Thursday, August 1, 2019

Andrew Yang on Immigration

Last night, the Democrats had their second debate on CNN. One of the debate participants was Andrew Yang. The participants were asked by one of the debate moderators about what they would do to stifle illegal immigration. Except for Yang, the Democratic participants foamed at the mouth to out-do each other in advocating that they were both for "border security" and allowing the illegal immigrants to enter the country unimpeded. That translates into holding two divergent opposing views at the same time. In turn, that translates into the respondents avoiding to answer the question by being disingenuously on both sides at the same time. Leaving the other Democrats behind, I move on to Yang's response.

Yang had a novel response, that was also Realpolitik. Yang (in part) responded: "If you go to a factory here in Michigan, you will not find wall-to-wall immigrants; you will find wall-to-wall robots and machines.". Though never explicitly expounded on by Yang, my interpretation of that comment is that the continued mass importation of (illegal) low skilled and poorly educated immigrants by the Democrats into the US will turn out to be a huge mistake. The reason is that these immigrants tend to have poor education and tend to lack today's work skills. Consequently they will be unable to find work in the US and will end-up being on taxpayer funded welfare. Unfortunately, the debate moderators never further delved into Yang's response. Yang's response, which could have been further discussed, implies that we could make legal immigration into the US skilled based. That would add to this countries economic base.

Additionally, we live in an environment of hyperbolic word parsing. Surprisingly, the media has evidently been silent on Yang's remarks. Had a Republican made a similar remark, that person would have been vilified by the media and accused of racism, xenophobia, and numerous other phobias.

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Mueller Investigation Implodes

About time. Mueller, on July 24, 2019 appeared before Congress to testify concerning his report. Things did not go well. The headline on the Washington Times was: "Mueller, befuddled by own report, stumbles through testimony". 

Even some on the left were upset by the quality of Mueller's testimony. Fox News reported: "Liberal activist and filmaker Michael Moore delivered a scathing review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony on Wednesday, suggesting Democrats should reconsider why they trusted him in the first place."

Moore had tweeted: 
A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on
The Washington Times reported: "Former top Obama strategist David Axelrod said Mr. Mueller didn’t appear to be very “sharp,” and liberal star filmmaker Michael Moore called him “stumbling.”"

The New York Times reported in the article: The Blockbuster That Wasn’t: Mueller Disappoints the Democrats. The Times wrote:
"In the days leading up to the special counsel’s much-anticipated appearance before Congress, Democrats argued that hearing from Robert S. Mueller III on television could transform the impeachment debate. While Americans might not read the book, the argument went, they would watch the movie.
If so, the movie Americans tuned into on Wednesday was not the blockbuster Democrats had sought nor was Mr. Mueller the action star they had cast. Dignified but shaky, and at times struggling to keep up, he largely stuck to “yes” and “no” and “refer you to the report” answers, steadfastly refusing to dramatize his conclusions as President Trump’s critics wanted him to do.
By the time he finished nearly seven hours later, Democrats were disappointed they did not get the made-for-TV accusatory moment they wanted, and the prospect for impeachment appeared far more difficult. Although the president’s critics vowed to persist, a gleeful Mr. Trump claimed he was completely cleared while shouting angry insults at reporters on the South Lawn."
Since posting, I ran across Newt Gingrich's take on the Mueller testimony. Of special note, Newt Gingrich points out the even the rabidly partisan Democratic prosecutors were unable to dig-up enough dirt to find that the Trump Campaign had colluded with Russia. Gingrich quote below:
However, the more I watched him, the more I came to the conclusion that he had been a figurehead. The tough younger Trump-hating Democrats had networked with each other and assembled a legal team dedicated to destroying Trump and protecting the Clintons.
Seen from this perspective, it is a tribute to President Trump that despite their best efforts these deeply hostile prosecutors simply could not find any evidence of serious wrongdoing. They could write innuendo -- and huff and puff -- but in the end the Trump wall of obeying the law withstood the best these smart, tough widely-experienced Democratic prosecutors could do.
An additional update (July 31, 2019). Another attempt by Democrats, parallel to the Mueller investigation, has been derailed by the judicial system. Judge tosses Democrat's case against Trump 2016 campaign. The illegitimate fragile house of cards built by the Democrats is crumbling.

