I have written about the illegal immigration crisis we face several times.
There is a second, possibly more urgent problem in the same field. The legal immigration of people who have no interest in democracy and no interest in assimilating to western culture.
An opinion piece published in the Canadian Jewish News came to my attention recently. I can't find it on line so can't link to it.
The author is Dr. Sima Goel, a chiropractor in Montreal. She is also the author of "Fleeing the Hijab,: A Jewish Woman's Escape from Iran".
In the piece I refer to she writes of her escape from Iran as an 18 year-old "Over 30 years ago".
Her story is remarkable to those of us who have had the good fortune to be born into modern western democracies.
She is concerned that Canada is becoming unwelcoming to immigrants "...some of whom have different attitudes toward women, health care and child rearing."
The implication is (she never states it clearly) that her concern is that we are not welcoming to Muslims.
She says " I was entitled to live life as I chose, to adapt and modify my ways to the Canadian ethic". Later, "We have no right to impose our values on other Canadians, but we do share the common ethic of respect and tolerance."
"Are we afraid of these new immigrants," she asks?
Well, if I am correct and she is talking about the latest wave of Muslim immigration the only answer to the question is no, emphatically.
Have you noticed that the left (I am willing to bet she is on the left) tends to try to shame those of us who disagree with them into silence by using loaded terms like "afraid"? Opposition to the admission to our countries is fear of the other, they say. Not a good quality.
As usual, the reason for the taunt is an inability to otherwise support her position.
She has apparently failed to notice that an enormous proportion of the Muslims we are admitting have no intention of modifying their ways to "the Canadian ethic".
In fact the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world prefer sharia law to any other system according to a poll conducted by the left of center Pew Foundation.
"The survey involved a total of more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages." That is a very substantial sample.
Dr. Goel I am not afraid of immigrants. I have no interest in granting residency to immigrants who have no intention of adopting western ethics. They have every intention of altering the demographics of the west and then installing their preferred regime.
Offering the tolerance and benefits of western society to those who will take advantage of that tolerance and those benefits to make sure they eventually disappear is just stupid.
Those of us who oppose such idiocy are not afraid. We are willing and able to see the truth and act upon it.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Friday, April 07, 2017
This and That
Steven Hayward at Powerline occasionally publishes posts titled "Loose Ends" full of tidbits that have accumulated over time.
I have decided to do a similar thing using the title "This and That", a phrase I often use interacting with my immediate family.
So here is the first post in what will become a series.
I am traveling without my laptop so writing on an iPad. My skill set is such that I am not willing to try and install links so you are going to have to accept my assertion of facts unsupported. Or not.
I speculated a few weeks ago that Obama, ignoring the tradition that former presidents remain out of sight for a while following the end of their term, would be running a parliamentary system style shadow government constantly attacking the Trump administration.
For a few weeks after the inauguration I read similar speculation here and there.
Now Barry seems to have disappeared. I am hoping the reason is that he can't peek out of his bunker for fear of being caught up in the Susan Rice, NSA surveillance mess. I guess we'll see.
Mrs. Clinton opined a few days ago that misogyny was "absolutely" one of the reasons she lost the election. She is probably correct. She is such an abhorrent and corrupt harridan that she even managed to turn large numbers of women into misogynists.
I am familiar with the notion of anti-Semitic Jews but have never heard of a female misogynist. Good job Mrs. Clinton, you have created a new subspecies.
You may have noticed that we bombed the Syrian air base thought to be the source of the chemical weapons Syria used a few days ago. Jim Geraghty of WSJ's The Morning Jolt summed things up, with respect to Russia's reaction best, I think.
"Somebody didn't get their money's worth out of election meddling".
I have decided to do a similar thing using the title "This and That", a phrase I often use interacting with my immediate family.
So here is the first post in what will become a series.
I am traveling without my laptop so writing on an iPad. My skill set is such that I am not willing to try and install links so you are going to have to accept my assertion of facts unsupported. Or not.
I speculated a few weeks ago that Obama, ignoring the tradition that former presidents remain out of sight for a while following the end of their term, would be running a parliamentary system style shadow government constantly attacking the Trump administration.
For a few weeks after the inauguration I read similar speculation here and there.
Now Barry seems to have disappeared. I am hoping the reason is that he can't peek out of his bunker for fear of being caught up in the Susan Rice, NSA surveillance mess. I guess we'll see.
Mrs. Clinton opined a few days ago that misogyny was "absolutely" one of the reasons she lost the election. She is probably correct. She is such an abhorrent and corrupt harridan that she even managed to turn large numbers of women into misogynists.
I am familiar with the notion of anti-Semitic Jews but have never heard of a female misogynist. Good job Mrs. Clinton, you have created a new subspecies.
You may have noticed that we bombed the Syrian air base thought to be the source of the chemical weapons Syria used a few days ago. Jim Geraghty of WSJ's The Morning Jolt summed things up, with respect to Russia's reaction best, I think.
"Somebody didn't get their money's worth out of election meddling".
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Mr. Trump Does Washington
Last Friday the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, pulled the American Health Care Act from consideration. He knew he didn't have the votes to pass it. The press and pundits generally considered it a yuuuuge failure for Mr. Ryan and President Trump. They are half right, better than their usual score. Mr. Ryan has indeed suffered a huge failure.
