Thanks Chelsea

I never thought I would have any reason for quoting Chelsea Clinton.

“We have to realize, especially at this moment, that sexism is not an opinion. Islamophobia is not an opinion. Racism is not an opinion. Homophobia is not an opinion. Jingoism is not an opinion. So I think that in our posture of listening, we also have to get comfortable with standing up and speaking out.”

But, here I am. She has articulated the answer to a puzzle I have been thinking about for some time.

I have mentioned before that the left is not interested in debate. They just want us to shut up and sit down.

Their method is shaming. But that is only the surface. The tactic underpinning that method is much more insidious.

Racism, sexism and homophobia are well defined terms. We all understand what they mean and none of those ism's are anything any of us would want to be identified with. The last 60 years of Western Civilization have proven that decisively. 

Might any of us, in his heart of hearts be any or all of those things? Emphatically yes. We cannot however, indulge those opinions in any way meaningfully detrimental to the objects of our prejudices. Not only are all of those real ism's against the law with respect to all commercial transactions and government interactions, they are abhorrent to most of those we want and need to interact with daily. Expression of these ism's in their real form finds one immediately ostracized except at the very fringes of society where few of us want to reside and fewer still actually reside.

In order to continue to impose their beliefs on us the left has expanded the definition of those ism's beyond recognition, but they still get to use the words.

Racism now means criticizing the opinions of black people (see any opposition to Obama), not lynching or otherwise illegally discriminating against them. Homophobia means opposing same sex marriage, not arresting, beating, ostracizing and otherwise illegally discriminating against homosexuals. Sexism now means being opposed to the distribution of tampons to women at no charge to them, paid for by men, not keeping women from voting, out of higher education and the professions, not paying them less than men for the same work.

Islamophobia? Well what is it? It is whatever they say it is at the moment. I oppose Islam for what it has always been, a superstition (like all the religions, only worse) and what it has become, a murderous and triumphal anti-democratic ideology. I am powerless to adversely affect proponents of that religion for the reasons described above, in  any meaningful way. According to Clinton and her ilk I am not even allowed to hold this opinion. 

Jingoism? Good grief. That she would confuse renewed American confidence with jingoism is hardly surprising given her adherence to the modern leftist notion of America's awfulness.

None of the things in the previous paragraphs have anything to do with the real definitions of those ism's. Nothing. Do not sit down and shut up!

The Religion of Peace Lashes Out Again

In the wake of the latest Muslim outrage, the Manchester bombing, it is very reassuring to see millions of peaceful Muslims in the streets chanting "Not In MY Name" and taking to their pulpits, the airwaves, internet and press to denounce yet another in an apparently never ending series of vicious, brutal, attacks...

Oh, right. Silence. Again.

WTC 1993, silence.
9/11, silence.
Madrid 2004, silence.
London 2007, silence.
Fort Hood 2009, silence.
Boston 2013, silence.
San Bernadino 2015, silence.
Orlando 2016, silence.
Paris, Brussels, London again. On and on it goes. Silence.
Hundreds of other attacks worldwide, silence.

Silence.

Can you imagine any huge group of people, (more than 1.6 billion in this case) adherents to a supposedly sacred text, watching in silence as their sacred text is allegedly warped into a murderous creed? It is behavior completely at odds with ordinary human conduct.

So where are all these moderate Muslims and why are they not speaking up?

I think, faced with this obvious paradox, we must conclude that we non-Muslims have invented a species of Muslim whose collective silence argues against their existence.

Perhaps Indonesians are the moderate Muslims we hope exist. Well, maybe.

"Jakarta’s Christian governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, also known as Ahok, was found guilty of blasphemy and has been sentenced to two years in prison in Indonesia on Tuesday."

His crime?

" Ahok was the first ethnic Chinese Christian to run the nation’s capital, and was accused of insulting Islam by referring to a verse in the Koran during a campaign speech, which was met with strong disapproval by religious hardliners."

A non-Muslim dared to interpret a verse of the Koran in a manner that "hardliners" disapproved and is going to jail. For 2 years! At least they didn't kill him. Their restraint is most admirable. Moderate Muslims at work.

I believe moderate Muslims exist in about the same numbers as unicorns.

Western governments are operating under a deadly delusion and putting ordinary citizens at risk every day. Muslim immigration to the West should be stopped, in total, now.

