Tag Archives: news

Why did Democrats open the border?

Posted on by
4

Until President(ish) Joe Biden assumed office, the Democrat Presidential policy on illegal immigration was the same as the policy of all earlier Presidents of the United States. Their policy as leaders of the Executive Branch was to enforce the law. The law was to prevent people from entering the country illegally.

This non-partisan national policy was founded on the idea that what we have in America is special, and we don’t intend to just give it away to anyone willing to swim illegally across the Rio Grande. Or the Volga, Rhine, Congo or Danube.

Moreover, allowing immigration that was illegal, as opposed to legal, would give us the worst of the pool of immigrants – the ones willing to violate the sanctity of our laws, often because they’d already violated the sanctity of the laws of the place they came from. Lawbreakers break the law.

In other words, illegal immigration by definition is mass immigration by criminals. Despite what the liberal media tells you, it’s a crime to enter the country illegally. (It’s not a crime to overstay a visa but illegal immigrants are not usually mere visa-overstayers.)

We knew that if criminal immigration reached the millions, it would disrupt our social fabric by burdening schools, emergency rooms, highways and welfare systems.

And if the criminal immigration were by criminals unable (or unwilling) to speak our language, we risked becoming a different society altogether. There’s a reason that immigrants who achieve the privileged status of U.S. citizens are required to pass a test – in English. It’s not racist to believe America should be an English-speaking country of non-criminals where everyone can speak with everyone, preferably without pressing “2” for Spanish or talking through the translation app on your phone.

This was the policy of even the most-recent Democrats to precede Biden, namely Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. They stated that people cannot enter the country illegally or stay in the country illegally, and their policies mostly were in accord with those statements.

So, what happened under Biden? Why did he fling the border wide open, even as he denied doing so?

In fairness to Biden, he knew not what he’d done. He was a very old man with very metastasized cancer. Even in his younger days, he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, and in his later days he was nothing but a tooth-capped scalp-plugged cutout taking instructions from others.  

The shots were being called by whoever was the boldest shot-caller. All of them in the Biden White House were very hard-left, including – or perhaps particularly – his wife, “doctor” Jill.

The question remains, why did somebody or somebodies who were calling the shots under the Biden administration open the border, and why did the other Democrats allow it? There must be a strong reason, because it arguably cost them the 2024 election.

This is an interesting question because the answer tells a lot about the modern Democratic Party.

The most generous reason is that they wanted to do the humanitarian thing. People in Haiti and Guatemala and even Mexico have suffered horribly. Enough is enough. I have some sympathy for that sentiment.

But that sympathy goes only so far. Are we supposed to allow all of Haiti and Guatemala and Mexico to immigrate to the United States?

Moreover, such a sentiment disregards our system of government. If we want to allow more immigration from troubled parts of the world, then the way to achieve it is to pass legislation to allow it and regulate it, not to wantonly violate the legislation that is already on the books.

The Biden administration didn’t pass new legislation. They didn’t even try very hard (at that or anything else). Instead, they said in effect, “We don’t like the law, so we’ll simply violate it.”

That’s anarchy. Or, to use the phrase du jour, it’s a threat to democracy. In the context of the Executive Branch collaborating with an illegal invasion of our country by millions of criminals, it’s arguably a high crime or misdemeanor.

The Democrats indeed seem not to like the laws of our country, at least when it comes to immigration, but I’m afraid it goes deeper than that. They don’t like the country itself.

This is factual. Polls consistently show that Democrats are much less likely than Republicans to express a love for America. They’re a bit embarrassed by America. They want a very different America, one that is more socialistic. Merit is bad, because the people who have it tend not to be the “right” people.

“Fundamentally transforming America” is the phrase Obama repeatedly used as a euphemism for correcting this perceived defect. Obama may indeed have enforced the immigration laws, as I mentioned, but he was hell-bent on making the nation different in values and composition. Maybe he didn’t intend to make America into Haiti (and maybe he did) but “fundamentally transforming America” became a cool thing to advocate.

Obama’s followers in the Democratic Party took that phrase and ran with it. And they ran by any means necessary, including willful evasion of the immigration laws.

That leads to yet a deeper question. What’s so bad about America? This country has given the most prosperity to the most people in the history of the world. Our poor people are rich by the standards of nearly all of history. Our foreign aid to other countries far surpasses anyone else in history.

