HAPPILY ANCHORED: To unexplained loathing!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2015

Part 4—TNR fails to explain:
Kevin Drum had read a piece at the New Republic.

Frankly, he was puzzled. He didn’t think the TNR piece lived up to its headline:
DRUM (8/21/15): I'm curious about something. Last night I read a longish piece at TNR by Gwyneth Kelly titled “Why ‘Anchor Baby’ Is Offensive.” I was actually sort of curious about that, so I read through it. But all the article did was provide a bit of history about the term and quote a bunch of people saying it was disgusting and dehumanizing. There was no explanation of why it’s offensive.
Saying he would likely regret it, Drum decided to issue his now-famous “‘Anchor baby’ challenge.” He asked his readers to explain why the term should be viewed as offensive.

“It's not obvious from first principles what the problem is here,” Drum offensively said.

On balance, we agree with Drum’s apparent skepticism. In our view, it isn’t obvious why the term in question should be viewed as offensive, or as “super offensive,” or as “an offensive, derogatory slur,” to use Kelly’s language.

At long last, let’s drop that question. But just for the record, Drum was plainly right about the TNR piece. Despite the headline on the piece, Gwyneth Kelly didn’t even try to explain why the term in question should be deemed offensive. She simply asserted that that the term is offensive, then offered a brief critique of Donald Trump’s claims in this area.

Drum was right to notice the fact that the piece doesn’t live up to the headline. That said, we strongly recommend Kelly’s piece, which helps us see the way our liberal tribe currently tends to reason.

What can we learn from Kelly’s piece? Let’s take a look at the record:

For starters, let’s note a basic fact. The headline which sits atop her piece makes two claims, not just one. This is the current full headline:

“Why ‘Anchor Baby’ Is Offensive—and a Distortion of Truth”

Kelly makes two basic claims in her piece. As she starts, she claims that the term “anchor baby” is offensive—“an offensive, derogatory slur.”

She then moves on to a second claim. She says the term “distorts the truth.”

This strikes us as the more significant claim, but Kelly gives it short shrift. This is her full discussion of this second, substantive claim, before she shifts back to her principal claim, her claim that the term is offensive:
KELLY (8/20/15): The term also distorts the truth. As Politifact noted in 2010, foreigners do come to the use to give birth to a U.S. citizen, but it's not the kind of foreigner Trump imagines:

“While that does appear to be happening with affluent ‘birth tourists,’ it's important to understand that those affluent ‘birth tourists’ are not the ones illegally crossing the Rio Grande or the Sonoran desert. They are coming here with the proper legal papers and giving birth. Thus, whatever public policy challenges arise from ‘birth tourism’ are separate and distinct from the public policy challenges of illegal immigration.”

Moreover, while the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee citizenship for babies born in the United States (with some exceptions: the children of diplomats, occupying forces or anyone born on foreign public ships), that citizenship does not automatically extend to the child’s parents. An American child of undocumented parents must wait until they are 21 to petition for their parents’ citizenship. In the meantime, parents can be deported; sometimes their children leave with them, other times the children are placed in foster care.

Nonetheless, Trump would like to see the law changed to address this phantom menace. He told Fox News that, according to “some very, very good lawyers,” the longstanding legal consensus that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship “is not going to hold up in court.” This insurgent constitutional interpretation is certainly up for debate. The offensiveness of “anchor baby” should not be.
The offensiveness of “anchor baby” shouldn't be up for debate! So says Kelly, without bothering to explain why the term is offensive at all!

At any rate, that is Kelly’s full account of what she calls “this phantom menace.” In our view, it’s a lazy, faux attempt to discuss the full set of facts on the ground, as we’ll note below.

After making this facile attempt, Kelly returns to the claim we tribally love—the claim that Candidate Trump’s language is offensive. This is very much the principal way our tribe now likes to “reason.”

At present, our tribe is anchored to the act of eagerly taking offense! We love to accuse The Others of slurs. We’re less inclined to immerse ourselves in the substance of policy questions.