I wrote of Trump's inaugural speech on January 20,
"I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office."
Having given a lot of thought to the AHCA situation it occurs to me that the President played it perfectly. He let Ryan lead with his chin. If the bill passed, Ok, another promise kept, if imperfectly. If not, the defeat was Ryan's. Another win-win.
There is another element to the equation, I think. Ryan has been neutered. He took on a job for the President, no doubt confidently assuring the neophyte Trump of success and thoroughly botched it. He cannot any longer present himself to Trump as the Washington insider who knows which levers to pull and buttons to push. He will, from now on, be told what to do and how to do it by the White House.
Mitch McConnell is next on the list and the Gorsuch nomination, if botched, will do for him what the AHCA did for Ryan.
As things stand, to the best of my knowledge, a Democrat filibuster is a possibility. If that occurs McConnell will be expected to press the button on the nuclear option. I don't think he will. He is an old timer with a lot invested in the Senate and will be loath to undermine his beloved institution and his buddies. Outrage and derision will follow.
A failure to use the nuclear option will neuter him just as Ryan's failure has neutered him.
Two veteran legislators, much too deferential to Democrats and government business as usual will be toast. Donald Trump will be in charge.
Happily Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees is long and excellent. The next one will be confirmed, on way or another. McConnell will have no choice but to press the nuclear button in round two.
Don Surber is a writer whose work I have come across quite frequently. I find him generally to be thoughtful, smart and well informed. Yesterday he wrote,
"However, I realized it was a negotiating ploy to get a better deal. Not only that, but I realized by calling for the vote, President Trump had usurped House Speaker Paul Ryan's power."
Followed by a Trumpism,
"Negotiations 101: The best deals you can make are the ones you walk away from...and then get them with better terms."
Indeed.
I wrote of Trump's inaugural speech on January 20,
"I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office."
Having given a lot of thought to the AHCA situation it occurs to me that the President played it perfectly. He let Ryan lead with his chin. If the bill passed, Ok, another promise kept, if imperfectly. If not, the defeat was Ryan's. Another win-win.
There is another element to the equation, I think. Ryan has been neutered. He took on a job for the President, no doubt confidently assuring the neophyte Trump of success and thoroughly botched it. He cannot any longer present himself to Trump as the Washington insider who knows which levers to pull and buttons to push. He will, from now on, be told what to do and how to do it by the White House.
Mitch McConnell is next on the list and the Gorsuch nomination, if botched, will do for him what the AHCA did for Ryan.
As things stand, to the best of my knowledge, a Democrat filibuster is a possibility. If that occurs McConnell will be expected to press the button on the nuclear option. I don't think he will. He is an old timer with a lot invested in the Senate and will be loath to undermine his beloved institution and his buddies. Outrage and derision will follow.
A failure to use the nuclear option will neuter him just as Ryan's failure has neutered him.
Two veteran legislators, much too deferential to Democrats and government business as usual will be toast. Donald Trump will be in charge.
Happily Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees is long and excellent. The next one will be confirmed, on way or another. McConnell will have no choice but to press the nuclear button in round two.
Don Surber is a writer whose work I have come across quite frequently. I find him generally to be thoughtful, smart and well informed. Yesterday he wrote,
"However, I realized it was a negotiating ploy to get a better deal. Not only that, but I realized by calling for the vote, President Trump had usurped House Speaker Paul Ryan's power."
Followed by a Trumpism,
"Negotiations 101: The best deals you can make are the ones you walk away from...and then get them with better terms."
Indeed.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
The Narrative
I have written several times about the frustration of dealing with the Emperor's New Clothes era in which we live. I have suggested that this frustration on the right has led to the election (for which I am grateful) of Donald Trump. For years black has been white and white black depending on the narrative being spun by the mainstream media, democrats and far too many republicans.
False narratives are pervasive and, for far too many people, persuasive. "Hands up, don't shoot" is among the most famous and destructive. Donald Trump as, variously, Hitler, racist, anti-Semite, serial fabulist and tax evader among the most recent.
Jon Gabriel of Ricochet produced a very helpful chart to help us properly classify the news regarding violent crime as it is now reported.
Enjoy!
False narratives are pervasive and, for far too many people, persuasive. "Hands up, don't shoot" is among the most famous and destructive. Donald Trump as, variously, Hitler, racist, anti-Semite, serial fabulist and tax evader among the most recent.
Jon Gabriel of Ricochet produced a very helpful chart to help us properly classify the news regarding violent crime as it is now reported.
Enjoy!
Thursday, March 09, 2017
Science
Over the years I have saved many articles that have caught my attention. I go through them every so often to see how they read years into the future. I have referred to a number of them in other posts. One of my favorites is this one.
I have written before of my extreme skepticism with respect to the horrific outcomes projected for man made climate change. It occurs to me that if you did not live through the 1970's (there are fewer and fewer of us around these days!) you might not understand the source of my skepticism.
I offer a few quotes from the linked article as proof that the scientific community is often wrong in its evaluation of current conditions and almost always wrong about extrapolating their conclusions into the future. None of this seems to prevent many of them from continuing to opine and extrapolate. Worse still, none of this seems to prevent a credulous press from amplifying their statements. Keep in mind that these quotes are from 1970, the birth year of Earth Day.