What makes all this so much more infuriating is that the people we employ to protect us from them can't or won't. Early reports suggest that the Manchester bomber was "known" to authorities.

The Boston bombers, Fort Hood shooter, San Bernadino shooters and Orlando shooter were all "known" to authorities.

It is obviously beyond the abilities of western law enforcement agencies, playing by western rules of police engagement, to deal with this army of in place terrorists. No more kids should be murdered in the name of political correctness or moderate Muslims.

This and That #3

I have written several times about the difficulty engaging the left in meaningful discussion because of, among other things, the apparent complete lack of good faith on their part.

There is at least one and hopefully many other lefty's I have yet to encounter, who has not abandoned the notion of good faith.

Alan Dershowitz is as doctrinaire a Democrat as there is, except where Israel is concerned. He is a stalwart supporter. He is also a brilliant lawyer. Unfortunately he is also one of the lawyers who got O.J. off. Well, we all make mistakes.

He recently tweeted a response to assertions that President Trump had committed some sort of infraction when he fired James Comey.

Alan Dershowitz @AlanDersh

Because a president has the unreviewable authority to fire the Director for any reason. 

Joe Scarborough @JoeNBCI eagerly await the flood of experts explaining why Donald Trump firing Comey to obstruct justice is not obstruction of justice.

Unreviewable Joe. Case closed.


                                                  ___________________

You have no doubt heard about all the hate crimes carried out by Trump supporters. A handy compilation at the link. They are all hoaxes of course.

One of the headline stories at Yahoo over   the weekend began,

"HOUSTON (AP) — A black Texas congressman said Saturday that he's been threatened with lynching by callers infuriated over him seeking impeachment of President Donald Trump."

Also, over the weekend, this story was published by The Hill describing harassment and threats against Republican office holders.

If you read both stories you will see that the Republican office holders who experienced harassment and threats reported them to the authorities and arrests were made.

Unsurprisingly, the "black Texas Congressman", Al Green (D), does not appear to have 

reported anything to the authorities. Why not? Most likely, in my opinion, the recordings he shared are a hoax.

Update. Here is an even more comprehensive examination of the hoaxes.

                                               _____________________

As you know, for most of the left the narrative is everything. Anything that does not advance the narrative is suppressed.

This fabulous story did not make it beyond the Charlotte Observer as far as I know.

Unfortunately I can't seem to copy and paste the photo from the story. Have a look. It is worth it. It is also the real, non-narrative America being led by President Trump.

Classic line from the story;

" “They’re never going to put that on television,” Trump said."

Indeed.

 

The New "Civility"

You may recall the shooting of  Gabriella Giffords back in 2011. Democrats hoped, as they always do, that the shooter would be some Republican lunatic. As usual they were wrong. Not deterred, they immediately seized on Sarah Palin's graphic use of what appeared to be the images of congressional districts seen through a rifle sight on her web site as, if not the proximate cause of the shooting, at least a vile indicator of the incivility of the then political landscape.

Democrats embraced the "civility" strategy.

"TUCSON — President Obama offered the nation’s condolences on Wednesday to the victims of the shootings here, calling on Americans to draw a lesson from the lives of the fallen and the actions of the heroes, and to usher in a new era of civility in their honor."

At the time it was clear that they meant that Republican rhetoric was over the top and the root of the lack of civility in the public forum. This all took place in the shadow of the then recent 2010 "Tea Party" election. The new strategy was just another in a long line of efforts to get us to shut up and sit down.

It was a sham from the start of course. We have always been the polite party. The 2008 Presidential election, if proof is needed, demonstrated that we still were. Kid glove treatment for Barry. Using his middle name, Hussein, was verboten, for example.
 

Now it is 2017, Barry is out and Donald is in. And, this is the new "civility".

CA Dem Chair: ‘All Together Now: F*ck Donald Trump!’ as Crowd Holds Up Two Middle Fingers (VIDEO)

Cristina Laila May 20th, 2017 7:52 pm 1614 Comments

California – The classless Democrats gathered in Sacramento for a state convention on Saturday. They had some harsh words for the President as they chanted, ‘F*** Donald Trump!’.

AP reports:

California’s elected Democrats had tough words for President Donald Trump and the GOP Congress on Saturday, urging their party’s fired-up activists to work against the 14 Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation.
In a sign of the vigor of the party’s distaste for the president, outgoing party Chair John Burton, a longtime Democratic lawmaker and powerbroker known for his blunt and profane manner, extended two middle fingers in the air as the crowd cheered and joined him. “F— Donald Trump,” he said.

