Democrats & the census: least covered story last week

I’ve said for some time that the end goal of Demorats is stultifyingly simple. They wish to keep DC power in perpetuity. They will do anything to achieve that end goal. Anything. Period.

That in mind, I’ll wager the story least covered the past week was one of the potentially greatest future and then everlasting significance — particularly if Demorats get their way.

From TheHill.com:

5 Dem senators ask administration not to include citizenship question on census

by Julia Manchester

Five Democratic Senators asked the Trump administration on Friday to reject a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. 

Signatories include Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Tom Carper (Del.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.)

Make note of the names please because, after all, one of them is going to run for president as a Demorat candidate in 2020.

“The inclusion of a question on citizenship threatens to undermine the accuracy of the Census as a whole, and given this administration’s rhetoric and actions relating to immigrants and minority groups, the DOJ request is deeply troubling,” the senators wrote in a letter addressed to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

For once in the life of a Demorat, would you so kindly tell the truth?

The letter went on to say the question could depress census turnout due to fear the government could use the information against participants. 

“This chilling effect could lead to broad inaccuracies across the board, from how congressional districts are drawn to how government funds are distributed,” the letter reads. 

There we go. The standard Mark I Model I defense attorney retort: “chilling effect.”

See my previous statement.

“Rather than preserve civil rights, as the Justice Department claims, a question on citizenship in the decennial census would very likely hinder a full and accurate accounting of this nation’s population.”

Here’s the applicable two-word phrase: avoidance maneuver.

A spokesperson for the Census Bureau said the “request will go through the well-established process that any potential question would go through.”

Speculation had swirled in recent months that the Trump administration was planning to include an immigration-related question in the census.

That is to say, the Demorats are no longer even attempting to be remotely clever. This is nothing but a naked attempt to ensure that the United States fails to capture anything even remotely close to an accurate count of the number of illegals present.

Because after all, even one, even ten, even twenty or a hundred or a thousand or 10,000 illegals reporting accurately on the census will be more precise than otherwise and tend to factually skew the statistics that Demorats trot out every year with regard to the “minimal impact illegals have” on the nation.

I call bullshit.

Proper thinking Americans do too.

BZ

 

Nancy Pelosi’s Marble Loss, Pt XXXII

Nancy Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving.

Let’s be honest. The Demorats are continuing to push Pelosi out onto Front Street until they can wring every last drop of usage out of her. They they’ll cast her aside like a week-old tampon. As long as they relish making her a target, I’ll keep posting.

Every Nancy Pelosi press conference is now a dementia-sodden incident rife with mistakes, malaprops and much worse in public.

At least she has a firmer grasp on bubbling mouth foam than does her compatriot-in-arms Jerry Brown, governor of Fornicalia.

That’s not saying much.

BZ

 

Leftists: doubling down on Hillary for 2020

Just when you thought the Demorat fossils are numerous years past their political expiration dates, out comes more support — doubling down on precisely what it was that utterly failed to work on November 8th of 2016.

From — naturally — Slate.com:

Here’s your leftover turkey: The case for Hillary Clinton 2020

by Matthew Rozsa

What better way to honor the holiday than with a spiteful argument for yet another Clinton candidacy?

Are you sick of Republicans? Or just right-wingers in general? Do you want to send a message to Washington that you aren’t going to buy into their racistsexistxenophobichomophobic and classist nonsense for one second longer?

Then do the very thing that Donald Trump unintentionally encouraged in a recent tweet: Encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2020!

I’m sure this is the part where the Clinton-haters — be they Trumpers, Bernie Bros or anything in between — will say something to the effect of, “Of course he wants her to run again. That’s the only way he’ll get re-elected!”

Get out of my head! That is precisely what I and other clear-thinking persons were thinking. After all, that Trump/Russia thingie has worked out so wonderfully, has it not?

The next paragraph is absolutely golden, however. Think: what would be the finest reason for Hillary Clinton to run in 2020?

Slow your roll there. Clinton’s poll numbers aren’t too good right now (OK, they’re downright atrocious), but there are still four great reasons to consider choosing her as the Democratic nominee in 2020. Even better, all but one of them has to do with an emotion that has no place in this season (which is why I absolutely had to write this article for Thanksgiving weekend): Spite. Delicious, nutritious spite.

But what of the four reasons delineated by author Rozsa?

1. Hillary Clinton is the Winston Churchill to Vladimir Putin’s Adolf Hitler.

I agree with the basic principle of Godwin’s Law: The first person to invoke Hitler in a political debate should normally lose. The exception, of course, has to be when someone has genuine Hitler-like qualities. A foreign despot who has invaded neighboring countries and has a right-wing nationalist agenda is about as Nazi-like as you can get.

Omigosh Rozsa, but what would Jesus do? In your case, that of Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots like yourself, what would Stalin or Guevara or Castro or Chavez or Maduro do — you know, your actual idols?

2. Hillary Clinton being elected president (at last) would monumentally piss off misogynistic trolls, and what’s not to like about that? 

I can’t think of a single political figure in recent American history who has been hated as deeply, or for as long, as Hillary Clinton. From the moment she emerged on the national stage in 1992 as a distinctly feminist prospective first lady, she has been the target of right-wing wrath woefully out of proportion to anything she has ever said or done.

Of course. You’re right back at “spite.” Seems to me, Rozsa, you’ve confused both 1 and 2 as separate issues when they’re not.

3. By winning the popular vote convincingly in 2016, Hillary Clinton has earned the right to be considered the presumptive nominee in 2020.

As I wrote in September, Clinton is the first defeated presidential candidate to win the popular vote without being automatically considered a frontrunner in the next election. Two of the previous four popular vote-winning also-rans were actually elected in the subsequent cycle (Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Grover Cleveland in 1892), while two others were widely regarded as frontrunners before dropping out for personal reasons (Samuel Tilden and Al Gore).

My, could that possible be because Hillary Clinton was precisely the wrong candidate for the Demorats to run? Yes, beautiful idea: let’s take the most corrupt, the most craven, the most arrogant, the most hypocritical and unlikable Demorat candidate possible and run them. #BecauseIt’sMyTurn

Here’s where Rozsa proves himself an unparalleled comedian.

4. We can expect her to be a good president.

Frankly, the worst thing that can be said about a potential 2020 Clinton candidacy, especially in America’s current cultural and political climate, is that her husband still hasn’t answered for the numerous sexual abuse accusations against him. While it may seem unfair for Hillary to be held accountable for Bill’s alleged predations, it can plausibly be argued that she played a role in helping him cover them up. If that is ever proved beyond a reasonable doubt, she should be given the heave-ho.

As my poor mother-in-law used to say before she passed away from pancreatic cancer in 2007:

Sometimes people are put on this planet solely as an example of what not to do.

Smart woman.

BZ

 

Nancy Pelosi’s marble loss, Part XXXI

Nancy Pelosi is no longer a California representative. She is now nothing more than a target-rich environment — though she’s held California’s 12th District since 2013.

First aside: imagine her chagrin at never having held a senatorial seat in California. Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and even the neophyte Kamala Harris hold and held seats she’d never acquired. She’s had to run every two years as opposed to every six years for senators. Oh the pain, oh the shame.

Then from TheAmericanMirror.com:

Every Nancy Pelosi press conference is now a dementia-sodden incident rife with mistakes, malaprops and much worse in public.

At least she has a firmer grasp on bubbling mouth foam than does her compatriot-in-arms Jerry Brown, governor of Fornicalia.

That’s not saying much.

BZ