Though the Democrats publicly pumped up Mueller's anticipated testimony in hopes of hitting a home run with the public, the reality was that the Democrats had built a frail house of cards, in the form of the Mueller investigation. That house of cards was exposed to the American public on national TV. The winds of public opinion have now blown that house of cards into oblivion





The Mueller Report - The Failed Attempt to Implement a Coup in the US

Lavrentiy Beria infamously boasted: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. Mueller was appointed, as a special counsel, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to find crimes by the Trump campaign. On the surface, if an apparent crime has occurred, there may justification for investigating that crime. But it became quickly apparent, that the Trump campaign was specifically targeted for examination. The apparent purpose of this action was to establish, by the Democrats, an impeachment narrative. To be more blunt, the Democrats were advocating a coup.
  1. The Obama administration was in charge of the government at the time Trump ran for President. The new "red scare" today, pushed by Democrats and even some Republicans is that the Russian somehow interfered in the US electoral process. Should the threat of Russian interference into the US electoral process be legitimate, Mueller should have been investigating the failure of the Obama administration to act on this possible threat. (Trump at the time was a private citizen who had no governmental authority to investigate this issue.) Mueller, apparently, did not look into the failure of the Obama administration to protect the US electoral process from this type of abuse.
  2. Hillary Clinton (HRC) was also campaigning to become President. One can assume that if the Trump campaign was being approached by Russian agents seeking to manipulate the US electoral process, that the HRC campaign would also have been approached in some manner by the Russians. The Mueller investigation side stepped looking into this possibility.
  3. The appointment of Mueller to lead the investigation into supposed Russian collusion by Rosenstein was suspicious for a variety of reasons. One reason was the use of the debunked Steele dossier as a reason for opening an investigation. Adding to the mystery have been the persistent claims by Adam Schiff: "Look, you can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion”. Seems that no one else has be able to view and verify the supposed evidence. So were is Schiff's evidence? Not to mention that the Mueller report concluded in March 2019 that no collusion occurred. Of course the claim can be made that an investigation was still necessary even-though, the investigation in-the-end failed to document its need. However, emerging evidence seems to demonstrate that the evidence used to authorize the Mueller investigation was not properly vetted. Should that be true, the Mueller investigation was illegitimate.
  4. As the Mueller investigation progressed, just into the Trump campaign, some people were charged and convicted of with "crimes". But these "crimes" had nothing to do with Mueller's mandate of finding collusion. The people were either charged with  "process crimes" or crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign. So, some people were found guilty of something, but the Mueller team's investigation was unable to find evidence of collusion, which was their mandate.
In reviewing each of these distinct threads, it becomes discernible that the Trump campaign was specifically targeted as a political hit-job. A man was found, Donald Trump. Then a special counsel was appointed, to show us a crime either by hook or by crook. In the end, no crime was found. We should consider ourselves fortunate that the Mueller team had at least enough ethical integrity to acknowledge that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 




    Saturday, December 1, 2018

    Kavanaugh II - US Supreme Court Nomination

    In an earlier post I reviewed the baseless and unsubstantiated accusations leveled at Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh - US Supreme Court Nomination, Ford's Baseless Accusations. That post focused on the lack of evidence presented by the Democrats to support their vile unsubstantiated claims. I didn't delve too deeply into the Democrats lies, smears, bullying, and intimidation. Since then, I ran across an editorial that highlighted the extreme moral corruptness of the Democrats. That editorial appeared in the November/December 2018 issue of "The Philadelphia Trumpet". The Kavanaugh Hearing Reveal America's Lawless Spirit

    Mr. Flurry, in his editorial, wrote:
    "Democrats in the Senate demonized Judge Bork in 1987 because he was a constitutionalist. In 1991, they falsely accused Judge Clarence Thomas of sexual assault for the same reason. Their smears against Brett Kavanaugh are more of the same.

    Democrats opposed Kavanaugh and began vilifying him from the moment his name was announced. They tried and failed to fault his judicial record. Then they smeared him personally. Three weeks after President Donald Trump nominated him, a California Democrat named Christine Blasey Ford wrote a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct at a high school party 36 years ago. Feinstein, rather than immediately informing the Senate Judiciary Committee and the fbi, waited until hearings with Kavanaugh ended. The day before the confirmation vote was to be held, she unveiled the accusations in a last-minute ambush.

