Despite what today’s liberals might wish us to believe, the increasing percentage of minorities in the United States does not guarantee some future Democratic Party supremacy.
It turns out that while, yes, minorities (especially Hispanics) are increasing in numbers, they tend to be concentrated in places and Congressional districts that would have voted Democratic anyway.
From Third Way:
Republicans hold the governors’ mansions and both houses of the state legislature in 25 states, while Democrats control all levers of power in just five. . . . In fact, Republicans are now just one state legislature short of being able to call a constitutional convention to consider amendments to our founding document.
Democrats cannot simply rely on demographic change to deliver inevitable victories.
Demographic change is not evenly dispersed in states and voting districts throughout the country.
Voting behavior is not static. Voters more readily change which party they support than the demography-is-destiny models anticipated.
Under the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination pushed by today’s Democrats (especially their new Chairman, Tom Perez), there is a violation of civil rights if a favored minority group has less than what our masters in government consider “fair” or “representative.”
So, for example, if the population of a wealthy suburb does not exactly reflect its minority percentages, that’s evidence of a civil rights violation. Like, say, Tom Perez’ political launching pad in Maryland: Montgomery County, home to well-off bien pensants whose smugness is topped only by their disdain for us plebeians.
So, I’ve got to ask: why aren’t professional sports also governed by this “disparate impact” theory? Take the NFL, whose players are now about two-thirds black. Or the NBA, three-fourths black. Sounds like whites (and Hispanics and Asians, for that matter) are way under-represented.
What, you say? Aren’t the best players who you want, regardless of the color of their skin or ethnicity?
Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln.
I would characterize President Lincoln as one of two indispensable leaders we have been blessed to have had. The first was President Washington, without whom there would be no United States of America.
The second, and so far last, was Lincoln, without whom America would look far different (and worse) than it does.
As for “greatest?” Impossible to judge between Washington and Lincoln. And, fortunately for us, we don’t need to.
There is apparently a movement in Britain to prevent President Donald Trump (love that this name can give liberals the yips) from a state visit to Queen Elizabeth. The libertarian-leaning folks at Spiked note “Better an elected president than an unelected monarch.” Hear hear. This is just so.
The sentiment in Britain among some, at least, is that The Donald just isn’t classy enough to break bread (or tea and crumpets) with Her Majesty. Those who think about such state meetings, as the folks at Spiked do, know better.
Yes, Donald Trump can be rude and crude. As they say, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. In large part, it’s why we Yanks elected him: he is the very opposite of a polished mainstream politico. Does he know which fork to use for the oysters? Don’t know; don’t care.
Bigger question: will he learn the art of political leadership? Right now, he is clumsy, but with good intentions. My English cousins should not complain; Trump appears to be profoundly pro-Anglo.
Unlike his predecessor, who acted very much like a hostile colonial, resenting the fact that Britain used to own Kenya.
The secession movement in California seems to be gathering momentum. It might be funny, all these granola types (nuts and flakes) on the Left Coast having a whiny tantrum over the election of President Trump. But, some Californians seem to be serious about this.
I’ve read many arguments against secession. For me, they come down to what has become “received opinion.” As in, all the right people agree, so it must be true that secession is illegal, against the Constitution. The least convincing is the oft-repeated mantra that the Civil War decided this question once and forever.
All the Civil War truly decided was that the Confederate States were defeated in war. That they had seceded and failed to prevail on the battlefield did not change the legal argument.
As fun as it would be to contemplate, California should not secede Bad for the remaining United States; worse for what would quickly become an impoverished socialist state.
Lastly, our Declaration of Independence states “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…” Did this only apply to the original 13 colonies? Or, by logical extension, to all the other 37 states added since the Revolution? And, bigger question, are the words in the Declaration binding? If these are not, what other words may be considered as non-binding?
Hard questions, hard times.
The Daily Caller has a scary piece, titled “Democrats And Republicans Unite To Rescind Last-Minute Obama Order Seeking Federal Election Takeover.” What’s scary is, of course, not Democrats and Republicans uniting. It is a Department of Homeland Security order that seeks to start the process of a federal takeover of all elections in the United States.
This was a deadly and serious attempt to federalize all elections. Now, if I were a Russian hacktivist working for Vlad, I’d be drooling at the prospect of having a fully-automated, centralized and online election system for all elections in the United States. One-stop shopping, comrades!
Don’t doubt that the “progressives” would wish to impose “progress” on us poor benighted Deplorables living in the hinterlands. For our own good, mind you. Part of that “progress” would be full “modernization” of the election process. In every precinct in America. Fines and full-blown federal Department of Justice goon squads to parachute in for enforcement.
One may only hope that the Trumpkins understand enough about Federalism and have sufficient literacy in our Constitution to know that this move, which would very quickly be followed by other encroachments, would be something only a far-left administration would ever contemplate.
There has been a lot of carping about President Trump’s visit to CIA Headquarters, and his apparent “Me, Me, Me” talk in front of the Agency’s Memorial Wall. For example, today’s Wall Street Journal lead editorial noted
Mr. Trump also couldn’t resist turning the event into an extended and self-centered riff about the size of his campaign rallies, the times he’s been on Time magazine’s cover and how the “dishonest” media misreported his inaugural crowds. He all but begged for the political approval of the career CIA employees by suggesting most there had voted for him.
Such defensiveness about his victory and media coverage makes Mr. Trump look small and insecure.
That was also my first assessment. But then, Trump did make the CIA HQ his first visit of a government agency. That’s got to count for something. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline captured it thusly:
From the CIA’s perspective, which is better: (1) a president who visits the CIA right after taking office and pledges to back the agency but, as is his wont, also strays off topic and talks too much about himself or (2) a president who doesn’t visit the Agency right after taking office and instead immediately starts a process for releasing terrorists, many of whom resumed their fight against America?
Indeed. Trump just gotta be Trump. He is insecure, and who in his place would not be? He catapulted into the most powerful job in the world, with zero relevant experience. He’s learning. The best news? Trump’s instincts are those of a patriot. And he is a very, very quick study.