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
No doubt you recognize the construction of the opening phrase. The age-old appeal to authority. I imagine you have also heard that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is a man made problem. There is a small problem with that assertion. It is not true.
What is true is that a review of some 12,000 papers on the subject of climate showed that only 33% of them suggested a reason for climate change. 97% of those asserted that the cause was man. So, now we are down to 97% of 30%, 29.1%. Quite a different number than 97% .
Let's go get more of that 70's wisdom.
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Watt also predicted that,
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
And, from the ever reliable Sierra Club ,
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
If you follow the link immediately above you will see that they have not mended their
Malthusian ways.
I don't think I have ever seen an acknowledgment from any of these people that they have ever been wrong about anything.
Be skeptical of those who assert our imminent destruction. Their assertions seem, curiously, almost always to be attached to pleas for money. I can't imagine why.
I have written before of my extreme skepticism with respect to the horrific outcomes projected for man made climate change. It occurs to me that if you did not live through the 1970's (there are fewer and fewer of us around these days!) you might not understand the source of my skepticism.
I offer a few quotes from the linked article as proof that the scientific community is often wrong in its evaluation of current conditions and almost always wrong about extrapolating their conclusions into the future. None of this seems to prevent many of them from continuing to opine and extrapolate. Worse still, none of this seems to prevent a credulous press from amplifying their statements. Keep in mind that these quotes are from 1970, the birth year of Earth Day.
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
No doubt you recognize the construction of the opening phrase. The age-old appeal to authority. I imagine you have also heard that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is a man made problem. There is a small problem with that assertion. It is not true.
What is true is that a review of some 12,000 papers on the subject of climate showed that only 33% of them suggested a reason for climate change. 97% of those asserted that the cause was man. So, now we are down to 97% of 30%, 29.1%. Quite a different number than 97% .
Let's go get more of that 70's wisdom.
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Watt also predicted that,
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
And, from the ever reliable Sierra Club ,
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
If you follow the link immediately above you will see that they have not mended their
Malthusian ways.
I don't think I have ever seen an acknowledgment from any of these people that they have ever been wrong about anything.
Be skeptical of those who assert our imminent destruction. Their assertions seem, curiously, almost always to be attached to pleas for money. I can't imagine why.
Monday, March 06, 2017
President Trump Does It Again
I have mentioned before that I have been thoroughly enjoying watching Mr. Trump bait the left. In an earlier post or two I borrowed a phrase from Powerline's John Hinderacker to the effect that being a liberal means you don't ever have to learn anything. Well, they are certainly proving him right again.
As everyone on the planet now knows, DJT launched a series of tweets on Saturday morning claiming that Obama tapped his phones during the elections. Predictably the left has set their hair on fire over this one.
There are so many stories on the subject that it is difficult to chose one to link to so I will stick with Mr. Hinderacker .
As you read the details of the various stories a very insightful comment from, if I recall correctly, Glenn Reynolds , is useful to explain what is going on here.
What Mr. Reynolds said, more or less, is that Trump's critics take him literally but not seriously and his supporters take him seriously but not literally.
We know, despite the aggressive wording of his tweet, that he did not mean, literally,
that Obama tapped his phones. To us it is perfectly clear that he means the Obama administration, in one form or another, did.
The press, meanwhile, is dealing with his tweets as though he meant, literally, every word in them and is trying desperately to disprove a case that Trump never intended to make, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Great fun indeed.
As everyone on the planet now knows, DJT launched a series of tweets on Saturday morning claiming that Obama tapped his phones during the elections. Predictably the left has set their hair on fire over this one.
There are so many stories on the subject that it is difficult to chose one to link to so I will stick with Mr. Hinderacker .
As you read the details of the various stories a very insightful comment from, if I recall correctly, Glenn Reynolds , is useful to explain what is going on here.
What Mr. Reynolds said, more or less, is that Trump's critics take him literally but not seriously and his supporters take him seriously but not literally.
We know, despite the aggressive wording of his tweet, that he did not mean, literally,
that Obama tapped his phones. To us it is perfectly clear that he means the Obama administration, in one form or another, did.
The press, meanwhile, is dealing with his tweets as though he meant, literally, every word in them and is trying desperately to disprove a case that Trump never intended to make, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Great fun indeed.
Why Hillary Lost
She lost because she is so thoroughly off-putting and corrupt that she couldn't even manage to attract the votes of large numbers of women.
"However the biggest surprise of 2016 probably relates to gender. The first major party female candidate for president, running against a notorious misogynist, captured the Democrats’ lowest share of female voters since 2004."
Indeed.
"However the biggest surprise of 2016 probably relates to gender. The first major party female candidate for president, running against a notorious misogynist, captured the Democrats’ lowest share of female voters since 2004."
Indeed.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
The Chick-fil-A effect Updated
3/8/2017
Looks like we have done it again!
In 2012 the President of Chick-fil-A expressed his disapproval of same sex marriage. The left erupted in outrage. Boycotts were declared. The chain was declared unwelcome in San Francisco, Chicago and elsewhere.
