Search This Blog

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Perez Wins

In the first smart thing the Dems have done since November, they chose Perez over Ellison today for the new party chair.  Perez is a former member of the Obama cabinet as well as being Hispanic.  His strongest plus, however, is that he is not Ellison.  The Dems managed to avoid naming someone (Ellison) with a history of supporting racist and anti-Semitic forces as chair.  To be clear, however, the Dems then named Ellison as deputy party chair.  I guess they didn't want to anger the racist, anti-Semitic portions of their base.

It Must Have Been the Russians

At the election for DNC Chair today, there was a major lie told by Keith Ellison, one of the two main candidates.  Earlier in the day, the mayor of Gary Indiana withdrew from the contest and got to make a speech that was well received.  Just before the voting began, the Ellison forces sent out a message that the Gary mayor had endorsed Ellison for the position.  No long thereafter (but after the votes were cast) the mayor denied he had endorsed Ellison.  Then Ellison sent out another message saying that there had been no endorsement by the Gary mayor.

At the moment, there are a lot of angry people at the DNC.  Ellison lied to the people making the selection just in time to possible influence the vote.  It's not clear if that was done by Ellison himself or by his allies.

No doubt, Donna Brazile will soon appear and tell us that it was really the Russians who hacked the system to put out false messages from Ellison.  Then she will probably quote the questions to be asked in the first presidential debate in 2020.

This whole mess is a major embarrassment for Ellison and the Democrats.  Ellison ought to withdraw at this point.

What Dan Malloy Wants

Early yesterday morning, my cell phone sounded an alarm that comes only when there is an amber alert issued.  A six year old child was missing from a home in Bridgeport, CT.  A few hours later, I heard that the child had been found in Pennsylvania after the driver of the car in which she was riding was involved in an accident.  By last night, that story had taken a very dark turn of which all residents of Connecticut should hear. 

It seems that the six-year-old child was with her father.  The father and mother were divorced and the girl lived with her mother.  The father allegedly murdered his ex-wife, stabbed another woman at the home 14 times and abducted his daughter.  When police in Pennsylvania saw the father's car, they gave chase, and the father then became involved in a crash at an intersection not long after the chase began.  Police arrested the father.

Here's the most important point in the story:  the father is a citizen of El Salvador who is in this country illegally.  He was previously convicted of multiple violent felonies and ultimately ordered deported in 2013.  The government deported the father after the court decision, but he snuck back into the USA.  The federal government has placed a detainer on the guy with the police department in Bridgeport where he is being held.  That detainer is a request to hold the guy rather than release him and also to turn him over to the feds at that point.

Governor Malloy has already directed local police NOT to comply with such federal detainers.  Our governor would rather see this alleged murderer and kidnapper free on the streets than to have him deported by the feds.

Is this what the citizens of Connecticut really want to see?  Do we want our state to be so caught up in the political ambitions of our governor that we will accept that dangerous criminals are released on the streets of our state rather than being deported?  How many people must die in the pursuit of the attempts of Dan Malloy and the Democrats to win the Hispanic vote in this state?  And really, are the Democrats that stupid that they think that Hispanic voters will be happy to have an alleged murderer back on the streets rather than being deported?

Voting and Taking Names

According to a news report I just saw, the voters for the new chairman of the Democrat National Committee are voting by paper ballots which have to be signed before they will be counted.  Think about that.  The winning candidate will head the DNC.  He or she will know exactly who were supporters and who were opponents.  Not only that, but all those contributors who want this or that candidate will likewise know who each member of the DNC supported.  This tactic will prevent the voters from choosing one of the lesser known candidates to keep out the two obviously unacceptable frontrunners.  It's a recipe for future party turmoil as one group or another finds out who supported its candidate.

The Democrats seem to have structured this race to inflict the maximum possible harm on their own party.

The Race For DNC Chairman

The Democrats are picking their new party chairman today.  Their meeting began with the DNC rejecting a move to limit lobbying by big corporations.  No matter what words come out of the mouths of the Democrats, they remain the willing servants of those with big bucks, whatever the source.  After making their allegiance to the lobbyists and the big donors clear, the Dems moved on to the selection of the party's new leader.  There are many choices.  There's a far left Moslem.  There's a far left Hispanic.  There's a far left woman of color.  There was a far left gay from Indiana, but he's withdrawn.  There's a few more, but they're all far left.

