Tomorrow America will go to the polls for the first time since the glorious election of 2016.
I have been following several races quite closely, very exciting. I hope everyone who reads this blog has or will vote. It is your obligation.
In the past I have offered some predictions but learned the limits of my predictive talents in 2012. I was completely amazed that we elected Obama a second time. The power of white guilt apparently has few bounds.
However the House turns out there is absolutely no possibility of the Democrats duplicating our pick up of 63 seats in 2010. That was a wave.
No matter what happens tomorrow one thing is certain. When we all wake up on November 7, Donald J. Trump will be our President. Thank Goodness!
Be of good cheer my friends and if the Democrats have a good day tomorrow, don't begrudge them their glee. We are, after all, conservatives and as such bear them no ill will, our disagreements are political, not personal. May they learn from our example.
Monday, November 05, 2018
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Don't Fall For It #3
They never quit.
Yahoo home page headline,
"Trump may revoke (emphasis added) birthright citizenship for some."
Revoke means, "put an end to the validity or operation of (a decree, decision, or promise): "the men appealed and the sentence was revoked".
So, Trump, the dastardly meanie, fascist, homophobic, misogynist, anti-Semite, Hitler wannabe, is going to invalidate the citizenship of some or all of those who have gained it by being born of non-citizen parents on US soil.
Except for the part where he intends to do no such thing.
Headline of the story at the link.,
"Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies".
"President Donald Trump is making another hardline (sic) immigration play in the final days before the midterm elections, declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens."
No revoking of anything, of course. Everyone who has gained citizenship that way keeps it. The policy is forward looking only.
A week or so ago he said that he would propose a middle class tax reduction before the election.
The "press" immediately mocks him by deliberately misunderstanding what he actually said and implying that he is so stupid he doesn't understand that you can't pass a tax cut when Congress is not in session and it would be impossible to do in a few weeks if it was in session. He never said it would be passed before the election.
"When reminded (really?) Congress wasn’t in session, the president said, “We won’t have time to do the vote. We’ll do the vote later…We’ll do the vote after the election.”
Do not believe anything they say, ever.
A very clever writer, Sara Hoyt, wrote recently,
"...If they tell me it is raining I go outside to check, without an umbrella." (from memory)
Please do not fail to vote next week whatever the state of your local races.
Yahoo home page headline,
"Trump may revoke (emphasis added) birthright citizenship for some."
Revoke means, "put an end to the validity or operation of (a decree, decision, or promise): "the men appealed and the sentence was revoked".
So, Trump, the dastardly meanie, fascist, homophobic, misogynist, anti-Semite, Hitler wannabe, is going to invalidate the citizenship of some or all of those who have gained it by being born of non-citizen parents on US soil.
Except for the part where he intends to do no such thing.
Headline of the story at the link.,
"Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies".
"President Donald Trump is making another hardline (sic) immigration play in the final days before the midterm elections, declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens."
No revoking of anything, of course. Everyone who has gained citizenship that way keeps it. The policy is forward looking only.
A week or so ago he said that he would propose a middle class tax reduction before the election.
The "press" immediately mocks him by deliberately misunderstanding what he actually said and implying that he is so stupid he doesn't understand that you can't pass a tax cut when Congress is not in session and it would be impossible to do in a few weeks if it was in session. He never said it would be passed before the election.
"When reminded (really?) Congress wasn’t in session, the president said, “We won’t have time to do the vote. We’ll do the vote later…We’ll do the vote after the election.”
Do not believe anything they say, ever.
A very clever writer, Sara Hoyt, wrote recently,
"...If they tell me it is raining I go outside to check, without an umbrella." (from memory)
Please do not fail to vote next week whatever the state of your local races.
Friday, August 31, 2018
I Can't Believe I Missed IT!
Well, who knew? Apparently August 26 is Women's Equality Day. I got an email about it from OFA (Obama's Organizing for Action PAC) but didn't open it. It was entitled "What will you do to help, Michael", so I didn't realize how important it was. Perhaps they should take some lessons from CNN (see previous post).
I have been on their mailing list since the group was created, 2009 I think. Lots of laughs in some respects but quite dismal in others. As you can imagine they don't see things quite the way we do.
The author of the email,
Traci Wile
Director of Community Engagement
Organizing for Action
informs me that while much progress has been made in the fight to gain equal rights for women there is much more to be done.
Several specific issues are highlighted.
As everyone on the left "knows" women do not earn as much as men because, well, they never tell you the reason or explain how this is possible, since it is a violation of black letter law protecting women's civil rights to pay them less than a man for doing the same work and has been for a very long time.
What they cannot tell you, because most non-socialists would say "So what?" is that the reason women, as a group, earn less than men, as a group, is that more women tend to work in low paying jobs than men do.
If they were to expose their real agenda it would go something like this:
Teachers are very important and should be paid much more than they are currently. Maybe, but who is going to pay for their increased pay? Right, we are and that is a loser of an argument so they continue to attempt to persuade us that women are paid less for doing the same work as men which we would all find unacceptable.
As I mentioned before that is not only untrue it is illegal, and the consequences of such practises can be very expensive. There is an entire federal bureaucracy dedicated to policing just this sort of thing.
You all have working women in your lives. Do you know a single one who would stand still for being paid less than the guy in the next cubicle for doing the same work? I don't either.
Oh and,
"Basic health care and contraceptive rights for women are under attack."
What?
Well it is true that we are intent on repealing Obamacare completely. Does that mean "Basic Health care (for women)...is under attack"? In a word, no.