The link above spends a great deal of time detailing the outrage, loss of corporate partnerships and generally vilifies the company. Below is the last entry in the very long piece and, of course, my point.
The Huffington Post, which I referenced recently is a lefty outlet. Note how the author attempts to minimize what really happened to boost sales. It is not "that negative coverage didn't hurt demand". Negative coverage put a rocket under demand as those of us who were fed up with the oppression of the PC culture quietly, but effectively, neutered it.
Among the most important factors that gave us President Donald Trump is the corrosive effect on our civilization of practitioners of political correctness who try to shame and/or outlaw any opinions inconsistent with their own.
The left is at it again, in spades. Boycotts of Trump brands and particularly Ivanka Trump brands are under vicious PC attack everywhere. Her brands have reportedly discontinued by several major retailers including Nordstrom and Sears/Kmart.
Meanwhile, her perfume brand has leaped to #1 at Amazon. The Chick-fil-A effect is underway, and will, no doubt, continue.
It is worthwhile noting, in my opinion, that at the time of their kerfuffle, Chick-fil-A was a significant contributor to organizations opposed to same-sex marriage and the expansion of LXQXWZ or whatever it is, "rights". Being a responsible, law abiding corporate citizen, the company stopped donating to most of those organizations after the Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage.
Looks like we have done it again!
In 2012 the President of Chick-fil-A expressed his disapproval of same sex marriage. The left erupted in outrage. Boycotts were declared. The chain was declared unwelcome in San Francisco, Chicago and elsewhere.
The link above spends a great deal of time detailing the outrage, loss of corporate partnerships and generally vilifies the company. Below is the last entry in the very long piece and, of course, my point.
"Financial effect
Sales increased after the controversy. According to news coverage following the controversy:[71]Chick-fil-A's sales soared 12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders ... These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers.
— Joe Satran, The Huffington Post"
The Huffington Post, which I referenced recently is a lefty outlet. Note how the author attempts to minimize what really happened to boost sales. It is not "that negative coverage didn't hurt demand". Negative coverage put a rocket under demand as those of us who were fed up with the oppression of the PC culture quietly, but effectively, neutered it.
Among the most important factors that gave us President Donald Trump is the corrosive effect on our civilization of practitioners of political correctness who try to shame and/or outlaw any opinions inconsistent with their own.
The left is at it again, in spades. Boycotts of Trump brands and particularly Ivanka Trump brands are under vicious PC attack everywhere. Her brands have reportedly discontinued by several major retailers including Nordstrom and Sears/Kmart.
Meanwhile, her perfume brand has leaped to #1 at Amazon. The Chick-fil-A effect is underway, and will, no doubt, continue.
It is worthwhile noting, in my opinion, that at the time of their kerfuffle, Chick-fil-A was a significant contributor to organizations opposed to same-sex marriage and the expansion of LXQXWZ or whatever it is, "rights". Being a responsible, law abiding corporate citizen, the company stopped donating to most of those organizations after the Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
A Plausible Explanation
Like most of us I have been aware of the Dilbert cartoon series for a long time. I have read it occasionally and, for the most part, have not understood its appeal or even its point.
Thanks to the Instapundit I have been treated to a series of links to the web site of Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, since President Trump began his run for office. I have linked to him before.
His explanations of how Trump accomplished his amazing political feat have been fascinating to me.
I watched the President's press conference on Thursday for a little while. I was mostly impressed. I stopped watching at the point that he said, and I paraphrase, "No matter what I say today all the news tomorrow will be about me ranting and raving. I am not ranting." Taking his bait, as usual, this was Friday's Huffington Post cover for their reporting.
I mentioned above Mr. Adams fascinating explanation of Trump's success. In this post Mr. Adams provides a plausible explanation for another phenomenon, that apparently sane and intelligent people people can come away from the same experience with two completely different interpretations of what occurred.
With reference to HP's complete failure to predict Trump's success and the fact that they saw an entirely different press conference than I did he writes:
"When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed".
Read the whole thing.
Thanks to the Instapundit I have been treated to a series of links to the web site of Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, since President Trump began his run for office. I have linked to him before.
His explanations of how Trump accomplished his amazing political feat have been fascinating to me.
I watched the President's press conference on Thursday for a little while. I was mostly impressed. I stopped watching at the point that he said, and I paraphrase, "No matter what I say today all the news tomorrow will be about me ranting and raving. I am not ranting." Taking his bait, as usual, this was Friday's Huffington Post cover for their reporting.
I mentioned above Mr. Adams fascinating explanation of Trump's success. In this post Mr. Adams provides a plausible explanation for another phenomenon, that apparently sane and intelligent people people can come away from the same experience with two completely different interpretations of what occurred.
With reference to HP's complete failure to predict Trump's success and the fact that they saw an entirely different press conference than I did he writes:
"When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed".
Read the whole thing.
History? Don't know any
Via Paul Mirengoff at Powerline I accessed this story of an argument between an anti-Trump conventional media reporter (is there another kind) and a Trump staffer.
The reporter told a tale of abuse at the hands of the staffer. Apparently the exchange was taped and the tape is unkind to the reporter's version of events.
The reporter asserts that the making of the tape, without her knowledge or approval was "Nixonian". She is correct, but not in the way she thinks.
