Praise is carried lightest on another man’s back. We’ve probably all known the type who absorbed this maxim fully. People with the enviable talent of attracting profit as they shift the costs. People who luxuriate in plaudits for the toil of others. I recall a manager who would volunteer his already bedraggled team for various make-work projects that accrued solely to his own meticulously cultivated reputation. While he was counting the number of bricks in the building outside his office window, his subordinates would be dispatched to cover for the deficit labor of another team. This so he alone could secure the adulation of peers and executives for “coming through like a champ.” Hehe, thanks guys. Just give me the ball and I’ll run it in. He would mainline the praise like it was Essex County smack. And best of all…we paid the bill.
That’s largely how moral preening is financed across the societal product line: on someone else’s back…and often enough in their blood. Consider the toll of migrant crime–no one else will.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has revealed that 124 illegal immigrant criminals released from jail by the Obama administration since 2010 have been subsequently charged with murder.
“The criminal aliens released by ICE in these years — who had already been convicted of thousands of crimes — are responsible for a significant crime spree in American communities, including 124 new homicides. Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release some criminal aliens multiple times,” said the report written by CIS’s respected director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan.
She added that 75 percent were released due to court orders or because their countries wouldn’t take them back.
What’s more, her report said that in 2014, ICE released 30,558 criminal aliens who had been convicted of 92,347 crimes. Only 3 percent have been deported.
Even though I am a man bent into his dotage, there still remains a boy’s wonder at small things. Their countries wouldn’t take them back? Well I suppose that’s just the end of it then. They say “no thanks, you can keep him,” and what are you going to do? There are several options, actually. Simply boot them over the border and close the gate is the easiest. Though there is also parachuting over home countries, or humane coastal repatriation bombardments at Mach 7 from a naval rail gun. The means is less important than the end that other countries aren’t at blithe liberty to dump their trash in our yard and not take it back.
Though who were the 124 homicide victims of criminal aliens? Probably just Trump voting riffraff who wouldn’t know a Gulfstream from a Baglietto. Shit it’s not like they’re actual people, well not ones who count at any rate. Don’t bereaved family members just consume a 12-pack of Pabst and yell Yee-haw? Have they even felt the pain of Cis-privilege? Well pain comes in forms far more vivid than just that purchased with a Soros protest check. And there are many men like Dan Golvach who have been forced to harbor it bitterly.
How much of this do we have to take?” Dan Golvach asked about the Republican Party’s longstanding refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
Golvach—whose 25-year-old son Spencer was stopped at a traffic light when an illegal alien pulled up next to him and shot him in the head—explains that the reason he now backs Donald Trump for President is because of holidays spent at the cemetery, and the image of his “child’s deflated head in a casket” burned into his mind.
“Losing a child,” Golvach explains, is something one never really gets “acclimated to. I can tell you that it’s a very dark place of despair. And your life is ruined. It’s just ruined. Trust me. Everything is damaged. Nothing has the same meaning anymore. There is no real joy in life. You just go through the motions because you’re not suicidal, and you just do things, but your life will never be particularly joyous again … Once this happens you’re going to have a very marginalized life at best. And thank you, United States government. I thought their first mandate was to protect us, but they’re just protecting their donors— and it’s treason.
What they’re doing is allowing oligarchs and plutocrats to come in and buy their way out of our laws … those pesky federal immigration laws that are designed to keep our families safe. What they are doing is treasonous in every regard … And these guys that are doing this … these politicians and these oligarchs—know full well what’s coming over that border. They’re perfectly aware of it. They know the detrimental effect that it’s having on the country, but they do it anyway. Why do they do it? Because they can get a bigger yacht. That is treason. If that’s not treason, we should take the word out of the English language. We really should. That’s treasonous and in a perfect world they would be brought up on charges for what they’ve done because we have a Constitution, and they’re completely disregarding it. And they’re doing it for their own personal gain and that’s treason—by any definition. It is treason, no question. And they should be punished for it.”
Those of you with children can intuit the depths of his despair while yearning to never truly comprehend its scope. Trying to grasp the anguish of losing a child is probably much like trying to understand the pain of having your arm torn off. In both instances imagination is a wan reflection of lurid reality.
And I certainly concur with his sentiment–the donors do understand the costs others are incurring. But that nebulous discomfort does little to impair the yield of so many succulent consumers. So if a few (or more than a few) families must exchange Christmas gifts over a cold headstone, well ask not what your Economy can do for you.
Though is the grieving father correct in a statutory sense? That is to say, is treason a crime against nation or state? I very much wish the praise-absorbent Constitution had thought to specify an answer.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Two witnesses huh? Has there been a day that many tuned into C-Span? If so, I believe our criteria can be met. For if the full raft of welfare benefits doesn’t qualify for rendering Aid and Comfort, then sanctuary cities, hiring preferences, and in-state tuition for illegal foreign nationals surely must. But of course the opposing argument is that these aren’t enemies at all, but simply some of Earth’s seven billion pre-Americans. The difference between the two being adjudicated by the weight of dead sons against incremental corporate revenue and vain posturing for praise.
I hope donors and congressmen will one day have the opportunity to plead their case in the court of Dan Golvach.