We fluff ourselves with our sense of moral superiority. We leave ourselves without the tools to win real debates, to change people's understandings.

Make no mistake! Trump’s immigration proposals strike us as utterly ludicrous. His kick-off speech, in which he characterized unauthorized Mexican immigrants in the most unpleasant ways possible, struck us as utterly heinous, a point we made at the time.

(Darling Rachel said nothing about Trump’s appalling statement that night. She barely mentioned his statement on the next evening’s program. Instead, she continued to cavort and play about a set of silly side points, wondering if Trump had hired actors to attend his kick-off speech. Today, Maddow claims to be “super-offended” by the term “anchor baby.” We’re all free to believe her, of course.)

Trump’s immigration proposals strike us as utterly ludicrous. But Kelly’s piece strikes us as lazy and perhaps a bit less than obsessively honest. In fairness, she gives us our tribal fix—we get to condemn another “slur!” But she tells us very little about the facts on the ground.

What’s missing in Kelly’s brief attempt to deal with the substance of Trump’s proposals? Let’s go back to the very beginning, to the first appearances of the term she frames as a slur.

Judging from the Nexis archive, the term “anchor baby” first appeared in American newspapers in 2001. At that time, activists who used that term tended to make a specific claim. You see the outline of the claim in a column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in which Colin Campbell described the mail he’d been getting:
CAMPBELL (2/27/01): Some people hate the flood of foreign immigrants into metro Atlanta. I know this because of the mail I'm getting about a column I did a couple of Sundays ago in which I confessed to taking pleasure in the city's newly cosmopolitan feel. (I also admitted some obvious problems.) Of course there are readers who share my delight. But others have nothing good to say about immigration. To them it's a threat...

Several readers sent me material on the campaign to change the Constitution so that U.S. birth won't automatically confer citizenship. (Critics note that “anchor babies” are allowing whole clans to move here).
That was the original claim. If a non-citizen gave birth in this country, her child would be an American citizen—and this would allow the whole family to move to the States!

In 2002, columnist John McCaslin advanced the same general notion in the Washington Times. So did Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune:
MCCASLIN (7/11/02): There was considerable reaction from around the country to our item this week on birthright citizenship and its related phenomenon that has been dubbed “anchor babies.”

The United States, we reported, grants automatic citizenship to babies born in this country to illegal aliens, temporary workers, even tourists. The babies can eventually “anchor” their extended families in the United States, thus precipitating an unlimited number of “chain immigrants” with the right to immigrate.

BYRNE (7/29/02): Consider the movement for “birthright citizenship” and “anchor babies.” It is based on the fact that the United States automatically grants citizenship to babies born in the country—including to babies whose mothers are here temporarily, as tourists or even illegally. Of course, once the baby is defined as a citizen, his family gets preferential immigration treatment. An entire industry has developed around getting pregnant women into this country just for that purpose.
As early as 2002, the Los Angeles Times was noting a problem with this presentation, even as it noted the rise of what is now called “birth tourism.” In a long report which focused on South Koreans coming to Los Angeles to give birth, Barbara Demick noted a wrinkle in U.S. immigration law—the very wrinkle Kelly cited thirteen years later:
DEMICK (5/25/02): “Even though it is not illegal immigration per se, it is exploiting a loophole,” said Jack Martin, a project director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based group that advocates restrictions on immigration.

The federation is especially critical of what it calls anchor babies, whom mothers arrange to have in the United States with the hope that the child will later help the entire family immigrate. Under the law, a U.S. citizen cannot sponsor anyone for immigration purposes until the age of 21, but according to Martin, the long wait is not a deterrent.

“It is hard to conceptualize a strategy that is so long-term with regard to U.S. citizenship, but that's what they are doing—establishing a foothold,” he said.

The federation says 165,000 babies are born in the United States each year to illegal immigrants, most of them from Mexico.
Were that many babies born to illegal immigrants that year? We don’t know, but Demick cited the same part of immigration law Kelly cited in TNR.