I laugh at youngsters who display their ignorance by complaining that the price of their iPhone is too high. I grew up in a family of six in a 1200-square-foot house. We had no air conditioning, no color TV, no microwave, and no second car until my father bought an old junker for $110. I started working when I was 15, and washed pots and pans through college. And we were considered upper middle class.

I’ll reserve for another column this question as to why young Americans seem not to love this country that loves them. But here’s a hint. It’s not despite America’s prosperity, but because of it. It’s not because things are too hard, but because things are too easy.

The next President will be a white male Democrat

Posted on by
9
This isn’t real

Conventional wisdom is that J.D. Vance will be elected President in 2028. I think not.

Vance has a lot going for him – he’s smart, accomplished, well-educated, in the public eye, and will be heir to MAGA.

That last point, however, is two-edged. Yes, he will be associated with Trump. But yes, he will be associated with Trump. There’s a lot of Trump fatigue out there even among people who voted for him three times, as I did. 

The last time a sitting Vice President was elected to the Presidency was when we elected George H.W. Bush. But that was when Ronald Reagan was a very successful and popular President. When it comes to popularity, Mr. Vance, your boss is no Ronald Reagan.

Vance seems unwilling or unable to apply any balm to soothe this Trump fatigue, much less the strong topical anesthesia that is indicated. He always seems angry and a little xenophobic. I won’t go so far as to say he’s racist – after all, he’s married to an Indian (whom he publicly says he wants to convert to Christianity) – but . . .   

Speaking of xenophobia, what’s with the beard? My phone tells me at a glance which century it is. You’d think Vance could get a Russian oligarch to buy him a phone.

Vance will get some competition from my favorite, Marco Rubio, but Rubio will bow out well before the Republican convention.

The reason Rubio will lose is that he’s Hispanic. On the Republican side, sadly, there are enough voters who simply will not vote for a non-white candidate, even if he’s a dedicated anti-communist, anti-Castro, Republican son of legal Cuban immigrants.

The media won’t help Rubio, even though – or perhaps because – he’s Hispanic. The media will acknowledge that he’s Hispanic, but not a “real” Hispanic since he’s Cuban and since he’s a Republican. They’ll paint him as a betrayer of his race, since in their racist view all minorities are required to be Democrats rather than independent thinkers. They will see him much the way they see Justice Clarence Thomas – as an Uncle Tom.

Ironically, Rubio’s odds would be much better as a Democrat because then he wouldn’t be painted as an Uncle Tom. But then, of course, he’d have to be a Democrat and that’s much worse.

Vance will also get a little competition from Nikki Haley, another candidate I like. But hop in your pickup and drive the backroads of Texas to see how enthusiastic they are about electing a woman as President whose parents are Ajit Singh Randhawa and Raj Kaur Randhaw from Punjab, India.

Or just take it from me: they aren’t.

So, Vance will be the Republican nominee. Who will be the Democrat nominee?

It won’t be Kamala. Even though she seems to be leading in the Democrat polls, a good part of her lead is her name recognition. She did run for President last time and received some 75 million votes. She is also the only credible Black(-ish) candidate, which ensures a few million votes.

But she’s a two-time loser. And both times, she ran a poor campaign. Her support is probably about as high as it will ever be, and that’s not very high.

Moreover, there’s an element of Kamala fatigue – by Kamala. I think she doesn’t want the job badly enough to put in the work that’s necessary to be hired.

That leaves some Democrat white guys. It won’t be Buttigieg. Even the Democrats aren’t ready for a gay man. Besides, being gay is no longer fashionable. To the average American, it’s a little like being trans – it’s sooo 2024.

That leaves the governors. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is disqualified because he doesn’t hate Jews enough. In fact, he is one!!! (Do the Democrats know?)

The women governors are pretty much all women, and the Democrats have already done that twice. Can they really say with their self-congratulatory zeal, “Third woman Presidential candidate! This is another first – the first time that there’s been a third!”

There’s the governor in Illinois who has lost 80 pounds by taking the new fat pills. That’s nice, but does he still have an appetite for the job?

The only one left is Gavin Newsom, complete with his cursed hair issues and cursed State of California. He’s reasonably bright, good-looking, and well-known.

Newsom says he’s dyslexic, which is a good excuse for any gaffes and might even get him some sympathy votes. It’s only right that we elect a President with disabilities. We already had one who was comatose. (Someday we’ll signal our virtue by electing one who is autistic.)