It's amazing to watch the Dems move further towards the positions that have cost them so much support across America over the last eight years.  For me, that move is rather bizarre.  I have always thought of the Democrats as practical politicians for whom winning was the most important thing.  Now, they are moving instead towards ideological purity and taking steps that will drive millions of voters away from rather than towards the party.  They actually seem to be ceding the middle of the political spectrum to the GOP.

Something similar is happening in the UK.  There, the Labour Party has a leader for whom old style Socialist solidarity is more important than victory.  The result the other day was that Labour lost a seat that it had held for 80 years, a feat that no one thought possible.  Labour may go down the drain as a party, but they will do so with ideological purity as their watchword.

Is that what is happening to the Democrats?  Are they really going to give President Trump such an open field on so many issues?  We already have watched them announce outrage at the idea of deporting illegal aliens who are felons convicted of crimes.  That may play well in Hollywood or on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but millions of Americans look at that position as demented.  Remember, this is not a question about deporting people who came her as children; we are talking about convicted criminals.  The Democrats are doing the same when it comes to education.  It may be true that the teachers' unions are the biggest single contributor to the Democrat party.  Still, it seems strange that the party has chosen to side with the teachers and against the poor children in public schools who are getting substandard educations.  When the GOP comes forward with a plan to offer better educations for all, it is not a wise choice to side with the teachers who may see their job security or pensions affected by that move.  There are millions more parents with children needing educations than there are teachers.

The reality is that today's choice by the Democrats is really a selection of the person who will do the least damage to the party's chances.  No matter which one is picked, it will be a net negative with the American people.  Sure, the most likely winner right now has past filled with associations with harshly racist and anti-Semitic bigots.  Indeed, he has even been endorsed by a Ku Klux Klan leader.  His selection would be an outrage.  But we will soon see if the Democrats have changed from a political party to a suicide pact.

So Which Is It?

It's five weeks into the term of Donald Trump as President, and there's a weird pattern emerging.  Look at the opposition to Trump.  First they tell us about all the supposedly terrible things that Trump has done.  Ten minutes later, they tell us that Trump has done nothing and is unlikely to ever do anything.  Huh?  Which is it?

A good example is the border wall.  How many times in the last month or so have you heard some talking head on TV tell you that the wall will never be built?  If you watch news shows at all, that number has to be over 25.  It's like a mantra for many on the left.  Trump's promise to build the wall is supposedly just another political promise that will never come to fruition.  Then consider the reaction to yesterday's announcement that the process of wall construction will start soon in three locations when contracts are let by the federal government.  The same people who tell us the wall will never be built also tell us that construction of the wall is a terrible and futile idea.  That's just one example; there are many more.

I know that there are a great many people on the left (and that includes most pundits) who hate Trump no matter what he does or says.  That is their right.  Still, don't they realize how silly they look when the say contradictory things?

Friday, February 24, 2017

Fake Punditry in Action -- 3

This is the third in as series of posts about opinion pieces by supposed "experts" that are not just wrong, but clearly erroneous. 

This time, the opinion is offered on the same Bloomberg News which was the source of the first two bogus opinion pieces.  Today's subject is immigration and the "expert" is Noah Smith, a professor at Stony Brook University.  Here is the key quote from Smith's article: 

"Illegal immigration to the U.S. ended a decade ago."

I'm not making this up.  This expert actually says that studies show that there has been no illegal immigration into the USA for the last ten years.  What utter nonsense.  I guess professor Smith must have missed those pictures of thousands of children who came across the border in the last two years.  He probably also missed all those pictures of people walking across the border in the Southwest only to be apprehended by ICE and then let go under Obama's catch and release program.  Indeed, maybe Smith can explain why there would be a catch and release program in the first place; if there's no illegal immigration, then there's no one to catch.

Now it may be that Smith is just confused in his writing.  Maybe he means that there is no net illegal immigration, although that is not what he said in his column.  That would be the case if the same number of people were coming into the USA illegally as well as leaving the USA to go to their home countries.  The problem with that view is twofold.  First, there is no accurate way to know how many illegals have left the country in a particular year or years.  The government makes no real effort to count people here illegally who then leave the country.  Second, even if this were the case, it does not mean that there is no need to cut off illegal immigration.  Just imagine that for the last ten years illegal immigration had been cut off.  That would mean that as all those illegals supposedly leave the country, the totals here would drop rapidly.  If the number of illegals were cut in half, it would represent a massive reduction in the problem, a major decrease in the need for government spending and a strong move towards the resolution of the problem.