Insert foot here

While I can appreciate the sentiment, I don’t think this will get past the courts:

Trump orders Census not to count undocumented immigrants for awarding congressional seats

President Trump’s alleged method to negate this incentive is fraught with problems. Trump’s claim (according to the news article above) is that the term “person” is not defined in the Constitution, in particular with respect to Article 1 Section 2 and the 14th amendment, and therefor he can define it to exclude illegal aliens. However, the 14th amendment includes the following text:

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

I don’t think anyone would assert that the clause above would not also apply to illegal aliens (think about it…). Thus, the 14th amendment effectively includes illegal aliens in its definition of “person”. QED.

That’s not to say I disagree completely with Trump’s sentiments. Counting illegal aliens towards the apportionment of congressional representatives provides a perverse incentive for states to ignore – nay, thwart – immigration laws. Immigration is the sole domain of the federal government, and states should be taken to the woodshed for actively seeking to bypass the federal immigration system for their own gain.  I just don’t believe that Trump’s position is tenable.

Better luck next time, Skippy.

Good for the goose

I have to agree with the education secretary on this one. Why should private schools be excluded from these funds? Not all private schools are for the “wealthy”; many are charter schools that compete with public schools, and are some parent’s only hope for their children to receive an adequate education.

NAACP Sues Betsy DeVos Over Federal Aid Money For Private Schools

I realize that it’s not in the best interest of the public school teacher’s unions to have competition for their members, but competition leads to improvements in cost and quality. Why should the public schools not have to compete?

Really, Mayor?

Chicago had a deadly Tuesday: 14 people were shot while attending a funeral. It is thought that the attack might have been in retaliation for the death of the person for whom the funeral was being held. Allegedly, passengers in an SUV opened fire as they drove by the funeral home where the service was being held; attendees returned fire with their own weapons. Want to guess how many of these firearms were legally owned and carried?

On the same days as the deadly shootings, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted:

“Under no circumstances will I allow Donald Trump’s troops to come to Chicago and terrorize our residents,” Lightfoot wrote.

Really, Mayor? It’s federal agents who are terrorizing your residents? It has nothing to do with your own inability to stop the ever-growing gang violence in your city?

Accept the help, Mayor. I’ll bet a lot of your residents – at least those not associated with your city’s ongoing gang violence – would welcome the assistance.

Do as we say…

…not as we do.

From the classic, “We make the rules, but they don’t apply to us” genre of political bullshit, I offer the following two sets of circumstances for you to ponder:

1) The husband of a county district attorney, whose house is visited by BLM activists that calmly rang the doorbell, greeted the activists while holding a handgun. He allegedly pointed the gun at the protestors on his doorstep and said, “I will shoot you. Get off of my porch.” Note that this was not a private gated community, and the front door of the home was readily accessible to passers-by. Note, too, that the entire incident was caught on video (very disturbing video – here’s one example). No charges have been filed against the husband.

2) A group of protestors broke through a locked iron gate to enter a private community, ostensibly to protest at the mayor’s house, incorrectly assuming that their right to protest was of greater importance than the right of the people of this community to be secure in their persons and property. When some of these trespassing protestors threatened a local homeowner, the homeowners responded by arming themselves. The homeowners have been charged with a felony.

The difference between these two cases? I’ll let you figure that out on your own.

Social media follies

OK, so I recently made my 1st foray into social media. Didn’t really want to, but thought it would help get me some visibility in the real world. I set up an account and waiting for things to happen. Didn’t take long (and my significant other hasn’t stopped laughing…).

Soooo… right away I made the fatal error of believing that when someone expressed an opinion or cited a “fact”on social media that they were open to alternative opinions or real facts. Nope; not even close. My suggestion that perhaps a particular person’s “facts” might be misleading or in error led to a series of posts by them questioning the value of my education, accusing me of supporting a racist system of oppression lead by the CEOs of a few major American companies, and insinuating that I belong to a particular political faction. And no, I’m not kidding.

At first I thought that this was just someone with an ego and a temper. But as time went on and others chimed in (to also be attacked) I realized that this was just their defense mechanism for an argument that they could not win on the facts. It goes like this: If someone ask you a question that doesn’t fit your claim or can’t be answered with a positive light on your position, criticize them until they go away and leave you surrounded by fellow believers (or disbelievers who simply don’t want to be yelled at). A surprisingly effective method – and one I now recognize as a tool of many politicians.

For instance one of AOC’s “gang of four”, Ilhan Omar, made a statement that many took as demanding that the entire economic and political system of the United States be dismantled to achieve her goals. From a Fox News article:

“As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,” the progressive Squad member continued. “So we cannot stop at [the] criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”

Her arch nemesis, Donald Trump Jr., posed the following question on twitter (a simple question, no less):

“Does @joebiden agree with his supporter @ilhanmn that we need to dismantle the United States economy and political system?”

Omar’s response? A personal attack on Trump:

“Does our education system know it has failed you?” Omar shot back. “Your level of comprehension is such an embarrassment to our country, maybe someone can offer you free English classes.”

Notice the now-familiar pattern: criticize sharply while not answering the question and hope they go away. A very mature and respectful way to handle political disagreements, don’t you think?

We’re doomed…

Fighting racism with racism?

Yeah; that’ll work.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot calls White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany ‘Karen’ in latest round of vitriol

For those who don’t know, the pejorative term “Karen” has been developed to describe an overbearing middle-aged white woman.  A racist term by definition, I wonder why its creator thinks that there are no overbearing middle-aged women of any other race. Does anyone doubt how people would react if the term had been developed for a group of minority women? Why then is there no outrage now?

When the mayor of a major U.S. city and representative of the progressive wing of the Democratic party uses a decidedly racist term to refer to a political counterpart, it becomes very hard to take them seriously when they call out others for racism.

[1] Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls White House Spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany ‘Karen’ in Latest Round of Vitriol. https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-calls-kayleigh-mcenany-karen-20200717-jiepxhfdjrba3ivuhqu5it6nq4-story.html. Accessed 17 July 2020.