    Ford did not claim that Kavanaugh raped her, or even came close. Still, Democrats insisted that incident should disqualify Kavanaugh from ever serving on the Supreme Court. After a public prosecutor determined that Ford’s account was inconsistent, vague and uncorroborated by the people she said were at the party, Democrats looked for other accusers. They found three more women who accused him of sexual misconduct during high school and college, including absurd allegations of his being involved in gang rapes!

    In decades of public service, this man’s moral character had never before been called into question. With zero proof that Kavanaugh was involved in any sexual assault, because of unsubstantiated accusations, Democrats demanded that his name be withdrawn. Senators and citizens insisted that everyone simply “Believe women!” They accepted everything his accusers said at face value and presumed his guilt—even though America’s entire justice system is based on presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Democrats piled on Kavanaugh, universally treating Ford’s uncorroborated account as proof of a career-ending crime, and ripping this man apart! usa Today sports reporter Erik Brady wrote that Kavanaugh shouldn’t even coach basketball, let alone join the Supreme Court: “[C]redibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation. Can’t we all agree on that?
    It was astounding to watch the left act like strict moralists, appalled by any whiff of indecency—when they have been dragging America’s morals into the gutter for generations! Their hypocrisy is so monstrous, shameless and bold, it is shocking!"
    ...
    "Hillary Clinton defended this viciousness in an interview with cnn. “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” she said. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

    What a revealing statement! She says that until the left is back in power, there should be no civility in America! The left should protest, agitate, accuse, confront, scream, fight, kick—whatever it takes to reclaim power!

    This woman almost became America’s president! What would have happened if she had? The radical left doesn’t control some of the biggest levers of power right now, yet it is still successfully sabotaging many aspects of American life, morally, culturally, intellectually, educationally and politically! It is astounding!"

    The obvious conclusion is that for the Democrats, the ends justify the means. They will literally do anything, no matter how immoral or unethical to win.

    Monday, November 26, 2018

    The Illegal Immigration Crisis

    The caravan of potential migrants seeking to enter the US has reached the US/Mexico border resulting in a spurt of news activity.

    One major concern that I have had is that Democrats appear to act like the Borg from Star Trek. They spew only the party line no matter what. Independent thought, for Democrats, seems to be dead and gone. But there is always hope.

    So I was hopeful the other day when I heard an interview between Trish Regan and Democrat Rep. Jim Himes.  Ms. Regan introduced Mr. Himes as a "moderate" Democrat from a Northern state well away from states bordering Mexico. So I thought; goody, maybe I will hear some diversity of opinion concerning illegal immigration.  Boy, was I wrong. In typical fashion he spoke of "undocumented" immigrants. Mr. Himes, as with all Democrats, refused to acknowledge that the immigrants were entering the country illegally. Mr. Himes, once again documents that the Democrats are like the Borg. Incapable of independent thinking that is divergent from Democratic talking points.

    Switching to another thread now. This past Sunday there was some migrant activity near the Tijuana entry point into the US. The Washington Times and the Washington Post had two radically different takes on this rush to the border and the tossing of some tear gas canisters. The Washington Times had the picture of a bunch of men obviously moving towards the border, but no tear gas was visible. The Washington Times wrote: "The march, however, was dispersed by tear gas after some in the group tried to force their way into the U.S. The Mexican government described Sunday’s events as “acts of provocation” that were “far from helpful” for the migrants’ objectives." Note the reference to acts of provocation”.

    In contrast, the Washington Post ignored the provocation. Instead they had a picture of a mother and crying child with the sob-story caption: "A little girl from Honduras stares into the camera, her young features contorted in anguish. She’s barefoot, dusty, and clad only in a diaper and T-shirt. And she’s just had to run from clouds of choking tear gas fired across the border by U.S. agents." Nevertheless, the Washington Post is clearly seeking propaganda to generate emotional outrage

    But why react to the Washington Post's obvious propaganda? The reason is that Amanda “Mandy” Ferguson Weyant was killed by an illegal immigrant on Thanksgiving day. The Washington Post has apparently ignored this story and the story of others who have been killed by illegal immigrants. So the Washington Post wants us to be concerned about this woman and her child being tear gassed while attempting to enter the US illegally, but has no concern over the emotional wreckage that illegal immigrates may generate in the US should they commit heinous illegal acts.