Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Bill Kristol and leftists of his ilk are numbskulls on birthright citizenship, which 83% of the world eschews unlike us
... One of my critics on the “conservative” Left who once claimed to be an originalist illustrates the point. He says that the simple fact of birthright citizenship being “age-old” makes it somehow sacrosanct. There is not even a pretended appeal to the Constitution. Beyond this, someone with a philosophic education ought to know that it is a mistake to identify the old with the good. Even if it were not, his argument still fails on its own terms. Before the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, America did not have birthright citizenship. Hence the true “age-old” practice—going back to the beginning of the republic—is not to have it. If the old is the good, why is the younger birthright citizenship practice sacrosanct but the prior, and far-older practice of granting citizenship only to the children of citizens and lawful immigrants bad?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the quality of “conservative” argument in 2018. ...
A social compact that can be joined contrary to the will of its existing members is an impossibility, a self-contradiction.
It’s no wonder, then, that only around 30 countries out of nearly 200
practice birthright citizenship. The highest accounting that I have
seen says 33. There are 197 countries in the world (193 UN members, two
observers, and two non-members). Thus 83% of the world’s nations do not
allow birthright citizenship. Those countries that do have a combined
population of 958 million (in all cases, rounding estimates up in order
not to be accused of fudging the numbers in my direction). According to
the UN, the world population is today 7.6 billion. Our “conservatives”
insist that opposition to birthright citizenship is “nativist,
xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist, white supremacist” and
more. This means that 6.642 billion of the world’s people (give or take)
must also be “nativist, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist,
and white supremacist.” The latter two would truly be something, given
how few of those people are white. ...
More.
Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and
is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered,
comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's
welcome. We all pay an involuntary homage to antiquity. ... To the great
majority of mortal eyes, Time sanctifies everything that he does not
destroy.
-- Charles Mackay
Michael Anton made a persuasive case that if America could correct the error of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, surely it can correct the error of the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898
... Before the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, America did not have birthright citizenship. ...
Can we do it without a war this time, please?
Bill King is skeptical that Donald Trump's birthright citizenship gambit will be fruitful
Here:
Adopting a rational immigration system that included better criteria for granting citizenship would greatly benefit our country. Many of the issues surrounding birthright citizenship are the legacy of the inability of Congress to enact such a rational system. I wish I believed Trump’s executive order might spur a thoughtful debate and legislative action in that direction. But sadly, our representatives from both sides of the aisle seem more interested in demagoguing the issue than working together to enact a rational system.
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
Monday, January 27, 2025
Ugly Americanism is not the way
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
A Democrat moves to the center: Ritchie Torres (NY-15) calls out AOC (NY-14) and Governor Hochul
Here:
“I’m a controversial figure in Democratic politics,” he says. His affection for the Jewish state makes him “particularly radioactive to the far left. There’s no issue on which I face more hate, harassment, and even death threats.” Mr. Torres says there is “a deep strain of antisemitism on the far left.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who represents the neighboring 14th District, has repeatedly accused Israel of “genocide.” ... On Jan. 16, two days after Gov. Kathy Hochul delivered her State of the State address, Mr. Torres accused her of failing to support the state’s Jews. “Antisemitic hate crimes have risen to historic highs in New York,” he tweeted. “Yet when I searched the Governor’s State of the State for the word ‘antisemitism,’ nothing came up.” He tells me the next day that “the governor had a 140-page policy document and there was not a single mention of antisemitism. Never mind that Jews are the target of more hate crimes than everyone else combined. None of that mattered to her.”
Sunday, January 26, 2025
The Trump administration is no different than the Bush 43 administration: You're either with us or against us
The oh so precious little commie Alex Soros fears the Trump bullies when it's the GOP Senate which Trump still can't completely intimidate.
Alex is worried that Marx was wrong about the tragedy coming first lol.
Don't worry, Alex. It's only Farce, part deux.
Real return from stocks was better under Trump I than under Biden
S&P 500 average real return, dividends fully reinvested
Nov 2016--Nov 2020: 13.18% per annum
Nov 2020--Nov 2024: 9.97% per annum
On a nominal basis it was a draw, that's how bad inflation was for stocks: Trump 15.33% per annum vs. Biden 15.39% per annum.
Although the Reagan Bull from July 1982--August 2000 was spectacular, yielding 18.99% nominal and 15.28% real, the actual Reagan era itself was still a huge battle with inflation
Nov 1980--Nov 1984: 10.5% nominal, 4.9% real
Nov 1984--Nov 1988: 17.06% nominal, 13.22% real.
Saturday, January 25, 2025
I don't trust either of these guys as far as I can throw them
In 2016 J. D. Vance and Pete Hegseth were both conventional NeverTrumpers, and had not been particularly religious.
Hegseth was for Marco Rubio in 2015-16 originally, and then for Ted Cruz before acquiescing to Trump. Vance didn't come around to Trump until 2021, whom he needed in his run for US Senate in 2022 from Ohio.
Pete supposedly had a religious transformation in 2018, according to new Wikipedia information, which however contradicts itself:
"He has said that he underwent a religious transformation in 2018 following his marriage to his third wife" but
"Hegseth and Rauchet, who has three young children from her first marriage, married on August 16, 2019."
Oops. Sounds like it was more like 2019, but who really knows? Wikipedia only found out yesterday that Hegseth was born on June 6, 1980. How does this country approve a SECDEF without knowing until now when he was even born?
Meanwhile J. D. converted to Catholicism in 2019, what a coincidence, but was an atheist roughly until he was in law school at Yale during the first Obama administration. His "faith" is primarily intellectual by his own admission.
And now look at the two of 'em lol.
Phony baloney plastic banana good time rock 'n rollas who lick their fingers, stick them in the air, and check whichaway the wind comin' from uh huh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)