This is both good news and AWFUL news

by Skip

  • The Good News:  A number of Sanctuary Cities are starting to see the error of their ways and have decided to return to The Rule of Law
  • The AWFUL News:  Money is more powerful than their Principles.

Heh!  This is good news in that these towns, cities and counties are no longer decide that all laws apply to everyone, including themselves.  They should NEVER have decided otherwise.  But like recalcitrant children, they are learning that decisions have consequences.  But are they doing it because it is “the right thing to do”? Of course not.  Sure, they’re folding like paper cut-outs of Obama in the rain, but not for the right reason. Instead of following The Rule of Law (one of the foundational tenets of American Exceptionalism that all men are created equal before the law) however, its all about the Benjamins (reformatted, emphasis mine):

‘We’re going to see more’: Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump’s funding threats

Summarized from the article:

  • Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes…
  • Miami-Dade
  • Saratoga, N.Y.,
  • Finney County, Kan.,
  • Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.

It’s a long list; CIS says it is over 300 political entities are “Sanctuaries” which mean that those leaders have decided that THEY have the RIGHT to decide what laws they will follow and which ones they don’t.  Umm, then how come *I* don’t have that same RIGHT?  Who gave them that authority? No one, but someone, Lightworker Obama, decided that he had the RIGHT to not enforce the law (but boy, if you have a public bathroom….).  But there’s a new Prez in town that has made it clear that the Law will be enforced.

And the Truth will win out as to why they’ve decided that this RIGHT to be scofflaws is now unaffordable to them – that everyone has to be subject to that Law (gee, what a concept). And so:

The mayor of Miami-Dade County, which was considered a sanctuary community, made headlines recently when he changed a policy that called for refusing to hold arrested immigrants for immigration officials unless they committed to reimbursing the county for the cost of detention. Telling reporters that he did not want to imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Mayor Carlos Gimenez ordered jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.

And there it is, plain and simple. Their virtue-signaling high horse stances?  They’ve basically sold out – they’ve been bought out and made it publicly clear that their nonsense has been brought to a halt.

And that’s the AWFUL news – that local entities have sold themselves out to the next level, or highest level, of Government.  Progressives call it “cooperative Federalism” – do what we want and we’ll dole out some of the money we have over collected from your citizens back to you AFTER we take our vigorish and make sure the rules on taking those dollars are going to tie you up in knots when you least expect it.  The infamous “strings attached” I’ve railed about for years.  WHY, in God’s Green Earth do lower politicians want to put themselves in financial thrall  to others?

Instead, they seem to like being tied up like victims of a drug cartel kidnapping.  I’ve blogged about my hamlet’s problems with its outdoor ice rink, the bandstand, and the “sidewalk to no where” (and remember, the Selectmen want to add an impound lot on the Feds’ dime).  I won’t mention the other equipment, radio systems and a whole flock of other stuff – when you deal with budgets and also see what kinds of grants that the Feds hand out like candy, its, well, you start wondering is there ANY financial restraint at ALL up and down the system?

No, of course not.  And like NYC broken windows, that same lack of restraint, in my mind, that spills into other areas.  Like being legal scofflaws a la Sanctuary cities.

I don’t think that it is a far reach to describe the Fed, when it is in this position, of being not much different than being a drug dealer: “here little town, have a little sugar – it will go down real easy”.  And like everything else, to go back to the Fram oil filter commercial paraphrase, “you can pay it now or you can REALLY pay it later”.  Miami-Dade, Saratoga, and the others listed above, are learning that they are REALLY going to be paying for it:

They’ve lost their independence.

And these former scofflaws are finding that paying the price to be truly independent is impossible.  Nowlet me now flip the narrative and go quite contrarian and against the current political flow.  But I look at it this way – MY way is sustainable and the “free money” way is not.

I think that if something is important enough for a town, city, county, or a State, they ought pay for it themselves.

Period.  You need a new building, new police or fire stuff, DPW truck, or any other such items?  You want it, you pay for it.  Stop making me pay for it.  If you need it local, pay for locally (isn’t that one of the definitions of “sustainability”?)

At what point will the US run into the Thatcher Postulate – sooner or later, you run out of other peoples’ money?  The Feds are $20 Trillion in the hole so again I have to raise the interest rate spector – once the Federal Reserve starts to raise rates, what will be the impact be on US?  Debt service is #4 in the Federal budget – it will only take a few points uptick and it can own the budget.

And then towns will have to be get used to be on their own because there will no longer be a Sugar Daddy around peddling goodies.  And know that with your profligate spending and lust for other peoples’ money, you are part and parcel in the problem.

Again, The Rule of Law – THE right question is asked:

“Are you really going to pick and choose what laws you’re going to enforce?” asked Telford. “If you want a change [in immigration policy], go to the legislature.”

That would be the right way to do it.  But as we know, the answer is – nope:

While some communities are rethinking their sanctuary policies under the pressure of losing funding, public officials of others, particularly major cities, have vowed to defy Trump’s orders. “We’re going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York at a recent press conference. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also vowed to protect illegal immigrants, including ones suspected or convicted of crimes, from the feds. “I want to be clear: We’re going to stay a sanctuary city,” Emanuel said. “There is no stranger among us… you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American dream.”

I look at Chicago that Rahm Emmanuel just laid in some OUTRAGEOUS new taxes – how long can he go to the well and say “Help me fight Trump – and let me raise your taxes some more so people that shouldn’t be here legally (and sometimes, commit egregious crimes against you, your families,and your neighbors) can stay. Let me keep showering them with money”.

Just don’t mind those pesky potholes or our abysmal school system.

It seems like American citizens exist to serve everyone else, doesn’t it.

No, these are not our values.

(H/T: Fox News)


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: