Census Citizenship Question Should Be Asked

The Democratic Party is just as dishonest and corrupt in its opposition to putting a citizenship question in the census as the Republicans are in proposing one.  The Democrats are stuffing the ballot box by bringing in as many immigrants as they can, legally or illegally, believing that these immigrants from poor countries will be dependent on welfare for years to come, and since the Democrats are the party of welfare, they will vote Democratic.

The immigrants may not be able to vote right away, but as soon as they are in a position of power, the Democrats will pass some kind of expeditious naturalization law that will allow newly arrived immigrants to vote.  Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, legalizing illegal immigrants who had entered the US before 1982, basically legalizing them after only five years.  Already the Democrats are passing legislation in several states to give the vote to felons who have served their time, believing that they will all vote Democratic.  The Democrats see immigration as a much more powerful means of increasing their voters than reforming gerrymandering, for example.

The Democrats are opposed to the census citizenship question because it would reveal the enormous changes they are making to the character of the United States.  They argue that lack of information is a good thing; there are facts Americans should not know.  The Democrats are hiding the truth.  Americans should not be permitted to know who is an American citizen.  Big brother only allows you to know what he wants you to know.  The Democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing, but they are even more dishonest and devious about it.

The Democrats argue that they oppose the citizenship question because its presence would prevent Hispanics from participating in the census. First, this implies that Democrats think Hispanics are dishonest scofflaws, who routinely break laws, as illegal aliens certainly did to enter this country.  Second, the Democrats want to make sure all Hispanics are counted because their plan is to give them all welfare to persuade them to vote Democratic.  Thus, for them it is important to get the highest possible head count to support federal expenditures that are linked to population.  It better enables them to buy Hispanic votes for Democrats.

The idea that the Democratic effort to prevent the census from counting citizens while increasing the count of non-citizen immigrants is motivated by high-minded love of the poor is balderdash.  It is simply to increase the power of the Democratic Party vis-à-vis the Republican Party.  Preventing the count of citizens is like hiding library books that the Democrats don’t want you to read.  They want you to be ignorant.  They want to manipulate the vote for all national elections.

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court ratified this powerplay by the Democrats, but perhaps it is a payoff to them for its making George W. Bush President over Al Gore, in a similarly corrupt decision that was basically a coup.  The Supreme Court has fouled its nest, but Trump is right to accept its decision because it is the final legal arbiter, although decisions like this will continue to undermine the court’s moral authority.


Hearing Foreign Info about Political Opponents

I have heard enough criticism of Trump for saying he would listen if a foreign government representative said they had deleterious information about his political opponent.  What gets lost in demanded that he should not listen to it, is freedom of speech and the truth.  I think a politician should be able to talk to anyone he wants to. He should not be placed in a cage by the FBI and told whom he can talk to and whom he cannot talk to.  And what if a foreign government has seriously damaging information about a politician?  What if Putin wanted to tall Trump that when Hillary was Secretary of State, she used to tell him highly classified information about how the CIA was collecting intelligence on him.  Shouldn’t Trump be allowed to hear this, or would Hillary be safe forever because Putin was not allowed to speak of it to Trump.  To the Democrats, truth is unimportant; only the process is important.

The Democratic Party’s position on talking to foreign people about politics is opposed to free speech and opposed to learning the truth.

In order to operate in the world today, you need to talk to foreigners.  Yet the Democratic Party would prohibit Americans from talking to foreigners.  It’s a bad, bad policy.  It’s ironic that the Democratic policy is not “America first,” but “America only.”   If you talk to someone who is not an American citizen, how do you know that he might not causally mention something nasty about your political opponent, while making conversation?  Even if you talk only to Americans, there is the risk that a foreign government will hire an American to say something nasty about your opponent.  Foreign government routinely hire American lobbyists.

Even the strictest interpretation of the law seems to require that whatever you get has to have monetary value.  It’s not clear that political scuttlebutt would have real value to which you could assign a dollar amount.  The law is clearly meant to bar foreign political contributions, not conversations.  And what about foreign lobbies.  Under the Democratic interpretation, AIPAC should be disbanded as a prohibited organization.

Art Exhibit on Anti-Semitism

The New York Review of Books reviews an art exhibit about anti-Semitic art, “A Terribly Durable Myth,” by Sara Lipton, who has written a book on the subject.  The earliest artwork she describes of an unflattering depiction of Jews dates from 1233.  In her article she lays a lot of the blame for the creation of anti-Semitism on Saint Paul’s epistles in the New Testament Bible, although Paul was a Jew.  She cites Paul’s distinction between materialistic Jews and spiritually minded Christians.  She quotes the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary definition of Jew, “… a name of opprobrium: spec. applied to a grasping or extortionate person.”  The first question that arose for me was, “If this myth of Jewish financial rapaciousness is unfounded, how has it lasted 2,000 years?”

To offset the unfavorable images of Jews, she says the show displays art that characterizes Jews as charitable givers helping the poor, and art that depicts the most common Jews in Britain as poor tradesmen, rather than bankers.  She says that many Jews went into banking in Britain because that was the only occupation open to them, but she says little else to discredit the stereotype.  She mainly emphasizes how it has endured through centuries.  So, I ask, “Why aren’t there contrasting caricatures?”  The Jewish hooked nose she describes as common in art, is also a Roman nose.  Why is it so unflattering for Jews and not for Italians?  Where are the counter-examples?

She doesn’t mention what to me is the main lesson of today’s emphasis on “diversity,” that not all Jews are the same.  Some may be rapacious; others may be indistinguishable from their non-Jewish counterparts.  She doesn’t mention that 20% of Nobel prize laureates are Jewish.  Are there no portraits of them?