Nixon did indeed surreptitiously tape all conversations in the Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House and at Camp David for a couple of years. He had every right to do so, as did the person who did so in this case.
What the complaining reporter meant by her claim of "Nixonian" actions was that the taping was illegal and big brotherish.
What she failed to understand is the real Nixonian aspect of the event.
The taping of the exchange is her undoing, just like it was Nixon's.
The reporter told a tale of abuse at the hands of the staffer. Apparently the exchange was taped and the tape is unkind to the reporter's version of events.
The reporter asserts that the making of the tape, without her knowledge or approval was "Nixonian". She is correct, but not in the way she thinks.
Nixon did indeed surreptitiously tape all conversations in the Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House and at Camp David for a couple of years. He had every right to do so, as did the person who did so in this case.
What the complaining reporter meant by her claim of "Nixonian" actions was that the taping was illegal and big brotherish.
What she failed to understand is the real Nixonian aspect of the event.
The taping of the exchange is her undoing, just like it was Nixon's.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Respect for Women
I have heard all I can stand about the Republican war on women, Trump's bad behavior toward women and men's misogynistic impulses.
The real war on the dignity and image of women is being waged by women.
What is more damaging to the dignity and image of women, Trump's potty mouth and boorish actions or this?
Lady Gaga (pictured above), Miley Cyrus, the Kardashians and their entire reality show and performers cohort, who appear to be in constant competition to see how much they can resemble a real live hooker, are a far more serious stain on the dignity and image of women than poorly behaved men could ever be.
The real war on the dignity and image of women is being waged by women.
What is more damaging to the dignity and image of women, Trump's potty mouth and boorish actions or this?
Lady Gaga (pictured above), Miley Cyrus, the Kardashians and their entire reality show and performers cohort, who appear to be in constant competition to see how much they can resemble a real live hooker, are a far more serious stain on the dignity and image of women than poorly behaved men could ever be.
Warren Buffet on Immigration
I have mentioned the legendary investor Warren Buffet before. It was in the context of him trying to persuade us that our income tax regime is wildly skewed in favor of the "rich" and that the "rich" should pay more taxes. He tried to make the case that his assistant who makes about $100K per year pays more taxes than he does. It is probably true, but it does not do anything in furtherance of his point. His comparison, as I explained, was apples to oranges. (You will have to scroll to the last entry on the linked page to read the post.)
I mention in the post that, in my opinion Buffet is a liar.
He has recently sought fit to opine on the current hot-button issue of immigration.
Here too Buffet is being deceptive. He says, " “Well, immigration, this country is built on it. I always say to people that are anti-immigration, ‘let’s put it in retroactively.’ And everybody leaves,” the 86-year-old billionaire said on a panel with his friend Bill Gates on Friday at Columbia University in New York."
Do you know, or have you ever known anyone for whom you have any respect at all who is anti-immigration? I didn't think so. I haven't either. So why does he misrepresent the issues? Why would the other panelists or audience members not point out that the issues actually being discussed are illegal immigration and immigration from failed Muslim states so we could hear Buffet's opinions on the actual issues? I don't know either.
I find it impossible to believe that he does not know what the issues actually are. I think he is doing what liberals always do. Ridicule people who don't agree with them in the hope of embarrassing them into silence.
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.
I mention in the post that, in my opinion Buffet is a liar.
He has recently sought fit to opine on the current hot-button issue of immigration.
Here too Buffet is being deceptive. He says, " “Well, immigration, this country is built on it. I always say to people that are anti-immigration, ‘let’s put it in retroactively.’ And everybody leaves,” the 86-year-old billionaire said on a panel with his friend Bill Gates on Friday at Columbia University in New York."
Do you know, or have you ever known anyone for whom you have any respect at all who is anti-immigration? I didn't think so. I haven't either. So why does he misrepresent the issues? Why would the other panelists or audience members not point out that the issues actually being discussed are illegal immigration and immigration from failed Muslim states so we could hear Buffet's opinions on the actual issues? I don't know either.
I find it impossible to believe that he does not know what the issues actually are. I think he is doing what liberals always do. Ridicule people who don't agree with them in the hope of embarrassing them into silence.
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
False Comparison. How and Why They Do It.
On January 26, 2017 Dan Levine of Reuters wrote a piece entitled, "In Trump Era Democrats and Republicans switch sides on states' rights".
"States' rights" is described in Black's Law Dictionary.
" Under the Tenth Amendment, rights neither conferred on the federal government nor forbidden to the states".
He describes the situation using Scott Pruitt's position as Attorney General of Oklahoma arguing against Obamacare compared with his likely positions with respect to EPA regulations to make his case.
"States' rights" is described in Black's Law Dictionary.
" Under the Tenth Amendment, rights neither conferred on the federal government nor forbidden to the states".
He describes the situation using Scott Pruitt's position as Attorney General of Oklahoma arguing against Obamacare compared with his likely positions with respect to EPA regulations to make his case.
"...He
was part of a coalition of Republican attorneys general fighting
President Barack Obama's health law - better known as Obamacare - based
on a core party principle: that states' rights trump federal powers, and
that programs like Obamacare represent a radical overreach by the
federal government.