Think how edgy the Dems will feel in nominating a sentient white guy. They haven’t done that in over 20 years. And Dems are nothing if not edgy.

And so, the race will be Vance vs. Newsom or, if you prefer, J.D. vs. Gavin (sounds like an election for frat president).

I’ll be voting for Vance, but the winner will be Newsom. For Vance, the MAGA baggage is a lift too heavy and a bridge too far. It worked for Trump, but Trump is sui generis. I’m glad. 

Trump offers to pay the taxpayers with money from the taxpayers

Posted on by
3

The unique “Midterm Convention” by the Republicans in Dallas this week featured the faithful filling an arena (mostly, but there were quite a few empty seats) to hear the faith (mostly, but a Democrat Senator, too, spoke by video).

I’ve voted Republican since Ronald Reagan, including three times for Donald Trump. I didn’t think I would learn anything by watching the spectacle, and I didn’t think it would be amusing entertainment, so I didn’t watch.

But I did hear that President Trump promised to pay each adult citizen $5,000 if the Republicans hold both houses of Congress in November. I have two thoughts on this.

First, the odds that he’ll ever pay the $5,000 are approximately zero. The Republicans are sure to lose the House, and stand a good chance of losing the Senate as well. Even on the slim chance that they hold both, the $5,000 payments would require an act of Congress. The odds that Congress would go along are approximately, well, zero.

The odds that the Republicans will hold both houses of Congress, and Congress will go along with the $5,000 payments, are, if my math still serves, approximately zero times approximately zero, which is well nigh . . . zero.

So, don’t spend the money yet.

My second thought is that this money amounting to something over $1,000,000,000 has to come from somewhere. Oh, you say, it just gets printed.

But didn’t we learn for the umpteenth time during the Biden administration that money that “just gets printed” still comes from somewhere? Didn’t we learn that it comes from us, through inflated prices?

If that were not the case, then why make the payments only $5,000? Couldn’t we all be rich by letting the government simply print and mail to each of us $5,000,000?

Heck, why stop there? Let’s all be as rich as Elon Musk by having the government print and mail to each of us, say, a trillion dollars.

Okay, I said I have two thoughts on the matter, but actually I have three. Trump thinks we’re stupid.

A tale of two Anthonys; the disgrace of Fauci

Posted on by
1

The two Anthonys are the former Chief Medical Advisor to the President, namely Anthony Fauci, and the former Justice of the Supreme Court, namely Anthony Kennedy.

The story of Anthony Fauci is well documented. He was a respected scientist who started believing – and relishing – his own press in the course of the worldwide pandemic and national tragedy that we call Covid.

If he’d had the money, Fauci would have set up his own Twitter-like social media outlet. As it was, he didn’t need to, because he effectively owned the real Twitter. Back in the pre-Elon days, Twitter embraced any praise of him and censored any criticism of him.

“Embraced” is a good word to use in connection with Fauci. His dairy released by the Senate this week shows a man engaged in self-embrace and self-pleasure. Tony wrote love letters to Tony. Tony gave big hugs for Tony. Tony all but had a Tony fan club, and he was the biggest fan of all. Tony lamented that he didn’t have time to read all of Tony’s press but, paradoxically, Tony had time to write about all the press that Tony didn’t have time to read about.

That alone is unseemly but it is not a crime. Many people like or even love themselves. Their love letters to themselves are embarrassing but not criminal.

What is criminal are two things. First, Fauci misled the American people about the source of Covid. It was apparently a leak from a Chinese bioweapons lab, after all, not a naturally occurring virus that jumped to humans in the “wet markets” of China. Maybe Covid really should have kept its original name of “Chinese flu.” At the time, however, the media decided that naming it the “Chinese flu” because it indisputably started in China, one way or another, would be racist. (Never mind the precedent of “Spanish flu” for a flu that didn’t even start in Spain.)

 Second, Fauci lied to both the American people and the American Congress about the dangers of Covid to otherwise healthy people. The fatality rate actually was on the order of the fatality rate for ordinary flu – well less than 1% and much less than that for people who are young, notwithstanding the masks still being worn by Democrats who are still in solidarity with Fauci. Accordingly, Fauci locked down the country and produced a crisis in education and acculturation that we’re still dealing with six years later.

The lying to Congress is known as the crime of perjury. To avoid yet another count of perjury, Fauci refused to answer over 100 questions posed by the Senate this week. He did get some additional attention in his tiresome invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but not the kind he relishes.