Video of crowd with middle fingers in the air after outgoing CA Dem Chair, John Burton screamed, ‘F*ck Donald Trump!’…"

Note that the person leading this demonstration of complete nitwittery is not some fringe player. He is the outgoing chairman of the California Democratic Party. Very high profile democrats are in the audience. Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsome, among others,  addressed the convention. Are they going to be asked by the press whether they will disavow this sort of verbal thuggery? I know, stupid question.

While the outburst above is extreme, it is not inconsistent with Democrats latest strategic brilliance.

"Swearing has become such a part of Democratic stump speeches that profane clips have become routine in Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez's speeches. With children on stage behind him, Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump "doesn't give a shit about health care."

We have known who they are for a very long time. Thanks to Donald J. Trump they are finally coming out of the closet. I am sure it will serve them well.

The Wall

Much has been said and written about the need, or not, for a wall along our southern border.

Immigration reforms were undertaken in 1965 , 1986 and were attempted again in 2007 .

The political right was persuaded in 1986 to enact reforms, which included amnesty, in exchange for an employer based status verification regime and enhanced border security. There "... was the enforcement bit. The law aimed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border against illegal crossings with new surveillance technology and a bigger staff."

The status verification system was, to put it politely, a sham.

"Under the final law, all employers had to do to avoid sanctions was to make sure their workers had paperwork that "reasonably appears on its face to be genuine." If the documents were decent fakes, that wasn't the boss's problem. In fact, employers were actually penalized if they scrutinized a worker's nationality too aggressively."

In 1986 I was CEO of a manufacturing business in Houston, TX. We had as many as 100 factory floor employees at peak times of the year. Most were illegals. The system was such a farce that I don't even remember it being more than an occasional topic of conversation at management meetings. No one came looking for anything. We changed  our hiring package to ensure we had proper "documentation" on new hires. We checked the files of existing employees to see whether additional information was required. If so, it was always readily provided.

I often read that the reason employers employ illegals is that they are willing to accept lesser pay and benefits. That may be true of some but I can safely say that it was certainly not the case for us. It was just how things had developed in the 20 years or so the company was in  business before I was hired to run it. In fact, we never advertised for factory workers. When the need arose our factory managers just told their workers we needed more people and they showed up. Wages were standard for the area and every employee had company paid medical insurance.

As is obvious the increased presence and border surveillance never happened.

That brings us to 2007 when John McCain and friends announced that a new deal had been reached behind closed doors. What little we were told about the legislation made it clear that it was going to be amnesty first, enforcement second, again. McCain declared that it would be voted on and passed within 48 hours. The right erupted and the legislation was killed.

Those of us who were around in 1986 refused to go along with amnesty first and enforcement second. We had already seen that the enforcement never arrived and we were certain the same would be true this time.

We have focused on the wall as an essential element of enforcement ever since. Enduring the barrage of insults hurled our way over the last 10 years stoically.

Now it is 2017. We elected a President who promised to build the wall. There has been no significant progress made. Funds were dropped from the continuing resolution recently approved. He said it was too difficult to do now and we will get back to it in September, in the next budget.

A funny thing has happened on the way to the wall , illegal immigration has plummeted since President Trump's election.

"Illegal immigration across the southwest border is down more than 60 percent so far under President Trump, officials revealed Tuesday, even before the first new agent is hired or the first mile of his promised border wall is constructed."

Like many, I do not like the idea of a wall but considered it a necessity if the flood of illegals was to be stopped. It looks as though the mere enforcement of laws on the books already has had an enormous influence on illegals. Maybe we don't need a wall after all.

Wishful thinking, unfortunately. As much as I hate to think about it Trump will only be President for 8 years. His successor, Democrat or Republican can, and probably will, back off enforcement again. It will be much less likely that such a stand down will have much of an effect if the wall is in place. So, in my reluctant opinion, it must be built.

Reciprocity

It will come as a surprise to most Americans under the age of 50, given the trajectory of modern history courses, that in the mid to late 1800's there were two very famous British politicians who dominated their era. William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli were, like their contemporary, Abraham Lincoln, accomplished orators. I was reading this article when a quote from Disraeli came to mind.

He said, of Gladstone, "Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity."