Now,
as Trump looks to undo Obama's legacy and begin constructing his own,
Pruitt and other administration Republicans are showing little interest
in protecting states' rights. Instead, they are embracing sweeping new
environmental, health care and immigration policies that are to be
imposed on all states."
That last sentence is extremely important and indicates that Mr. Levine either does not understand the concept of states' rights or he chooses not to understand it in furtherance of his narrative.
Read this again carefully:
"...coalition of Republican attorneys general fighting
President Barack Obama's health law - better known as Obamacare - based
on a core party principle: that states' rights trump federal powers, and
that programs like Obamacare represent a radical overreach by the
federal government."
Apparently Mr. Levine thinks that a core principle of the Republican Party is "that states' rights trump federal powers". Really? A quick look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment might be in order.
The actual "core principle" is that the federal government ought not to expand beyond the powers conferred on it by the Constitution. In the quite widely disseminated opinion of every Republican I have ever heard on the subject, Obamacare is indeed a "radical overreach by the federal government" and rolling it back is entirely consistent with the protection of states' rights.
The administration will not (and proclaims it very loudly, I'm surprised Mr. Levine hasn't heard about this) be imposing new
environmental, health care and immigration policies on the states in violation of the states' rights principle. They will be rolling back environmental and health care policies that violate states' rights in those areas.
For reasons best known to Mr. Levine he believes that immigration law is a power to be exercised by the states. It is not. To argue otherwise would be to suggest it reasonable and appropriate to have as many as 50 different immigration regimes. Ridiculous on its face. A quick look at Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution might help.
He may recall Arizona's efforts to gain control of its southern border. Arizona's argument was not that it was within the state's rights under the Constitution to assert control over the border. The argument was that the federal government, having completely failed to carry out its obligations with respect to the border, had forfeited its constitutionally mandated jurisdiction over it and Arizona had to step in to protect its sovereignty.
So the "how" is by misunderstanding, misinterpretation, mendacity or some combination of the three.
The "why" is to provide cover for Democrats who have long abhorred the notion of us yokels in the hinterlands making any decisions for ourselves. (New York abortion laws for Mississippi anyone?) Since "everyone" is changing sides there is no shame in it.
They are suddenly embracing the concept, see sanctuary cities . To be fair, there was a time when Democrats fully embraced the notion of states' rights. That was in 1860 when they wrongly and unreasonably asserted the states' rights defense in support of slavery and secession.
Welcome back.
Friday, February 10, 2017
More winning! And more winning!
Now here is some more excellent news.
Now here is some excellent news:
"More than 7,000 refugee applicants entered Canada in 2016 through land ports of entry from the United States, up 63 percent from the previous year, according to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)."
Just more winning courtesy of Donald Trump.
According to Reuters these hapless refugees are fleeing a "worsening climate of xenophobia".
Really odd language for a "news" story to use, don't you think?
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster
Now here is some excellent news:
"More than 7,000 refugee applicants entered Canada in 2016 through land ports of entry from the United States, up 63 percent from the previous year, according to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)."
Just more winning courtesy of Donald Trump.
According to Reuters these hapless refugees are fleeing a "worsening climate of xenophobia".
Really odd language for a "news" story to use, don't you think?
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster
Definition of xenophobia
- : fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreignSo, based on nothing more than their own prejudices, these self-righteous hacks proclaim us to be xenophobes, because every one knows we are a hateful bunch who discriminate against everyone who is not white.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Fake News?
On January 26 The Washington Post's Josh Rogin wrote this,
"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era." (Emphasis added)
Yikes! What a catastrophe. Well, no, not quite a catastrophe, more like a big fat nothing burger. Just more of the same exaggeration, hysteria and misleading nonsense that Trump has inspired in the left.
Here, courtesy of Yousef Munayyer is the State Department's organizational chart:
The names circled in yellow are those who resigned. Looks like there are one or two high ranking State Department officials left, doesn't it?
"Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department." Really?
"The State Department said that the four officials had submitted their resignations at the start of the new administration, as is standard practice with all political appointees throughout the executive branch of the government."
Actually, this is just a reporter covering his rear. All political appointees tender their resignations at the end of a presidential term. Whether and when those resignations are accepted is a decision left up to the administration. The resignations were accepted. Routine, unless a Republican is President. In that case it is an unprecedented catastrophe.
"“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry.
Maybe.
If these people had been doing their jobs properly they should have very well trained subordinates ready to step up. Shouldn't they?
The press release below explains the reality which is, business as usual. Do not take at face value a word you read about Republicans in the Washington Post or New York Times. Ever.
"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era." (Emphasis added)
Yikes! What a catastrophe. Well, no, not quite a catastrophe, more like a big fat nothing burger. Just more of the same exaggeration, hysteria and misleading nonsense that Trump has inspired in the left.
Here, courtesy of Yousef Munayyer is the State Department's organizational chart:
The names circled in yellow are those who resigned. Looks like there are one or two high ranking State Department officials left, doesn't it?
"Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department." Really?
"The State Department said that the four officials had submitted their resignations at the start of the new administration, as is standard practice with all political appointees throughout the executive branch of the government."
