Author: admin

Fareed Zacharia, a Hillary advocate and Trump detractor at CNN, is cited in a recent article as saying that racism played a part in the election results. I agree, but not in the way that Fareed intends.

Accusations of racism, that’s what cost Hillary the election. In a nutshell, the Democratic party’s message was that if you don’t agree with Hillary, you’re a racist. Don’t agree with giving amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants, no matter the economic cost? Racist! Want better border control to be part of our immigration plan so we can prevent the illegal border crossings that got us into this mess? Racist! Concerned about the vetting process related to refugees from an area of the globe particularly hostile to American interests? Double whammy: Racist Islamophobe!

Instead of addressing the fears and concerns of these voters, the Hillary campaign chose to bully them into voting for Hillary or suffer the brand of racism. Unfortunately for Hillary, their strategy backfired: instead of driving votes towards Hillary, it drove them towards Trump. Turns out insulting the American public by calling them racists for their legitimate concerns is not such a good idea.

Someone should fire their strategists.

 

Since immigration has been on the mind of many Americans this election season, let’s take a moment to discuss this important issue. It would have been difficult to have this conversation during the election cycle, as vote shaming and opinion bullying have prevented meaning dialogue. Hopefully, civil-tongued post election discussions are now possible.

On the left, illegal immigration is treated as a humanitarian effort. From the perspective of Hillary Clinton and her supporters, these poor people need to escape their corrupt and violent countries and we have a humanitarian obligation to take any who want to come. Hillary has stated that she favors amnesty and a path to citizenship for all illegal aliens, arguing that these are hard-working people who pay taxes and contribute to our society.

I disagree. Strongly. For a whole lot of reasons. Let’s investigate a few… Continue reading “Immigration”

…unless you don’t think like them. In that case, you should be beaten with a bat. Sounds pretty “inclusive” to me.

‘Orange is the New Black’ actress Lea DeLaria says she wants to ‘take out’ Trump supporters with baseball bat

He correctly identified the “social bullying” tactics that the Hillary campaign has unleashed on America, and put it into a perspective that makes it clear for everyone (except, apparently, Hillary supporters):

The Bully Party

Thanks, Scott – I could not have said it better.

… to move to Canada to protest the immigration policies of Donald Trump. My response: Good luck; Canada’s immigration policies are stricter than our own. For instance:

• You need a medical exam from a certified professional before you can be considered for immigration. AIDS, cancer, diabetes – good luck! They don’t want you becoming a medical burden on the rest of the Canadian public.
• You had better be fluent in either English or French – and yes, you will be tested. Spanish? Nope… English or French only.
• Ever worked illegally in Canada? Sorry…. ineligible! No amnesty in Canada.
• No needed labor skills (they have a list!)? No professional license? No master’s degree or higher? Good luck!
• Ever been convicted of  a crime, such as murder, manslaughter, theft, assault, robbery, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or drug possession? Sorry; rejected! ( I guess that whole drug possession thing will probably knock a lot of them out of the running… Snoop Dog and Willie Nelson come to mind…)

Frankly, I say good riddance. If you’re not willing to be part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. Besides, we already have too many spoiled and overpaid actors here; let Canada have a few.

Hillary supporters have been busy pointing out that Hillary won the popular vote, and therefore should be president. However, this is a rather ludicrous argument since no one was trying to win the popular vote. It’s like saying you picked more apples than anyone else at an apple pie baking contest; while you need to pick some apples to make the pie, the total number of apples picked is simply not relevant to the contest at hand and you’ll win no prizes for your effort.

The point I am trying to make is that the candidates campaigned specifically to win an electoral vote contest, not the popular vote, and each used a strategy designed to meet that objective. If the contest had been to win the popular vote, then the candidates would have used a different campaign strategy. Given Trump’s successes where he did campaign, there is every reason to believe that he would have been just as successful in a popular vote contest using an appropriate strategy.

Complaining about how many apples your candidate picked at a pie baking contest – well, that’s just a waste of time now, isn’t it?

… when Republicans took to the streets after Obama’s election in ’08, rioting and smashing car windows, burning the President-elect in effigy, firebombing vehicles, and blocking freeway traffic?

Yeah, me neither. That’s because it didn’t happen.

The links above are all about Hillary supporters protesting Trump’s successful bid for President. Nothing like a burning car to make your point; I wonder how that vehicle owner will get to work tomorrow? It would be ironic if the car belonged to one of the protesters…

… your grocery bill (among other things). For those of you who don’t see the loss of privacy implications in all those “terms of service” and “privacy policy” agreements that you refuse to read:

King County using customer grocery store data to target pet owners, send licensing notices

California has passed Senate Bill 1234, the “California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program“. It is a quasi-mandatory retirement plan that requires payroll deductions into a state-managed retirement fund. On the plus side, it does give a retirement plan option to California employees that do not benefit from an employer-offered plan. On the negative side, it’s nanny-state run amok. I am always concerned whenever the state wants to manage any aspect of my life – particularly when it is done ostensibly for my benefit – but I see numerous other potential issues, including:

• This program allows the state to transfer management to CalPERS, and they do not have a stellar record. As of 2016  CalPERS is only 77% funded – a 23% shortfall.
• This will create a large source of management fees; how can we be assured that there won’t be corruption in the investor selection process? Remember, with your own retirement account *you* find the investment company; in this case you give the money to the state and *they* find the investment company.
• The management board is responsible for outreach efforts, which will be made at the expense of the fund. This will increase total plan costs over other, competing plans.

These are just the tip of the iceberg; there are just too many things wrong with this plan for me to list. Read more about other opinions on this new law here, here, here, and here.