From the story;

 "A GOP congressman asked why men should have to pay for maternity care, and this woman’s response is now resonating across the country.

Barbara Rank, 63, wrote to her local newspaper, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, after Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) made the comments at a town hall last Monday.

 Blum said he’d voted in favor of legislation that repeals and replaces major parts of the Affordable Care Act to “get rid of some of these crazy regulations that Obamacare puts on […] such as a 62-year-old male having to have pregnancy insurance.”

Sounds like a pretty crazy regulation to me too. Always has. In fact I wrote about just that aspect of Obamacare years ago. My conclusion was that any system that requires such an artifice to maintain its solvency cannot last for long. Looks like I was right.

Ms. Rank, however, has another take on the subject which is what led me to remember Disraeli's quip.

 " Rank explained how the lawmaker’s comment had caused her to rhetorically ask herself “why should I pay for a bridge I don’t cross, a sidewalk I don’t walk on, a library book I don’t read?”

Because of civic duty and, more importantly, reciprocity. All of us help pay for the bridges you do cross, the sidewalks you do walk on and the library books you do read. Which is why you are asked to help pay for ours, the ones you don't use in the cities you don't live in.

As in Disraeli's observation, she has been carried away with the exuberance of her own natural verbosity.

“Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate?” the retired special education teacher continued. “Why should I pay the salaries of politicians I didn’t vote for, a tax cut that doesn’t affect me, or a loophole I can’t take advantage of?”

The answer is, of course, the same as the one above. Reciprocity and civic duty.

I am not sure why she thinks a loop hole, also known less pejoratively as an itemized tax deduction, somehow costs her something.

The story states that Ms. Rank is a retired school teacher. She is only 63. These teachers must have a pretty good pension system. I wonder who pays for that.

Given her former profession I thought I would ask a question in a format she is no doubt familiar with.

Which of these things is not like the others?

A) Parks, B) Roads, C) Bridges, D) Sidewalks, E)  Health insurance and F) Libraries.

Right you are! Gold star smiley faces for all! E is unlike all the others. There is no reciprocal benefit to the 62 year old man forced to pay for maternity coverage. He is simply forced to pay money for something it is entirely impossible for him to use, regardless of where he lives, for the benefit of someone else. It is simply a taking with no benefit.

Not the way America is supposed to work.

Apocalypse Trump

As you have no doubt noticed there is an apocalyptic story about President Trump just about every day. As you have also no doubt noticed, these stories contain very little in the way of facts.

Today Yahoo "News" (quote marks are mine) treated us to this howler:

The Comey memo was also about Trump’s request to arrest reporters. Journalists call it ‘crazy and scary.’

 

Only two small problems, again. No memo and no named source. Other than that, its totally credible. Well, no, it isn't.

Perhaps there is a memo, I guess we'll see. Seems to me that whoever leaked this could easily have made a copy of the "memo" available. After all, according to the NYT story Yahoo "News" relies on,

"The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter." If it isn't classified why not share it? As any 10 year old knows, because it either doesn't exist, doesn't say what the leaker claims it does, or the leaker is daring Trump to release the recordings of his conversations with Comey Trump referred to so they will know whether the tapes exist. Much better to know that before hand than risk being exposed for what they are if they publish the memo.

Curious indeed. If you read the NYT story you can see the methodology. An anonymous source reads from a "memo" the NYT cannot see. The NYT sees no problem here. In fact, the story extrapolates from the "memo" no one has seen.

Here is one of my favorites.

"The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia."

What "documentation"? No one has seen any such documentation but extrapolating damning conclusions from a document they don't have and have never seen is no stretch at all when President Trump is involved. And they wonder why Trump hates them and makes no secret of it.

President Trump vowed to "drain the swamp" that is Washington D.C. The swamp creatures are fighting back in unprecedented style.

Bureaucrats, prime stakeholders in the swamp, are leaking details of every meeting Trump has. Main stream media, also prime stakeholders in the swamp, continually print stories based on absolutely nothing but "unnamed sources" referring, to but never producing any "documentation".

This, from a recent Washington Post story, is, I think, a record for anonymous sourcing.

"But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations." Emphasis added.

So, "more than 30" eh? Well, how many actually or are the reporters unable to count that high? What possible reason could the writers have for not including the actual number? Many possibilities. None of which reflect well on the reporters, their editors or The Washington Post. Chief among the possibilities is that there were not 30 sources but they admired the effect the inclusion of the number had on the story's claim to legitimacy.