Viewed generously, Fauci’s lies for the Chinese were perhaps in the interest of maintaining cordial relations with America’s biggest geopolitical rival. In the course of dealing with a worldwide pandemic, we didn’t want to also deal with WW III.

And Fauci’s lies to Congress and other Americans about the dangers of Covid to healthy people might be seen as an exercise in caution. He figured it was better to be extra careful by exaggerating the dangers of Covid than to be reckless and thereby contribute to the extinction of humanity. (Forget about kids’ education and well-being; his allies in the teachers’ unions want more days off.)

But aren’t both of those justifications for Fauci’s lies beyond his pay grade? Aren’t they matters for a boss to decide – like a President? Or, better yet, aren’t they issues for the American people?

Memo to Fauci: We can handle the truth.

Then there is the other Anthony, the one called Justice Anthony Kennedy. He was Ronald Reagan’s second choice for a vacant Supreme Court seat, after the great jurist Robert Bork had been, well, borked by a Senate Judiciary Committee headed by a man who went on become senile (if he wasn’t born senile) named Joe Biden.

Justice Kennedy, it is rumored (but I have this on good authority), was known to ask his clerks to scour the newspapers each day to retrieve any press clippings that mentioned him. They were to leave the clippings on his desk so that he could read all about himself.

Kennedy, mind you, putatively was not a politician. He was a Supreme Court Justice with life tenure.

Kennedy’s most famous Supreme Court opinion was the 2015 case giving gays the Constitutional right to marry one another. I personally have no quarrel with a gay person marrying whomever or whatever he or she or they or it wants, so long as I’m not required somehow to recognize it as a matter of my religion.

But I think the Court was amiss in this decision. The states and the people were rapidly coming to my point of view. Why not let things play out in the court of public opinion on this matter of cultural norms that has no legitimate legal loadstar, rather than letting lawyers argue it in the highest court?

Why not, you ask? Because that would preclude Kennedy from being the hero, that’s why. There are those press clippings he had to worry about, you know.

I don’t mean to suggest that Justice Kennedy’s self-aggrandizement was equivalent to Fauci’s embarrassing self-pleasuring or criminal deceit. The two are of different orders, and I strongly doubt that Justice Kennedy ever committed a crime.

But I do mean that public servants should serve the public. Their first priority should be the public good, not their so-called legacy.

DSA is the best thing to happen to the GOP since Jimmy Carter

Posted on by
3

Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer was great, OK?

His 4 years of ineptitude gave us 12 years of Republican rule in the form of Ronald Reagan and his successor, George H. W. Bush. (It would have been at least 16 years, if not for Ross Perot taking many of Bush’s votes to be re-elected in 1992.) And arguably, that 12 years of GOP rule produced another 8 years of GOP rule through the prodigal son, George W. Bush.

I love Jimmy Carter. (I hate Ross Perot.)

There is a chance we’ll see something similar in the midterms this fall. The Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, has been winning Democratic primaries. It turns out that Democrats love socialists.

Or they think they do. Democrats’ support for the idea of socialism is quite different from their support for socialism itself. For example:

One of the DSA policies in its platform is to abolish prisons. That’s right, convicted murderers and rapists would go free. But only 27% of Democrats support that policy. (You have to wonder what those 27% are smoking, but, still, that’s only a little more than one in four.)

Another DSA platform position is to abolish the U.S. military. If China invades, we’ll rely on guys with shotguns. (Oops, we’ll have taken away everyone’s gun, too.) Democrats in general disfavor that policy by about a two to one margin.

Another DSA position is to grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants. Democrats actually favor this policy by a plurality(!) but still only 44% favor it.

Here, it gets interesting. Another DSA platform is to abolish the Presidency and the Supreme Court, replacing both with arms of Congress. Only 30% of Democrats agree with this proposal.

While we’re abolishing sacrosanct branches of government established by the Constitution, DSA would also abolish the Senate. The problem with the Senate, they say, is that it serves as a check on pure democracy. Even the Democrats mostly oppose this abolition.

In short, the DSA would make us a lot like the Soviet Union (which failed, by the way), the Eastern Europe Soviet client states (ditto), Cuba (which will soon fail), and North Korea (ditto). It’s been tried many times, and the absence of checks and balances always results not in democracy, but tyranny. Assigning a word like “fair” to such a system will not make it work. It’s a trap.

