Democrats Use Immigration Law to Seed New Voters For Themselves, Yet Republicans Go Along

In 1965, Ted Kennedy spearheaded a change to American immigration law.  Americans were promised that the fundamental nature of the U.S. population would not change.  51 years later, the United States is radically different, headed for a plurality amalgam with no one racial group being the majority.

Why even bother keeping track of people's race?  Why bother keeping track of national origins? Aren't all people from everywhere the same?

Toward the front of Harper's Magazine, I saw that hundreds of refugees had been placed in Eire, PA.  Checking the election results, I saw that the county had gone for Trump - but by the slimmest of margins.

There are those who accuse the Democrats of using immigration law to seed new voters for themselves.  As an American whose family has lived in America for many generations, and of old Irish stock, I wish that I could refute this.  Today, in the overwashing relief of a Trump victory, I do not dislike Democrats.  And there are deeper concerns:

From Imprimis:

It is now widely recognized that the Immigration Act of 1965 was intentionally designed to alter the racial and ethnic mix of the population of America. It has been an overwhelming success; demographers predict that by 2040 whites of European descent will no longer be a majority, having been displaced by people of Asian, African, Latin American, and Hispanic descent. For the most part—with the notable exception of Asians—these groups have supplied a significant clientele for the administrative state as it seeks to extend its reach and magnify its power. As such, it has redounded to the benefit of the Democratic Party—the party that favors the growth and extension of administrative state power. But make no mistake: illegal immigration has always had bipartisan support. Despite the fact that illegal immigration cuts against them politically, Republicans have always favored the cheap and exploitable labor of illegal aliens.

Both parties should change.

Music

Turning to his hostess, E. P. Peshkovaia, he declared his love for the "Appassionata" Sonata in the words cited above. However, though Soviet sources remained forever silent on the point, this is not all that he had to say. Gorky quotes Lenin further:

"But I cannot listen to music too often, it affects one's nerves, makes one want to say kind, stupid things and stroke the heads of those who, living in such a foul hell, can create such beauty. Nowadays if one strokes someone's head, he'll get his hand bitten off! Better to beat the person unmercifully over the head, although ideally we oppose the use of force in human relations. Hm, hm, our task is infernally hard!"

-from Lenin and Beethoven: Beyond the "Appassionata" Affair
By Frederick W. Skinner, 2003, The Beethoven Journal


Lenin was obviously nuts.  If you weren't anti-communist before reading that, you should be now.

Beautiful music should fuel this revolution, not derail it.  Sometimes I go too far, in my thoughts.  It is times like that when I listen to the theme from "To Kill a Mockingbird," and it calms me down very much.

Was the 2012 Election Won by Vote Fraud?

At 10:18 pm on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 I accurately predicted the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, more than four hours ahead of the media.

Now, I am beginning to think that the difference between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump goes beyond the surface level details.  I'm beginning to think that Trump won because he in essence threatened a civil war over vote fraud.

It took me a titanic 23 minutes of online research to discover fairly hard evidence that Democrats have committed vote fraud.  And another three minutes to find out that Republicans have too.

Is Democratic vote fraud more systematic and pointed at winning Presidential elections?  Do groups of paid impersonators drive around from precinct to precinct on Election Day, voting as dead people?

I don't know.  But the thought is unsettling.

Nero and Vespasian

Both candidates were terrible.  They are like Roman emperors - one will burn our cities down through narcissistic negligence, the other will feed us to lions and dogs for sport.

I am glad Trump won, but American political culture should change.  This should never have been the choice.

Calling it - for Trump

10:19 PM, Tuesday, November 8th.  I am going to bed.  It is my prediction that Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.

He won surprising numbers of votes in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and, let me say, Michigan.

I am slightly surprised by his apparent loss in Pennsylvania.  Apparently I didn't know PA as well as I thought I did.

New Hampshire, Nevada, and a single Congressional district in Maine remain too close to call.  I will assume that Hillary Clinton wins all of them, bringing her Electoral College vote total to 265.

I predict that Donald Trump will win 273 Electoral College votes and the Presidency of the United States.

Whatever Happens, There is No Certain Rest

I've read so many conservative blog posts about individual responsibility that the words are beginning to lose meaning to me.  Sometimes I imagine there are large groups of people gathering a patchwork of fraudulent social security disability, food stamps, whatever is left of regular unemployment, small time drug sales (the small time drug sales should be legal, and untaxed for anyone making below $51,000 a year earned wages), and under the table work, and calling it life.

It's become such a dead horse to say that many people have lost a sense of individual responsibility that I feel tired of thinking it and saying it.

I can well imagine the challenges of being in Detroit, Baltimore, Boston, Miami, or Los Angeles, and competing with a huge pool of workers for the same minimum or low wage jobs.  Say from $7.40 to $10.50 an hour, mostly part time jobs with minimal benefits or paid time off.

And it's not so much that those jobs don't pay well or that the benefits aren't great.  I mean, people can accept that.  It's that those kind of jobs are so rarely a window into a more prosperous economic sphere, that for the worker it can compound the sense of isolation that started with earning barely or not enough to live on.

To say nothing of if you have kids.

I feel, very, very strongly, that for all his failings, Donald Trump is the better candidate for what we now call 'the working poor.'  I don't think Donald Trump really knows it, and I can't credit him with anything like real compassion.  But by circumstances and being washing-machine wrung through a Republican primary process, he has been bonked closer to positions of what we call economic liberty.

I'm tired of wishing and hoping for a better life for people at the fringes.  I know - and I've repeated this to myself until the thought is just as threadbare as all these others - that people have to work hard, that even in the best circumstances we can create, there may still be injustice, and that in this life there is no certain rest.

Neither candidate can change the existential state of human nature.  And truly, neither really acknowledges a higher power beyond themselves, the one Power that really can.

And that might be the most sad of all.

The poetry was not very good in the years of his happiness

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love — they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.” 

And there you have it.