Then there is this; "Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity..."

"Many"? There is not a single named "source" in the story as it relates to the leak. Why not include a quote from someone who didn't insist on anonymity?  Because none of the quoted, attributed sources, were among the leakers. They were just offering opinions. Why include such dissembling? Because they are not writing a news story. They are trying to destroy the presidency of the man who vowed to make them play by the rules.

They are protecting their turf and will not give up easily.

Do not believe anything they say about President Trump. Not a thing. Their purpose is to persuade the President's supporters to abandon him. We won't. If any of his other supporters are anything like me, the behavior of the press and the bureaucrats simply confirms that Trump is and was right. These people are much more interested in taking him down than they are in reporting the "news".

One thing I find puzzling. Do they really want a President Pence? Hillary he is not.

Unbiased Journalism

I mentioned in the previous post that despite the dire warnings of a constitutional crisis in the wake of President Trump's firing of James Comey, there is no constitutional crisis.

There is another crisis, in my opinion. It has been a problem since Mr. Trump's election.

Mainstream journalism, while contemptible for its cheer leading tenor during Obama's reign and Hillary's campaign, has evolved into a new role.

They seem to see their job as being supportive of anyone the President criticizes.

Senator Richard Blumenthal weighed in on the Comey affair.

 “What we have now is really a looming constitutional crisis that is deadly serious,” Blumenthal said on CNN’s “New Day.” “Because there is an investigation ongoing.” 

Very restrained of him. The crisis is only looming. Of course, there is always "an investigation ongoing". In fact, I would be shocked if there were not thousands of investigations "ongoing".

The Donald, being The Donald took to Twitter to remind us that Blumenthal lied on many occasions about having served in Vietnam and that Blumenthal should be the subject of an investigation.

Yahoo "News" (quotes are mine) quickly leapt to Mr. Blumenthal's defense publishing the article linked above under the headline:

Trump falsely claims Sen. Blumenthal devised ‘one of the greatest military frauds in U.S. history'

Their problem is not that Mr. Blumenthal is a self-aggrandizing serial liar. No, of course not.

The real problem is that President Trump exaggerates, not that Blumenthal is a disgrace. 

I have mentioned before the analysis that his critics take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally. The critics keep proving the point.

Not being content with just asserting that there have been bigger frauds than Blumenthal in US military history, Yahoo goes on to try and even the playing field for Mr. Blumenthal.

"And during the Vietnam War, Trump avoided the draft by receiving five deferments, including one for what he described as bone spurs in his heels."

So Donald Trump had five deferments,  just like Blumenthal! Indeed. Not.

Trump never pretended to have been in combat which is the source of Trump's contempt for Blumenthal.

 

James Comey/Updated

Well! President Trump has finally fired FBI Director James Comey.

Is this a manifestation of Trump's well known (to the left) penchant for totalitarianism?

Has he unleashed his inner Hitler/Mussolini/Pol Pot/Stalin/Attilla the Hun?

Maybe, but in a good way.

I wrote at some length last July about Comey's non-indictment indictment of Hillary Clinton. His explanation was complete nonsense in my view and that of many others more qualified to opine on the matter than I. He should long since have been fired.

I find myself wondering how the left is going to play this. They have a conundrum to deal with.

When Comey let Clinton off the hook he was the greatest, sharpest, most honest guy in the world. When he put her back on the hook briefly, at the end of October, he was the worst miscreant ever to work in Washington. When he promptly took her off the hook, again, he resumed his pedestal. But then she lost. Oh my. Comey's pedestal was promptly blown up.

But wait, there's more! He testified to Congress that some Trump people might be in the FBI's cross hairs over contacts with Russia. The pedestal was not resurrected but he was relieved of perennial villain status.

Now he has been fired. Are they shameless enough to set their hair on fire, again over Trump's megalomania?

I don't know but it should make for enjoyable entertainment.

Update:

Hair is on fire! It is the Saturday Night Massacre all over again! A Constitutional Crisis!

Except for the part where it is neither.

The Saturday Night Massacre  occurred on October 20, 1973. Congress had appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Watergate burglary. The ensuing investigation led to Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency.

