Hats off to White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller for refusing to let the media get by with its habitual practice of repeating DNC talking points as if they were accepted fact.
In an appearance Thursday night on CNN, Wolf Blitzer dutifully did the job of a Democratic Party spokesman by repeating their claim that “The Democrats support border security, they don’t support $5 billion for a wall.” But Miller was having none of it. He responded, “Could you identify, Wolf, for me some of the kinds of border security that Democrats say they would support?”
Blitzer simply repeated the talking point that Democrats oppose the wall but favor other border security measures. But Miller fired back, “Like what? With all due respect Wolf, they voted against Kate’s Law, they voted against ending sanctuary cities, they voted against deporting MS-13 gang members, they voted against deporting violent criminals, they voted time and time again against a physical border wall to stop illegal entry…I mean, where is the evidence that you keep asserting that they are for border security? They haven’t been. They opposed closing loopholes for asylum that flood our system with meritless claims, they opposed ending catch-and-release…”
Stunned by the unexpected truth barrage, Blitzer threw up the white flag and replied, “All right, Stephen, I want to move on to another sensitive issue…” and just changed the subject. It’s a terrific piece of video, and you can see it here. Grab some popcorn and click the link:
It’s about time someone started holding reporters to account when they repeat Democratic talking points as if they were established fact. Another annoying habit is when they blithely dismiss criticism of the Democrats without refuting the evidence behind it, as any criticism must be purely partisan and therefore invalid (a courtesy they never extend to Republicans when liberals accuse them of racism, sexism or various other isms.)
For instance, there is a popular theory on the right that the reason those on the left want open borders and unfettered immigration is that they know they can’t win elections if only Americans vote because their policies are so bad. So instead of rethinking their policies, they want to replace the electorate with one imported from outside that will vote solidly Democratic. That’s generally brushed off as just paranoid nonsense.
But let’s ask, just as a hypothetical thought exercise: if a certain political party wanted to end border security and let the country be flooded with illegal immigrants just to get their votes, how would they go about it?
First, I assume they’d make it as easy as possible to cross the border, by demonizing Border Patrol agents, opposing building a barrier and filing lawsuits to stop every federal action to curtail illegal immigration. They might announce that areas under their control were “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants, even criminals, and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement tasked with arresting and deporting them. Their leaders might voice their support for making it incredibly easy to get from Mexico to L.A., openly welcome illegal immigrants and even boast about giving them drivers’ licenses.
Of course, they’d then want to make sure that voter registration cards were handed out where drivers’ licenses were. And fight any efforts at voter ID laws to keep people from voting who aren’t legally eligible.
At least, that’s what I’d do if I were trying to insure that as many illegal immigrants as possible swarmed into the US, stayed here and voted illegally. Good thing it’s only a paranoid delusion to think that that’s what the Democrats really want to do! Because as we all know from watching CNN: they’re totally supportive of strong border security. They just don’t want to build a wall because they’re too fiscally responsible to waste tax money.
Now, Wolf, show us the evidence of that.