There were 10.7 million people enrolled in Obamacare as of March 2017. Of those I am guessing at least half are men and minors. So about 5,000,000 women. Does Ms. Wile not care about anyone but her own tribe!
So, in Ms. Wile's fantasy the basic health care of women is "under attack". It is estimated that there are currently about 165,000,000 adult women living in America. If Ms. Wile's assertion is about women's basic health care being under attack, that "attack" would be threatening about 3% of women. Those covered by Obamacare. Not women generally. Do you have any doubt that she knows that? I don't either but it wouldn't make anywhere near as good a story.
There is no one making the argument that the people providing health insurance to most of the other approximately 160,000,000 women in this country, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Administration or private insurers is "attacking" women's policies.
As to contraception, if anyone can make a logical case for mandated insurance coverage for women's contraceptives I would like to see it because I have not seen it yet.
My fundamental objection to the notion is simple. Whatever an insurance company pays for is spread among its insureds. I see no reason at all that a single male or a gay male or any male at all should contribute a dime toward the cost of contraception for anyone who is not his significant other. None.
There is an interesting potential parallel to this issue. Should taxpayers who do not have children be forced to pay school taxes?
Is it possible that the reason those of us without kids in the public school system contribute is the general public benefit conferred by the education and socializing of children we live in close proximity too?
There seems to be a curious connection between these two discussions. Maybe I should reconsider and contribute to every woman's contraception needs if she, in turn, will promise not to send any children she does have to public school. That system would wither and die and I could stop paying school taxes.
I have been on their mailing list since the group was created, 2009 I think. Lots of laughs in some respects but quite dismal in others. As you can imagine they don't see things quite the way we do.
The author of the email,
Traci Wile
Director of Community Engagement
Organizing for Action
informs me that while much progress has been made in the fight to gain equal rights for women there is much more to be done.
Several specific issues are highlighted.
As everyone on the left "knows" women do not earn as much as men because, well, they never tell you the reason or explain how this is possible, since it is a violation of black letter law protecting women's civil rights to pay them less than a man for doing the same work and has been for a very long time.
What they cannot tell you, because most non-socialists would say "So what?" is that the reason women, as a group, earn less than men, as a group, is that more women tend to work in low paying jobs than men do.
If they were to expose their real agenda it would go something like this:
Teachers are very important and should be paid much more than they are currently. Maybe, but who is going to pay for their increased pay? Right, we are and that is a loser of an argument so they continue to attempt to persuade us that women are paid less for doing the same work as men which we would all find unacceptable.
As I mentioned before that is not only untrue it is illegal, and the consequences of such practises can be very expensive. There is an entire federal bureaucracy dedicated to policing just this sort of thing.
You all have working women in your lives. Do you know a single one who would stand still for being paid less than the guy in the next cubicle for doing the same work? I don't either.
Oh and,
"Basic health care and contraceptive rights for women are under attack."
What?
Well it is true that we are intent on repealing Obamacare completely. Does that mean "Basic Health care (for women)...is under attack"? In a word, no.
There were 10.7 million people enrolled in Obamacare as of March 2017. Of those I am guessing at least half are men and minors. So about 5,000,000 women. Does Ms. Wile not care about anyone but her own tribe!
So, in Ms. Wile's fantasy the basic health care of women is "under attack". It is estimated that there are currently about 165,000,000 adult women living in America. If Ms. Wile's assertion is about women's basic health care being under attack, that "attack" would be threatening about 3% of women. Those covered by Obamacare. Not women generally. Do you have any doubt that she knows that? I don't either but it wouldn't make anywhere near as good a story.
There is no one making the argument that the people providing health insurance to most of the other approximately 160,000,000 women in this country, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Administration or private insurers is "attacking" women's policies.
As to contraception, if anyone can make a logical case for mandated insurance coverage for women's contraceptives I would like to see it because I have not seen it yet.
My fundamental objection to the notion is simple. Whatever an insurance company pays for is spread among its insureds. I see no reason at all that a single male or a gay male or any male at all should contribute a dime toward the cost of contraception for anyone who is not his significant other. None.
There is an interesting potential parallel to this issue. Should taxpayers who do not have children be forced to pay school taxes?
Is it possible that the reason those of us without kids in the public school system contribute is the general public benefit conferred by the education and socializing of children we live in close proximity too?
There seems to be a curious connection between these two discussions. Maybe I should reconsider and contribute to every woman's contraception needs if she, in turn, will promise not to send any children she does have to public school. That system would wither and die and I could stop paying school taxes.
Don't Fall For It # 2
This is turning into a new series!
What do you make of this CNN headline?
What do you make of this CNN headline?
Trump warns of violence if GOP loses midterms
Me too. Right wingers will take to the streets if we lose the House in the November mid-terms.
Wrong again!
In order to know what President Trump was actually referring to you would have to watch the video.
He was warning that if we lose the House in November Antifa thugs, you remember these guys,
will feel vindicated and emboldened and become even more violent than they are already.
If you or I was the headline writer it would have said,
Trump warns of Antifa violence if GOP loses midterms
One additional word makes the headline an accurate description of what the President said but the CNN way is so much more fun. And soooo many more clicks too.
If you have the stomach for it watch the panel "discussion" that takes place in the service of "analyzing" the President's words. It is a hoot, although I could only take about 30 seconds of these self-righteous preeners.
Do not forget that their every waking hour is devoted to the destruction of our President and the demoralization of his fans. Us.
Don't fall for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)