The statute creating the special prosecutor stated that he could not be fired except for cause and classified him as a justice department employee, not a political appointee. President Nixon demanded his Attorney General fire the SP without cause. The AG refused and resigned. Nixon then demanded that his assistant AG fire the SP. The AGA also resigned. The rest is well known history.

James Comey served at the pleasure of the President and could be fired for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Thus, no comparison at all to the SNM, as in, none.

Constitutional crisis? Apparently these people are not terribly well acquainted with the Constitution. The Director of the FBI is a political appointment of the executive branch. As such, as mentioned above, the President can fire him for any reason or no reason at all, at any time.

Billions of bytes are being deployed in the attempt to create the impression that the reason for the firing is that Comey's probe into Russian/Trump campaign collusion was getting too close to the President and had to be stopped.

There is a quite plausible, although less exciting, alternative explanation.

The Deputy AG, to whom the FBI Director reports, was only confirmed to office by the Senate on April 26, 2017. He then proceeded with his review of those for whose performance he is responsible. Unsurprisingly he found Comey's performance wanting, (agreeing with many Democrats' assessments, well, until they changed their minds en masse yesterday) and issued his report to the AG recommending he be fired. AG Sessions approved the report and informed the President. The President fired Comey.

The end.

Good Faith, Health Care Edition

I have written before of the critical role good faith plays in any meaningful discussion. I have written before that there does not appear to be any good faith on the left. They keep proving me, unfortunately, correct.

The House passed an Obamacare reform act last week. The world ended.

Courtesy of Senator Kamala Harris (D CA) this gem of lie..

"If you're one of the up to 129M people who have a pre-existing condition, share your story with me today & I’ll RT some throughout the day."

As the Senator (and former Attorney General of California) must know most
Americans get their health insurance through their employment. Consideration of pre-existing conditions has been unlawful in group policies for over 30 years, as she also surely knows.

The subject of the legislation she is vilifying is Obamacare. How many people are insured by Obamacare? Well, according to the Senator's home state paper of record, The L.A. Times, as published on March 29th of this year,


 

That is correct, 9.1 million people. Perhaps each of those 9.1 million has 14,175,824 pre-existing conditions, thus her 129,000,000. Probably not.

She isn't done yet. As the chart above makes clear, 290,200,000 Americans have health insurance. I'm guessing, since the entire population of the country is about 330,000,000 that at least a few of the 290,200,000 are not in the top 5% income wise, the privileged few, in other words. There are, by definition, no more than 16,500,000 people in that cohort. Probably far fewer since there are about 73,000,000 minors in the US and few of them are likely to have achieved top 5% income status on their own.

" Health care should not be a privilege for a few, but a right for all. The bill that passed earlier today won’t do that." Says the Senator. Indeed, says I, and thank goodness it isn't a "privilege for a few". Is it a right then? No. Just another service we buy or receive in some other manner.

Not to be outdone, a writer named Joan McCarter published a well informed piece under the following headline,

House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death

By Joan McCarter  

Thursday May 04, 2017 · 11:19 AM PDT

As you can imagine it is replete with nonsense. Have a look if you have the stomach for it.
If you do you will notice that  every link supporting her hysteria is to a left wing or far left wing publication or organization. The definition of living in a bubble.

She ends the piece with this bit of hilarity.

"Here’s another consequence: we will make the political life of every Republican who voted for this a living hell."

It would be nice if we could actually discuss things with the left but it seems to be impossible, so bereft of good faith are they.

Received Wisdom

Received wisdom is defined by some as "knowledge or information that people generally believe is true, although in fact it is often false".

There seems to be a lot of that going around on the left these days although to be fair it is my opinion that received wisdom has been their most frequent source of information for quite some time. 

We all know that republicans are in favor of dirty air and water. No word on where we would get our clean air and water.

Republicans want to take "health care" away from poor people.

Perhaps a more elaborate example is in order.

Illegal immigrants are just hard working souls looking to improve their lot in life (most are, I think) and they contribute a lot more in taxes to the country than the value of the benefits they consume. Not according to this extensive study by the Heritage Foundation. 

Some disagree with the Heritage Foundation. It is obvious, however, that they are just being deceptive in support of their received wisdom. Reading the following paragraph carefully exposes the game.


"Citizen children of illegal immigrants -- often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" -- do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers." (Emphasis added.)

