A veritable rogpodge–
- “Democracy” is not what our country was created to be
- False claims/ assumptions that opponents of Trump’s immigration policies use
- Many of Trump’s detractors likely could not pass a cognition test
Walter Williams is a genius at communicating basic truths about economics and, whenever he sets his mind to it – government. They are intertwined of course. His latest offering available today both at Townhall and Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal is just a walk-away clear statement that should be in the in-box of every Democrat (print big for them) or grade-schooler through college, and their teachers, who continue to spout ignorant references to our country being a democracy, or even a representative democracy or to imply that democracy is an inherently virtuous system. It is ignorant, a-historical and dangerous nonsense about our American system of government.
Constitutional Ignorance — Perhaps Contempt (Townhall)
Republic not Democracy (Daily Signal excerpts, bold our emphasis))
. . . They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.
But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents. . . .
Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.
Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?
Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.
While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?
My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?
—————————————————————————————————-
News flash — illegal is not law abiding!
The false claim that conflates illegal immigrants with legal immigrants so as to imply they are comparatively more law-abiding than our established citizenry, and therefore to scoff at concerns about illegal immigration, is authoritatively challenged in the article linked to below.
Of course it takes the left’s corruption of language to make their propaganda that illegals are law abiding effective. First they refer to people who are here illegally as “undocumented residents” when by definition anyone here illegally is in violation of U.S. law, as in 100% are law-breakers. Criminality rates exposed below we suspect are linked to illegal presence and are not coincidental. Arguably, illegal immigrants are inherently more content to take short-cuts with the law, ignore what they do not like, compared to legal immigrants respectful of law and social order.
Scott Morefield writing at Townhall (excerpt)
Newly Released Arizona Crime Data Just Shattered a Key Liberal Narrative on Immigration
While documented immigrants, or legal permanent residents, accounted for 3.9 percent of Arizona’s population in 2014, but only 1.5 percent of the prison population (which again shows why it’s inaccurate to lump documented and undocumented immigrants for any statistical purposes), undocumented immigrants account for 11.6 percent of first and second most serious offenses.
Further, undocumented immigrants in Arizona are consistently more likely to be convicted of murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, sexual assault of a minor, sexual assault, DUI or DWI, and kidnapping, among other serious crimes. And undocumented immigrants are 163 percent more likely to commit first degree murder than are U.S. citizens in the state.
As far as sample sizes are concerned, this one will be hard to ignore. During the 33-year period from 1985 to 2017, undocumented immigrants made up almost 5 percent of Arizona’s population, approximately 82 percent above the national average and 5th among all states.
But when it comes to this particular state, there are no “sample sizes” here, no “residual statistical methodologies” employed. Why? Because this study deals with “the entire universe of cases,” or all 615,555 first and second most serious offenses processed by the Arizona Department of Corrections from January 1985 through June 2017.
Related reading at the Daily Signal
3 Out of 4 Terrorists Since 9/11 Are Foreign-Born, but Over Half Are Citizens
A merit-based immigration system that favors immigrants who are able to fill needed jobs is more likely to attract immigrants who will be successful than does the current family-based system allowing chain migration, a senior Trump administration official told reporters in a conference call.
Ed note: We draw the conclusion that a certain purpose to achieve economically and become Americans helps to self-select “good” immigrants (a concept not the same as desiring to take advantage of generous welfare policies ) — resulting in good citizens and a mindset that counters susceptibility to terrorism. While such is helpful as the article points it would be insufficient.
President Donald Trump favors the merit policy along with stronger border security and an end to the visa lottery system.
More successful immigrants would contribute to the prosperity and security of the country, the senior administration official said.
Though a merit-based system would be economically beneficial, it largely would be disconnected from security, said David Inserra, a policy analyst in homeland security at The Heritage Foundation.
“It depends on how we look at why someone becomes a terrorist. If we think it’s just poor people, then an economic system would change that, but we know that’s not the case,” Inserra, who maintains a database of terror plots against U.S. targets for The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
Noting the number of naturalized citizens who become radicalized on the list in the Justice and Homeland Security report, Inserra said the bigger problem is with assimilation.
“If someone comes to the United States and becomes a terrorist 20 years later, that’s not a vetting problem, that’s an assimilation problem,” Inserra said.
Jonah Goldberg critiques a presumption heard in just about every social context, “strength in diversity” so often raised to be unassailable and used to take umbrage with any resistance to “diversity” even when clearly adverse to interests. It has come to be a situation of diversity for diversity’s sake. His insightful article is available at Townhall, excerpt:
Is Diversity a Strength, and Should Strength Be a Core Value?
What if diversity isn’t our strength?
Sen. Lindsey Graham says he scolded the president for saying something scatological about certain countries and their emigrants. “Diversity has always been our strength,” Graham allegedly said. By my very rough count, this makes Graham the bazillionth person to proclaim some variant of “diversity is strength.”
But is it true? I think the only close to right answer is, “It depends.” Specifically, it depends on which (often cliched) analogy you want to hang your argument on. Diverse stock portfolios are more resilient. Diverse diets are healthier. But that doesn’t mean picking bad stocks will make you richer, nor that eating spoiled foods is good for you.
I once heard the Rev. Jesse Jackson explain that racial integration of the NBA made it stronger and better. He was right. But would gender integration of the NBA have the same effect? Would diversifying professional basketball by height? Probably not.
In other words, all of these analogies can only take you so far. Thomas Sowell once said, “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.”
There’s a growing body of evidence that even if diversity once made America stronger, it may not be doing so anymore, at least in the short and medium term. Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist at Harvard, found that increased diversity corrodes civil society by eroding shared values, customs and institutions. People tend to “hunker down” and retreat from civil society.
——————————————————————————————————-
Trump’s health makes liberals sick
And then there is the matter of the liberal press having a very bad day – hearing that Trump is in good health and has excellent cognitive abilities, (it is so obvious that his is better than theirs)
Media Narrative Destroyed: Doctor Says Trump is in Excellent Health and Fit to Serve
One commenter wrote:
The most uninformed, ignorant, clueless, poorly educated, out of touch people reside in the Democrat Media (aka mainstream media).
Example…Wolf Blitzer of CNN’s Situation Room appeared on Celebrity Jeopardy, the questions were so easy a five year old could have answered, he finished with a eye popping negative $4,600.
You can take the test yourself (link to article inside box) although we think any propensity by some of our readership to be flummoxed over spouting a variety of certain “f’ words as called for in the test is excusable, or at least normative, or something.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5358767/donald-trump-gets-top-marks-on-montreal-cognitive-assessment-in-medical-exam-but-how-will-you-score/
Here is the scoring regime:
(Those who have had less than 12 formal years of education should add one point to their final score).
Around 16: cognitive health of an Alzheimer’s sufferer.
Around 22: cognitive health of someone with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)
Above 26: Normal
30: Perfect (the same as President Trump).
R Mall
