WaPo Says Trump is a “Radical” for Not Wanting an Open Border

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 24, 2019

The above WaPo headline was apparently changed, because it comes up on Google News as “Resisting Trump isn’t radical. It’s moderate.”

And that is actually a more appropriate title for this op-ed by the shill EJ Dionne Jr., in which the insane argument is made that Donald Trump is some kind of extremist because he’s demanding money for a wall (or artistically-designed steel slats) on the Mexican border.

Washington Post:

This must be the last shutdown, ever. No president or group of politicians should be able to wreck government and inflict suffering on its employees as a form of brute force to get their way.

Any deal to end this nonsense must therefore include a measure akin to the no-more-shutdowns proposal from Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) disarming those who so disrespect government that they’re willing to throw the country into chaos.

It also means that continuing to resist President Trump’s intransigence is not a radical position. It is the moderate position.

There is longing for “moderates” of one kind or another to come up with a solution to this crisis. Yet what’s more moderate than saying that everything related to border security should be on the table for negotiation, but in a considered, thoughtful way? A border wall should not be privileged just because we have a president obsessed with symbols that rally his base.

Let’s be clear: Trump’s opponents are not refusing to negotiate. In fact, House Democrats said Wednesday that they’re willing to offer additional money for border security, though not for the wall.

Yes. So they’re refusing to negotiate on building a wall.

Meaning they are refusing to negotiate.

About something which they supported openly less than a decade ago.

Not just the party, but the same exact individuals.

Someone in this shutdown situation is radical, but it isn’t Donald Trump.

Because you have to have some kind of context in order to use a word like “radical.”

And in order to give a context to the term “radical,” you would do best to put the position being discussed in a historical context.

When you only have to go back to Obama’s second term to find that the entire political system – both parties – were saying that illegal immigration had to be stopped, with both parties at least giving lip service to the idea of a physical barrier on the border, and now you have one party holding that position and the other arguing for completely open borders, I do not think it is difficult to determine which position is the radical one.

Whenever I am referred to as a “neo-Nazi white supremacist” and we find that no one can define that term, I say this: “I believe more or less exactly everything that any four of my great-grandfathers believed, that any four of any white American’s grandfathers believed.”

And if we were to take that position, then Donald Trump is a radical in the other direction. Any one of any of our great-grandfathers would look at Donald Trump, what with his constant talk about “black and hispanic unemployment,” his relatively nonchalant New Yorker view of homosexuality and his support for at least some types of nonwhite immigration, and think he was some kind of radical communist.

If they saw what the Democrats are promoting, they would just all start having seizures.

And we’re only talking about 100 years ago.

I am able to accept that my own view is “radical,” for the simple fact that society has shifted so drastically in the last 100 years that there is no other way to describe an attempt to hold on to that value system.

But claiming that something that was taken for granted by everyone a decade ago is now “radical” is simply insane.

Look at the definition of the word.