DSA should have kept its trap shut about its trap. It should have just said, “We’re socialists, isn’t that wonderful?” Instead, they told us what it means to be a socialist. It’s not wonderful; it’s idiocy.

The media, of course, will try to hide the DSA platform because Orange Man Bad. They will not be successful, however. The DSA is quite proud of it, and intends to promote it.

Between now and the midterms in November, the American people will discover this platform. I anticipate they will soundly reject it.

Of course, the wild President is a wild card. He might find a way to prove me wrong. Or right.

Half the socialists in Denver wear COVID masks

Posted on by
3

This news item falls into the categories of both funny and weird – categories that are getting a lot of traction these days.

In Denver, the socialists met to party and celebrate, and to party some more, after their chosen socialist candidate beat the Democrat in the Democratic primary last month. It wasn’t even close.

By the way, the Democrats still have primaries for their non-Presidential candidates, apparently, but the winners are generally socialists, not Democrats. (Ah, but maybe I’m splitting hairs.)

The old Democrat who lost this primary has represented Denver in the U.S. House of Representatives for 30 years after succeeding the Democrat who had represented Denver for the preceding 24 years. In fact, the current one was elected before her socialist opponent was born.

I’m no fan of the old Democrat, but does Denver really want to be represented in Congress by a socialist child? Yes, they evidently do.

At the party/celebration/party, a good time was had by all. It was the most people in downtown Denver since the Broncos won the Superbowl, and I’m not excluding the dreadful Rockies games.

Yes, a good time was had by all. Except the 50% of the attendees who wore COVID masks. That’s right, about half of the hundreds of attendees at this socialist party wore COVID masks. A photo posted on X by one of the organizers appears above. The photo-posting organizer bragged;

“Packed house, line out the door, big things are happening!”

Then, he and the attendees were mocked mercilessly on-line for wearing COVID masks to a party – five years after COVID has passed. And so, he deleted the post. Next, we’ll learn that the masks were passed out at the door by the socialist hosts. I’m not sure whether that makes the whole episode better or worse.

COVID aside, this gives some insight into the mentality of the socialists of Denver. They believe the world is a very dangerous place. They’ll invent danger if none is present. And they want to be seen as doing something about this invented danger. Maybe this is unique to Colorado where pot has long been legal, but I think it’s deeper than that.  

I suppose they could see danger in Vladimir Putin who invaded a separate nation. Or the Gazans who raped, beheaded and took hostage hundreds of Israelis. Or marijuana, the legalization of which is now recognized as a huge mistake by the medical establishment which treats victims of this mistake. Or the communists who killed 100 million people within the lifetimes of their parents and grandparents.

Well, perhaps the reference to communists hit a little close to home. The reference to pot did, too.

In any event, I’m guessing that the masks did not interfere too much with the socialists drinking the Kool-Aid. These people are funny, weird and high – and dangerous.

Is Platner demanding, um, a severance package?

Posted on by
3

The news of the days – or, rather, yesterday – is that the Democratic candidate running for the Senate from Maine named Graham Platner is alleged, again, to be a rapist.

Duty demands that I mention he denies the accusation.

In fact, he denies lots of things. He had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for some 19 years, but denies knowing that it was a Nazi tattoo. Notably, his friends deny his denial.

Before he was alleged to be a rapist, and during the time he sported a Nazi tattoo that he didn’t know was one unless you believe his friends, he pretended to be an oyster farmer. Or oyster fisherman. Or whatever you do to catch an oyster.

One year, he made about $5,000 as an oyster whatever. It was a lousy living but a good campaign story.

Back to the rape allegations, of which there are several, none of which is a good campaign story. This time, there’s a tendency on the left to believe the woman because she’s a Democrat. You should always believe the woman, if she’s a Democrat.

And so, the Democrat establishment have, finally, called on Platner to quit the race.

His Republican opponent, Susan Collins, makes the heads spin of Republicans because she is not in the tank for the President, but she makes the heads spin of Democrats because she allegedly is.

In any event, Senator Collins lacks even a decent taint of corruption over her several millennia in the Senate, unless one of those two head-spinning traits constitutes corruption. She has never been accused of raping anyone.

Platner has been urged to quit by even king-maker socialist Bernie Sanders. When a socialist loses Bernie, he’s lost everyone.

But Platner still won’t quit. Why not?