Did you notice that the statement in support of illegal immigrants was missing an important qualifier? That $14,387 is an annual number. According to the Heritage report linked above there were about 3.7 million illegal immigrant households in the US when the report was compiled. That would be a cost of $53,231,900,000 per year. Every year.

Those anchor babies are going to have to be awfully productive if the "investment" is going to pay off. It would take 2,129,276 anchor babies earning enough to result in them paying $25,000 per year in taxes to repay one year's worth of "investment". Let's assume that a family earning $100,000 per year would pay $25,000 in taxes. According to this analysis, fewer than 7% of American families earn between $100,000 and $120,000 per year. Good luck with that investment. About 4 million anchor babies were born between 2000 and 2013.

So, the Chamber of Commerce, a very big booster of open borders and amnesty, agrees with the Heritage numbers but tries to wiggle out of that corner by calling the costs investment rather than what they are, expenses, and conflating illegal immigrant households with an anchor baby with those without. But the left, most of whom will never have seen or heard of the Heritage study, will just repeat the mantra and call you a racist and/or xenophobe if you attempt to dissuade them.

The transmission of received wisdom has, in my opinion, reached previously unknown levels.

Immigration and Dishonesty

I have written before about the difficulty of having any meaningful discussion with the left because they are so dishonest.

An opinion piece that appeared in the Arizona Republic this past Sunday is an excellent example of dishonesty masquerading as the truth. Due to my inability to disable an ad blocker I can't link directly to the piece. Sorry. Easy to find at azrepublic.com if you wish to read it, "Deporting the "dreamers" deports America's Honor". That headline is what caught my attention. I rarely read anything she writes, it is all so predictable.

Linda Valdez is the author. She is a reliable lefty and a member of the Republic's editorial board.

She tells the story of Juan Manuel Montes, a "Dreamer" who she claims was deported for no reason at all and uses this supposed deportation as a hammer to bludgeon those of us who disagree with her position with shame. We are mean, nasty, evil people.

I smelled a rat. We do not deport people for no reason, particularly "Dreamers", so I did some looking around.

In typical lefty style she omitted the actual reason the young man finds himself stuck in Mexico. It was, according to that well known right wing rag, CNN, this:

" The problem, though, is on the part of the story both sides agree on: Montes tried to sneak back into the US on February 19 and was caught by Border Patrol. DACA requires individuals to get pre-clearance to leave the country, and so Montes' re-entry then showed he had left without authorization and voided his status, DHS said." (Emphasis added)

So, he broke the rules and paid the price. All as it should be. If Ms. Valdez is capable of feeling shame, this would be a good time. Her dishonesty harms her cause.

This and That #2

Courtesy of Instapundit:

#FAKENEWS: Trump Trance Strikes Again: Trump Says ‘Senate Rules,’ Left Hears ‘Constitution.’ “You know, I’m honestly starting to think that Trump has actually driven a lot of people to madness.” Well, to be fair, most of them were close enough to walk. (Emphasis is mine)

Never, ever trust a bureaucracy. This story is an excellent example of bureaucrats putting the lives of children at risk rather than putting their own budget at risk.

The issue is lead in the drinking water in New York city schools.

Reading the story it becomes clear, although never stated, that in advance of testing for lead in the water the authorities were apparently told how they could fudge the tests to ensure a passing grade outcome and they did! The people in charge of the education of children would prefer to run the risk of poisoning them rather than spend the money required to fix their plumbing. Unsurprisingly the authors of the article never bother to make the connection or even ask who is responsible for this. After all, it is the New York Times.

But, don't worry, "...the Education Department said there had never been a known case of lead poisoning traced to drinking water in schools."

Via Charlie Martin at PJ Media a real howler in Trump Derangement  Syndrome:

"President Trump Declares Loyalty Day: Collapse of Democracy Imminent"

Of course the left went bonkers throwing around their favorite Trump is Hitler memes. I have mentioned before that the left seems not to have any knowledge of history, American or otherwise. Turns out, in Mr. Martin's telling, that Loyalty Day wasn't created by President Trump the fascist after all!

 

 

 And then there is this, also courtesy of Mr. Martin:

"Oddly, it wasn't fascist last year: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/27/presidential-proclamation-loyalty-day-2016 … https://twitter.com/InxsyS/status/858405848724492289 …

1:28 PM - 29 Apr 2017

Presidential Proclamation -- Loyalty Day, 2016

LOYALTY DAY, 2016 - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION  

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov