And should we be confused over the discussion in our protecting our own security?
Well, here’s the latest. You be the judge.
From Kelly Ann Conway on CNN Sunday morning:
BASH: "But is it border security or is it the wall?"
CONWAY: "It's anything. It's all of the above... He wants to make a deal on border security... He wants all types of border security."
Conway called the wall a “silly semantics debate”.
Later Conway clarified on Fox News:
"There may be a wall in some places, there may be steel slats, there may be technological enhancements," Conway told "Fox News Sunday." ''But only saying 'wall or no wall' is being very disingenuous and turning a complete blind eye to what is a crisis at the border."
Ok, how foolish of us all. Trump was claiming that Mexico would pay for a “silly semantic debate”.
Now into the wall soup yesterday comes Lindsey Graham after dining with the President:
“The wall has become a metaphor for border security. What we’re talking about is a physical barrier where it makes sense. There’s nothing wrong with a physical barrier along the border where it makes sense.”
Before his stepping out the White House door, Chief of Staff John Kelly tells a Los Angeles Times reporter, something like this, "To be honest, it's not a wall”, it’s a mix of technological enhancements and "steel slat" barriers based upon our discussions with border law enforcement professionals. We abandoned the concrete wall early on.
Ok. We’re all clear?
Well maybe not. Today, the president contradicts Kelly by saying, “An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by the media. Some areas will be all concrete but the experts at Border Patrol prefer a Wall that is see-through (thereby making it possible to see what is happening on both sides). Makes sense to me!”
Not me. Actually, it’s as clear as a concrete wall.
In fact, come to think of it, our president, the builder-in-chief, has done plenty of requests for funding for construction projects. That’s where he made his “You’re Fired” Money. So, let’s look at how this discussion would go, if Trump in the form of US tried to get funding from a bank, or in reality, from we, the taxpayers Perhaps it would go something like this:
US: Mr. Banker, I want $5 billion to build a big beautiful concrete wall and somebody else, our neighbor, will pay for it. Can I get that 5 billion now?
BANKER: Well, I need some information. After all, it’s the people’s money.
BANKER: Ok you want a concrete wall. And somebody else will pay for it, so why do you need me?
US: Well, I repeatedly and brazenly made a pledge I can’t keep. Not my fault. So, I just need some front money but some time down the road, I guarantee, we’ll get them to pay, “trust me”
BANKER: But what if we don’t get the money from them down the road, then what?
US: Look, I will get the money. I do business with them. I will sign a new agreement and so if we don’t get the money in cold cash as I have been pretty much promising, we’ll get it by charging them more at the border store
BANKER: But, it is against the law to get $5B in cash from them. So, while you promised everybody that they would pay this, the neighbors were prohibited from doing so, anyway.
US: Big Deal. Facts don’t matter when running a campaign. Look, we’ll soak them the other way. You know, I wrote the Art of the Deal. I always win in the end. I play four level chess while everybody else plays checkers.
BANKER: Ok. So, you want $5 billion for a wall. Once you get the money from your surplus payments, will you pay us back should we lend you the money? I mean, after all, otherwise, you’re double dipping, right?”
US: Pay back the money? “Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. We’ll just have to wait and see. Meantime, I need that 5 bil, you know..”
BANKER: Let’s see. So, tell me about the wall. I need facts. Details.
US: Well, as I have promised, it is a BIG BEAUTIFUL concrete wall across our southern border.
BANKER: Ok. But, I am not sure I want to give or lend you that type of money. Aren’t there better ways to provide security that a concrete wall?
US: OK. Well, it’s not really made out of concrete. Not totally, at least.
BANKER: But you've been claiming it would be.
US: Well, it’s not really a wall, it’s a metaphor.
BANKER: Yea, but you have told us now for three years, “it’s a wall”.
US: Well, that’s silly semantics. I know I’ve been saying wall, but hey, every once in a while, I’ve called it a barrier or fence, but that was just for show. It’s really a wall.
BANKER: Sorry, I’m confused. I heard your chief assistant yesterday say that it is not a concrete wall, that you all abandoned that concept many moons ago, roughly two years ago, when you first took over the job.
US: An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by those enemies of the people fakers. I am telling you now. I know I’ve been calling it a concrete wall. And an all concrete wall has never been abandoned, despite what my chief has said. Look, some areas will be all concrete but the experts at Border Patrol prefer a Wall that is see-through (thereby making it possible to see what is happening on both sides).
BANKER: Let’s see. Before I take 5 billion from our bank, I’d like to see the plans and specs.
US: Well, there aren’t any. You’ll just have to take my word for it.
BANKER: But, you’ve had two years to determine if it is all concrete wall or not. And now you want this kind of money? Five billion dollars could go to pay for a lot of stuff. Heck, we could pay down the debt that has ballooned over the past two years.
US: Yea but I promised my people that we will build a wall. That’s how I’m where I am now. They want a wall.
BANKER: But, that was based upon somebody else building the wall. You didn’t tell your people that we would pay for it. You said it was a concrete thing, Your guy yesterday said you all abandoned the concrete wall roughly two years ago but despite claiming it would be a concrete wall, you now say, you never abandoned an all concrete wall. And, now, I’m hearing your people claim it’s a metaphor, a silly semantics debate… Why can’t you guys be more concrete? Sorry, I am using that as semantics. But what the heck do you think we’re running here, a New Jersey Taj Mahal casino? We’ve got workers who need to get paid this year or next year actually.
US: Well, they will just have to wait, I must get what I want, although I am not sure what it is. Regardless, it’s not my fault. It’s the fault of the other side. You know, they once said they wanted a wall, but now they don’t.
BANKER: True. But, for a second, getting back to those not-at-work or not-being-paid. Didn’t you tell everybody you would shoulder the blame, that you would be proud of shutting down their jobs? It’s either $5 billion for your concrete wall, or metaphor or perhaps gate—or else, you would be proud to shut down all of their jobs. That you would accept the blame mantle.
US: Well, who cares what I say yesterday, today or tomorrow. That’s part of my strategy anyway. I say all kind of things. It doesn’t matter. I just say things that come to my head and my folks don’t care one bit. They want a wall. So, if I say things that confuse them and others, they begin to buckle. I then tell them I did not tell them what they say I told them. All I have to do is say whatever they say I said that the enemy of the people made it up. And that’s how this all works. So, do I get my $5 billion? You know it’s going for a great cause. Keep America Secure Again and you know, I must keep my base for 2020
BANKER: I’m so confused…. So, would you like the money in tens or twenties?