Here’s my theory. Like all good socialists, he wants some money. Rather, he needs some. So, he’s busy negotiating with the Democratic establishment for a Big Payday. It’ll beat oyster farming/fishing/whatevering for $5,000 a year.

If he stays another couple of weeks, the law of Maine will prevent the Democrats from replacing him with a new candidate.

In other words, he holds all the cards, if not the oysters. He has both the need for money and the ability to get it. It’s a great blend of socialism and capitalism. Tell them you plan to stay, Platner!

“Democrat” means it’s easy to get them, “Socialist” means it’s not so easy to get rid of them

Posted on by
4

There’s an expression that I won’t use in a title to a piece, but I’ll use it in the body. The expression is, “You get a socialist with an election, you get rid of them with a gun.”

Socialists have a pattern. They won’t go away. It’s a one-way ratchet. They get elected, and then they refuse to get un-elected. So, we get more and more of them. They’re like houseflies – just as parasitic, just as bothersome, and just as unhealthy.

Bernie Sanders is a good example. He has been in politics for most of his 84-year life. Since 1981, he has been the mayor of Burlington, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and then a U.S. Senator since 2007.

Politics has been very good to Senator Sanders. He now owns multiple houses and has a seven-figure net worth. Not bad money, especially for a public servant who preaches the evil of the stuff.

Bernie reminds me of a bootlegging whiskey runner, which is perhaps appropriate since he represents a state that borders Canada. He opposes the legalization of alcohol because he doesn’t want the competition.  (BTW, can we trade Vermont for Alberta?)

Now, we have five more socialists. Three have won their Democratic primaries in New York and are shoo-ins to win the general election since New Yorkers are not allowed to vote for Republicans.

Two won their primaries in Colorado this week – one against a 15-term Congresswoman who herself was hard-left, and one in a contest for the governorship. Both will win their general elections in November because, alas, my formerly great State of Colorado has gone to the dogs (or, more precisely, to the wolves, but that’s a different column).

Of course, socialism will work no better this time than it has worked since Karl Marx dreamed it up a couple of centuries ago. Giving to each according to his needs and taking from each according to his abilities will produce a very needy society with very little ability. When it comes to free stuff, people like to be on the receiving end more than on the giving end.

Who would have thought?

So, we’ll eventually vote the socialists out, as societies always do once they re-learn the fact that the Elon Musks of the world may or may not be likable but they do make the trains run on time, and the spaceships, too.

But what do we do when they don’t go away after we vote them out? When they plead “voter suppression” or some such nonsense? When they pull a Bernie Sanders by hanging around for 45 years? When they pretend to be Nicolus Maduro or Nicolae Ceaușescu or Czar Nicholas?

It will be interesting.

 Democrats refuse to get on the winning side of 80/20 issues because that side is occupied by America

Posted on by
2
Groucho Marx

Some issues are no-brainers for politicians: Transexuals in women’s sports and girl’s bathrooms. Showing an ID to vote. Securing the border. Enforcing the criminal laws. Judging people by merit. These are 80/20 issues where 80% of the citizens are on one side and only 20% are on the other.

Being on the 20% side of 80/20 issues is not a winning election strategy. We saw that in 2024. Therefore, the big thinkers in the Democratic Party are preaching that Democrats need to shift over to the 80% side on these 80/20 issues.

However, many small thinkers in the Democratic Party are stuck hard in the 20% camp. And the small thinkers in the Democrat Party outnumber the big thinkers by about a zillion to one,

Why do Democrats stubbornly cling to the losing side? Why do Democrats risk losing more elections by siding against 80% of the voters?

I have a theory. I think those hard-left Democrats reflexively side against mainstream Americans – against the 80%.

It’s well-documented that Democrats are less patriotic and hold less love for their country than either Republicans or Independents. In fact, a surprising number of Democrats answer “no” to the question “Do you love America?”

That’s because many of them truly hate America. There are lots of reasons that they hate America – from having been taught to hate America by pea-brained teachers who think America underpays them for their part-time jobs, to simply being of a personality type that would hate anywhere they find themselves including heaven itself.

I’ll look at the reasons in detail some day in another column. For now, accept the fact, and it is a fact, that Democrats love America much less than Republicans do, and that a number of Democrats actively, passionately hate America.

And so, I think they don’t really care where the trannies go to the bathroom; they just want them to go wherever most Americans want them not to. They don’t really care if non-citizens vote in the elections; they just want them to vote because most Americans want them not to. They don’t care whether illegals come across the border; they just want them to because most Americans want them not to. They don’t care whether criminals go free; they just want them to because most American want them not to.