Actually, this is just a reporter covering his rear. All political appointees tender their resignations at the end of a presidential term. Whether and when those resignations are accepted is a decision left up to the administration. The resignations were accepted. Routine, unless a Republican is President. In that case it is an unprecedented catastrophe.
"“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry.
Maybe.
If these people had been doing their jobs properly they should have very well trained subordinates ready to step up. Shouldn't they?
The press release below explains the reality which is, business as usual. Do not take at face value a word you read about Republicans in the Washington Post or New York Times. Ever.
About That Travel "Ban"
As I read all the hysteria regarding the temporary ban on US entry for people (mostly Muslim) from seven countries with serious Islamic terror issues, I notice that those objecting most loudly are actually missing the point.
Some, like Charles C.W. Cooke, a writer at National Review, are green card holders. I think he is from England (I can't find the link to his piece on the subject, sorry.) He describes the excruciating process one must follow to get a green card. He is correct. I remember it well even though I went through it over thirty years ago.
The implication of his piece is that green card holders have been thoroughly vetted and enough is enough.
Here is the problem as I see it. The people being targeted are not from England or Canada (like me) but from wildly unstable places with very uncertain record keeping regimes and notoriously corrupt governments. Our government has, in my opinion, no credibility on the subject of the admission of Muslims to this country.
I am sure the victims of the Boston Bombers and the San Bernadino shooter don't find the government credible. I know I don't. Trump made it plain during the campaign that he certainly doesn't. Those events, among others, would never have happened had the vetting agencies done their jobs in any competent way. People died, people were physically maimed for life. I can't imagine the psychological impact of having been a survivor of such catastrophes.
This is a temporary pause to fix our systems. That it temporarily inconveniences some people is unfortunate. One thing is certain. The one or two or three people coming here with bad intentions will not be here anytime soon. I never did agree with Obama's suggestion that we can absorb a few hits in the interest of political correctness, as he wanders about in armored cars surrounded by heavily armed people dedicated to his survival. What a pompous coward.
There are a lot of people complaining that the roll out of the policy was botched. Maybe, I don't know. I find I don't actually "hear" most of the critics, the din is so constant and loud.
Of course, that may just be exactly what Trump had in mind.
Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert, among other things, has demonstrated great insight into Trump's thinking over the last 2 years or so. I invite you to read this.
Some, like Charles C.W. Cooke, a writer at National Review, are green card holders. I think he is from England (I can't find the link to his piece on the subject, sorry.) He describes the excruciating process one must follow to get a green card. He is correct. I remember it well even though I went through it over thirty years ago.
The implication of his piece is that green card holders have been thoroughly vetted and enough is enough.
Here is the problem as I see it. The people being targeted are not from England or Canada (like me) but from wildly unstable places with very uncertain record keeping regimes and notoriously corrupt governments. Our government has, in my opinion, no credibility on the subject of the admission of Muslims to this country.
I am sure the victims of the Boston Bombers and the San Bernadino shooter don't find the government credible. I know I don't. Trump made it plain during the campaign that he certainly doesn't. Those events, among others, would never have happened had the vetting agencies done their jobs in any competent way. People died, people were physically maimed for life. I can't imagine the psychological impact of having been a survivor of such catastrophes.
This is a temporary pause to fix our systems. That it temporarily inconveniences some people is unfortunate. One thing is certain. The one or two or three people coming here with bad intentions will not be here anytime soon. I never did agree with Obama's suggestion that we can absorb a few hits in the interest of political correctness, as he wanders about in armored cars surrounded by heavily armed people dedicated to his survival. What a pompous coward.
There are a lot of people complaining that the roll out of the policy was botched. Maybe, I don't know. I find I don't actually "hear" most of the critics, the din is so constant and loud.
Of course, that may just be exactly what Trump had in mind.
Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert, among other things, has demonstrated great insight into Trump's thinking over the last 2 years or so. I invite you to read this.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Good Job Mr. President
Donald Trump is President of the United States.
I have written before about my reluctant vote for him and subsequent approval of his appointments.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he appears to have meant what he said all through the campaign and then during the post-election period.
He has barged into the lions' den and informed the lions that they are being evicted, he, having already evicted both of America's political dynasties.
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."
I did not expect anything so aggressive. Obama looked as though he was trying not to throw up when congratulating Mr. Trump after the speech. Everything in the speech was a complete repudiation of him and his policies. Bill Clinton looked furious.
I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office.
The pitchforks have been delivered, let the stable cleaning begin.
I have written before about my reluctant vote for him and subsequent approval of his appointments.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he appears to have meant what he said all through the campaign and then during the post-election period.
He has barged into the lions' den and informed the lions that they are being evicted, he, having already evicted both of America's political dynasties.
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."
I did not expect anything so aggressive. Obama looked as though he was trying not to throw up when congratulating Mr. Trump after the speech. Everything in the speech was a complete repudiation of him and his policies. Bill Clinton looked furious.
I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office.
The pitchforks have been delivered, let the stable cleaning begin.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Other People's Money
Every weekday I receive Jim Geraghty's National Review "Morning Jolt" via email.
Today's version examines some of our Obama experiences. He includes this:
"As Matthew Fleischer wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2013, “Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.”"
The never ending lamentation of the left. More stuff for everyone! Find someone else to pay for it!
