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.

The Progressive Left's Inability to Accept the Results of a Popular Vote When They Lose

The progressive left maintains that it represents the people. I have always been amazed at this arrogant assertion since the people don't always vote for them. Should the people not for them, the progressive left cannot accept the reality of the people rejecting them. They whine (with great heart-wrenching anguish) that something must be wrong since the people could not possibly reject them.

The 2018 midterm election is over, the Democrats will soon assume control of the US House of Representatives. While watching the TV, a commercial came on. In that commercial the claim was made that the Congress now represents the people. What?

The Congress, when under the control of the Republicans somehow did not represent the people? It was the people who elected a Republican Congress. An unbelievable refusal by the progressive left to accept that the people could have voted for a Republican Congress in 2016.

The 2018 midterm election has also resulted in the progressive left actually making the claim, that if they didn't win; that the election was stolen. Take the case of Stacy Abrams who ran for Governor in Georgia. CNN ran a headline: Stacey Abrams says 'democracy failed' Georgia as she ends bid for governor. CNN quoted Abrams as saying:

"So let's be clear -- this is not a speech of concession, because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper," she said. "As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that. But, my assessment is the law currently allows no further viable remedy. Now, I can certainly bring a new case to keep this one contest alive, but I don't want to hold public office if I need to scheme my way into the post. Because the title of governor isn't nearly as important as our shared title -- voters. And that is why we fight on."

...

"Make no mistake, the former secretary of state was deliberate and intentional in his actions," Abrams said. "I know that eight years of systemic disenfranchisement, disinvestment and incompetence had its desired affect on the electoral process in Georgia."

Even Hillary Clinton made the very public assertion that if the election was "fair" that Abrams would have won. The Hill had the following headline: Hillary Clinton: Stacey Abrams would've already won ‘if she'd had a fair election'. However, sanctimonious Hillary (when running for President and expecting to win) publicly declared that anyone questioning the 2016 election results would be a "threat to democracy". See my post: Hillary Clinton - The Threat to Democracy. So when Hillary believed that she would win, the election process was fair and sacred. Now that Abrams has lost, Hillary's position (and by extension, the Democrat's position) is that the voting process was corrupt and that democracy has failed. The obvious conclusion from this is that the only fair democratic elections are those where the progressive left win.

Random Casual Observations on Voter Legitmacy (2018 Midterm Election)

Since the Republicans took control of the government in 2016 the Democrats have been making sanctimonious prostrations that every vote counts and that the integrity of the voting process needs to be protected. That has continued into the 2018 midterm election. The Democrats have now regained control of the US House of Representatives.

Of course every vote counts. However, what we have seen and continue to see are the Democrats aggressively pushing an agenda that creates opportunities for fraudulent voting. Whether fraudulent voting is a problem or not, is not known. However, my point is that the Democrats (despite their smug language) really do not want voters to be appropriately vetted and the voting process to have verifiable integrity.

1. Democrats routinely use the court system to stop the clean-up of the voter registration roles. The resulting inability to clean-up the voter registration roles makes the integrity of the voting process questionable.
2. Democrats do not want the citizenship of the potential voter to be questioned. Since posting point #2, I ran across an article where the Democrats are in the process of suing the Department of Commerce to have a proposed Census question on citizenship status deleted from the Census, even-though this question has histrionically appeared on numerous Census questionnaires. Deleting this question would obscure who is and who is not a citizen. The elimination of this question potentially hides citizenship status so that uncovering the illegal voting of non-citizens would be difficult and would reduce the integrity of the election process.
3. Democrats are opposed to voter ID requirements which obviously they should be in favor of based on their pious claim that every (legitimate) vote should count. If the potential voter is not properly vetted, the integrity of the voting results are suspect.
4. Democrats push for same day registration and voting, which makes voter verification difficult.
5. Democrats push for long periods of early voting and liberal policies concerning absentee ballots. On the surface this sounds great. After all everyone is being given an opportunity for easy voting. A commendable goal.

However, with the 2018 midterm election there were a couple of Republicans who "won" based on in-person voting at a brick and mortar voting location. They were even declared the winners by the media when the poles closed. Later, these Republicans eventually lost when the early voting, provisional ballots, and absentee ballots were counted.

Without going into extensive why-did-it-happen research, it would seem logical  that the early voting and absentee ballots results should match the percentage results derived from in-person voting. It didn't. So one has to question why? I am not going to get into the "why" question, that would make for a lot of research. The quick easy (non-conspiracy) answer is that Democrats won in this manner because they had the better get-out-the-vote organization. Consequently, the Republican need to learn from this and to adapt.