ground with a lot of politicians and proverbial “fat cats” who are almost uniformly leftist, Read more…