If It Weren’t So Serious, It Would Be Funny!

The progressive temper-tantrum is getting really tiresome, but all that kicking and screaming is devolving into some kind of weird suicide pact. When President Trump rejected the Paris Climate Treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, “the states of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.”

The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.” Governor Cuomo of New York has been equally clear. “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.” Cuomo’s statement conveniently comes in French, Chinese and Russian translations. “It is a little bold to talk about the China-California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Governor Brown of California announced.

That’s Daniel Greenfield. He added:

The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island looks a lot like the Confederacy’s Montgomery Convention. Both serve as meeting points for a secessionist alliance of states to air their grievances against the Federal government over an issue in which they are out of step with the nation.

That’s as effective as the media’s vast confidence that the Comey hearings today would provide the necessary evidence to impeach the President. Or these states’ confidence that offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants would prove that they really are good people who welcome immigrants of all kinds from all places. The scientific evidence shows clearly that by 2100, the Paris Climate Accords would have made no observable difference in the climate. But feeling good about yourself is the important thing. That’s why events like Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester resulted in a vast outpouring of a mountain of flowers and lots and lots of candles, which makes no observable difference in the safety of British citizens. Heather MacDonald explained:

The candlelight vigils didn’t work. After the Manchester Arena suicide bombing in England last month, liberal pundits suggested “mass vigils” and “community solidarity” as a counterterrorism response. The most important imperative, according to the media intelligentsia, was to signal that the West’s commitment to “diversity” and “inclusion” was intact. Unfortunately, the three Islamic terrorists who used a van and knives to kill another seven civilians and critically injure dozens more in London on Saturday night were unmoved by the “diversity” message. Witnesses described the killers frantically stabbing anyone they could reach, while shouting “This is for Allah”; one witness said that a girl was stabbed up to 15 times. The “candlelight vigil” counsel has been more muted after this latest attack, though the New York Times has predictably advised the candidates in Britain’s upcoming elections not to succumb to “draconian measures” or to do “just what the terrorists want” by undermining democratic values.

In a second article from City Journal, Heather MacDonald writes of “The Left’s Unilateral Suicide Pact: After the Manchester bombing, liberals once again avoid the obvious—that Islamic terror in the West is an immigration problem.”

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) … The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.

Myron Magnet echoes Heather MacDonald’s concerns.” Governments, he reminds us, exist to keep citizens safe in their streets and cities from foreign or domestic violence”

Start by naming the enemy, as Donald Trump and Theresa May finally have done, after eight years of Barack Obama’s dereliction of duty for refusing to utter the simple words, “Islamist terrorism.” As numerous pundits—notably Andrew C. McCarthy, successful prosecutor of the 1993 Islamist World Trade Center bombers—have explained, Islamism, a large subcategory of Islam, is not only a religion but also a political ideology that aims at world domination, so that treating it as if, like Christianity or Judaism, it preaches only individual salvation or virtue is mistaken at best, willfully blind at worst.

You have perhaps noticed that there are only two positions regarding immigration. You are expected to favor all immigration because “we are all immigrants”, and if you don’t, it’s Islamophobia, Nativism, Fascism of course, and Nationalism. Other epithets when they seem to fit. We have a million and a half people who wish to become Americans who have applied properly, paid their fees and are patiently waiting for their turn to immigrate. I fail to understand why illegals, who are breaking the law, should take precedence over those who are following the law. We are a sovereign nation, we have immigration laws, and there is no reason why they should be suspended because Democrats want more immigrants who might vote for them.

The Leftist states are not just attempting to secede, but unfortunately they’re not very good at economics either. They are furious that the new administration is attempting to get rid of ObamaCare, and plan to adopt single-payer or completely socialized medical care on their own.

Vermont, Colorado , New York and California have so-called “single payer” health care proposals far enough along to have some serious numbers about incremental costs above and beyond the existing state government expenses for things like Medicaid. In every case the incremental costs came in at more than all the revenue from all existing state taxes, so enacting single-payer would require more than doubling existing state taxes.

There are lots of people who believe that there is lots of “government money” without realizing that the government has no money of it’s own, only what it collects in taxes.

Connecticut is close to bankruptcy. California cannot afford her useless high-speed train to nowhere, and attempting to add single-payer health care, is going to add California to the list. The sunshine state is already over $1 trillion in the hole for employee pension underfunding. They don’t call Jerry Brown “Governor Moonbeam” for no reason. Illinois, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey are not far behind with underfunded pensions.

Temper tantrums are one thing, but secession, thwarting the law, bankruptcy, and attempts to illegally enter into a foreign treaty and to promote violence simply because you lost an election is going too far.