Lefty's are always very generous...with other people's money.
Today's version examines some of our Obama experiences. He includes this:
"As Matthew Fleischer wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2013, “Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.”"
The never ending lamentation of the left. More stuff for everyone! Find someone else to pay for it!
Lefty's are always very generous...with other people's money.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Obama
I have written often of my complete disrespect for the soon to be ex-President.
His thin skinned narcissism, disdainful attitude, apparent lack of any knowledge of history and tenuous relationship with the truth are legendary. His legacy will consist simply of his betrayal of our allies and his serial lies to the American public. Well, his enabling of a nuclear Iran might figure in there as well if the new administration and Israel are unable to effectively counter his egregious policy.
I had written last summer of my concern that there would be no Presidential election in 2016. Happily I was wrong. I remain concerned that the inauguration may still be postponed by some artful maneuvre on Obama's part, but the concern is a small one.
What I am more concerned about is that his decision to live in Washington post-presidency actually means that he intends to run a shadow government in opposition to the Trump Administration.
In the parliamentary political system that dominates the countries that were part of the British Empire, the "loyal opposition" appoints members of their party(s) as a "shadow cabinet" whose members are tasked to examine and critique the Government Ministers of each department.
We have a history of relatively quiet (at least for a respectable period of time) ex-Presidents. It is something of a tradition. Of course we have a lot of traditions that Obama actively disrespects. The Rule of Law, for example.
How many unlawful orders did Obama issue with respect to illegal immigration? I don't know. One is enough to demonstrate the point.
How many times did he amend the Obamacare act without benefit of Congressional action? I don't know. At least five.
The rule of law is, in my view, the most fundamental tradition of the United States. A President with no respect for it is a serious problem. Normalizing that lack of respect produces very predictable results. Sanctuary cities anyone? Check. A weaponized IRS. Check, got that too. A Justice Department whose chief meets secretly with the husband (a former President himself, found guilty of perjury) of a woman under investigation by the FBI? Check.
Convening a shadow government to relentlessly attack his successor will be no great surprise coming from Obama. A truly awful American with no respect for anything or anybody but himself.
His thin skinned narcissism, disdainful attitude, apparent lack of any knowledge of history and tenuous relationship with the truth are legendary. His legacy will consist simply of his betrayal of our allies and his serial lies to the American public. Well, his enabling of a nuclear Iran might figure in there as well if the new administration and Israel are unable to effectively counter his egregious policy.
I had written last summer of my concern that there would be no Presidential election in 2016. Happily I was wrong. I remain concerned that the inauguration may still be postponed by some artful maneuvre on Obama's part, but the concern is a small one.
What I am more concerned about is that his decision to live in Washington post-presidency actually means that he intends to run a shadow government in opposition to the Trump Administration.
In the parliamentary political system that dominates the countries that were part of the British Empire, the "loyal opposition" appoints members of their party(s) as a "shadow cabinet" whose members are tasked to examine and critique the Government Ministers of each department.
We have a history of relatively quiet (at least for a respectable period of time) ex-Presidents. It is something of a tradition. Of course we have a lot of traditions that Obama actively disrespects. The Rule of Law, for example.
How many unlawful orders did Obama issue with respect to illegal immigration? I don't know. One is enough to demonstrate the point.
How many times did he amend the Obamacare act without benefit of Congressional action? I don't know. At least five.
The rule of law is, in my view, the most fundamental tradition of the United States. A President with no respect for it is a serious problem. Normalizing that lack of respect produces very predictable results. Sanctuary cities anyone? Check. A weaponized IRS. Check, got that too. A Justice Department whose chief meets secretly with the husband (a former President himself, found guilty of perjury) of a woman under investigation by the FBI? Check.
Convening a shadow government to relentlessly attack his successor will be no great surprise coming from Obama. A truly awful American with no respect for anything or anybody but himself.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Cuba
Obama's betrayal of the people of Cuba in favor of their dictators is business as usual for him as we all know, to our profound regret. What did he get for America in exchange for abandoning the Cubans stuck on that prison island? Nothing, as far as I can tell. About the same as he got from Iran for releasing them from their sanctions regime. Well to be fair, he seems to think that this betrayal of America, Israel and the entire Middle East, will come to be viewed as a great diplomatic triumph, burnishing his "legacy". Right.
In his usual manner, he did though, accomplish something for himself:
"The decision, formalized in a joint statement issued by both governments Thursday, comes as Obama tries to cement his historic opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and one week before President-elect Donald Trump takes office."
Yes, no problem sentencing Cubans living in that giant prison to life there, he has "cemented his historic opening...". A complete disgrace.
Of course, giving everything away for nothing is Obama and his administration's preferred negotiating strategy. In fact, they are also willing to give away things that belong to others, including their lives:
In his usual manner, he did though, accomplish something for himself:
"The decision, formalized in a joint statement issued by both governments Thursday, comes as Obama tries to cement his historic opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and one week before President-elect Donald Trump takes office."
Yes, no problem sentencing Cubans living in that giant prison to life there, he has "cemented his historic opening...". A complete disgrace.
Of course, giving everything away for nothing is Obama and his administration's preferred negotiating strategy. In fact, they are also willing to give away things that belong to others, including their lives:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)