If trannies in the girls’ bathroom, noncitizens voting in elections, illegal aliens, and criminals are America’s enemies, the 20% reason, then those same people are the 20%ers’ friends. It’s the same reasoning that makes them root for Iran.

For this perverse display, these America-haters view themselves as heroic, edgy “resisters.” The fact that they’re resisting not just President Trump but also 2,500 years of Western Civilization makes them, in their vain eyes, all the more heroic, edgy and resistive.  

Here’s a survey I’d like to see. Get two random groups of Democrats. Choose an issue they’re not familiar with. Tell the first group that polls show that Americans are split 50/50 on the issue. Tell the second group that Americans are split 80/20 on the issue, and tell them which side of the issue the 80% are on.

I’m betting that the outcome would be markedly different between the two groups. The second group would side against what they were told was the 80% view.  

Groucho Marx once said “I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me.” Democrats in the 20% cohort know as much about Groucho as Karl, but the saying applies. They don’t want to belong to any country that would have them. Sadly for them and us, they’re here anyway.

Ready-Fire-Aim! Virginia Democrats shoot themselves in the foot

Posted on by
3

The latest battle in the gerrymandering wars took place in Virginia. The Democrats in Virginia had all the guns – they control the governorship, the legislature and a majority of the voters. In a classic example of “Ready-Fire-Aim,” the Democrats promptly used those guns to shoot themselves in the foot.   

It all started a few years ago, back when Virginia was a purplish state. Voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to establish a non-partisan procedure for drawing Congressional Districts. That procedure produced Districts that resulted in a Democrat-Republican split in the elected Representatives of 5-4, which is approximately the same as the split in Virginia voters. So far, so good.

Then Virginia gradually shifted blue. Last fall, Virginia Democrats joined the gerrymandering wars. As is often the case with wars, it started with the political equivalent of stirring songs, glitzy parades, and predictions of victory in a month.

The Democrats figured that with a little creativity and an utter absence of shame – the absence of which has never been in short supply among politicians – they could gerrymander the Districts to shift the 5-4 split in their Congressional delegation to a 10-1 split.

They would be heroes! (And maybe some of them would fill those five new Democrat Congressional seats!)

Sure, it would take another amendment to the state constitution in order to nullify the one from a few years ago that established the non-partisan procedure for drawing Districts. But, as the Democrats reminded themselves, they controlled the three bodies that approve such amendments – the legislature, the governorship and the voters.

Constitutions contain procedures for amending them. The Virginia constitution stated that the legislature is supposed to approve the amendment twice. In between those two approvals, there’s supposed to be an election of the legislature. Only after those two legislative approvals and that intervening election, can the matter be put to the voters in a referendum.

There’s method behind this redundant madness. The thought is that, after the legislature approves the amendment the first time, the voters should get a chance to dis-elect the legislature that approved the amendment. And then the new legislature has to re-approve the amendment.

A constitution is a sacred thing, you see, even if it’s just a state one. Amendments to it are not to be taken lightly.

This is where the Democrats misfired. They got the requisite approval accomplished in the state legislature which they controlled, but the approval came after early voting had already begun on the requisite election of the legislature. In fact, about 40% of the votes had already been cast for that election.

After the election, they got the requisite second approval from the new legislature, and then they narrowly got the approval of voters in a referendum.

The matter went to the Virginia Supreme Court. This week, that Court held that the first approval by the legislature did not occur before the election of legislature, because at the time of that approval the election was already underway and 40% of the voters had already cast their ballots.

In effect, therefore, there was no “election day,” but rather an “election period.” The Democrats mistakenly failed to accomplish the requisite legislative approval for the amendment prior to the commencement of that election period. The result was that 40% of the voters were denied the opportunity to consider that approval in weighing their votes in what was supposed to be a subsequent election.

The matter cannot be reviewed further by the U.S. Supreme Court, because it is purely a matter of state law. The Virginia Supreme Court is the final authority on the subject. The Democrats could start again from square one in Virginia, but it’s too late for the upcoming mid-term election.

There’s a certain poetic justice in this. Democrats like loosey-goosey election procedures such as early and absentee voting for any and all. This time, it shot them in the foot and blew up in their faces. They will use this experience to advocate for gun control, no doubt.