Uh-oh! Under immigration law, a family can’t automatically stay in the States just because its child is born a citizen. That baby can’t sponsor his parents for citizenship until he turns 21!

This complicates the initial, simple-minded claim in which entire families were able to come to the U.S., “anchored” by one birthright citizen baby. As it turned out, that initial claim was misleading, facile, massively simplified.

Kelly cited that aspect of U.S. law in her TNR piece. Every liberal knows to cite it, after which we get to return to the practice we love—taking offense at the “slurs” The Other Tribe is employing.

We modern liberals love the act of taking offense in this manner. As the responses to Drum helped show, we’re even happy to take offense when we can’t seem to explain what makes the term in question offensive! The answers Drum received to his challenge ought to embarrass any progressive. They show us for what we often are—juvenile, unpleasant, dumb.

Ditto-headed in every way. Driven by the ancient joy of thoroughly loathing The Other.

Kelly never bothered explaining why that term is offensive. But then, she failed to do something else in her piece:

She failed to note what Trump has actually said when he’s used the term “anchor baby.”

So far, Candidate Trump hasn’t evoked the original, simple-minded claim in which “anchor babies” let whole families gain American citizenship. Below, you see what he said in New Hampshire when he touched off the current dispute, in which cable stars try to top each other about who is most offended.
TRUMP (8/19/15): There’s a very big question as to the anchor babies. They’ve been talking about it for years. There is a very big question as to whether or not the 14th Amendment actually covers this. We’re going to find out whether or not it does.

Changing the 14th Amendment would take years and years. It's a long, drawn-out process. A lot of people think that it is absolutely, in terms of anchor babies, that it is not covered. So we're going to find out.

But look, here’s the story. Here’s what happens. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait!

Here’s what's happening.

A woman is going to have a baby. They wait on the border. Just before the baby, they come over to the border. They have the baby in the United States. We now take care of that baby: Social Security, Medicare, education. Give me a break. It doesn't work that way. The parents have to come in legally.

Now, we’re going to have to find out what's going to happen from a court standpoint. But many people, many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered. We're going to find out.
In that statement, Trump wasn’t complaining about whole families gaining citizenship through the birth of a child. He was advancing a different type of complaint. He was saying that children born to undocumented / illegal / unauthorized residents will be eligible for all sorts of benefits over the eighty years of their lives.

In some ways, this claim is plainly accurate—and a lot of beautiful kids are born to illegal / unauthorized / undocumented residents of this country each year. In a study in 2010, Pew estimated that 340,000 babies were born in 2008 to parents who were unauthorized / undocumented / illegal residents of the U.S.

That was roughly eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. that year! To cite one possible challenge of the type to which Trump referred, those beautiful kids and their undocumented / illegal / unauthorized siblings and cousins can present a challenge to American public schools.

Personally, we aren’t troubled by that, at least as matters currently stand. But no one’s required to think that this is a good way of doing things.

Can we talk? Candidate Trump is a remarkably classic demagogue. Like a certain figure from the last century, he extends his lower lip and insists that he can make the trains run on time.

In times of confusion and dysfunction, this stance can be quite appealing—always has been, all over the world.

Is Trump a well-intentioned figure? We can’t measure that. But in the face of claims which seem appealing, it isn’t enough to drop R-bombs and complain that The Others are being offensive, especially when we can’t even explain why we’re making that claim.

Are unauthorized / undocumented / illegal residents taking jobs from American citizens? Through birthright citizenship, are the beautiful children of these residents creating various types of challenges, financial and otherwise, within the overall society?

These questions aren’t crazy questions. Indeed, all over the world, developed nations have been rolling back their own birthright citizenship laws in response to such considerations.

It isn’t enough for liberals to respond to such considerations by littering the countryside with our favorite weapon, our R-bombs. That said, the dropping of bombs is plainly the thing we liberals most enjoy at this time.

Can we be honest for once? We’re unpleasant and tribal and full of the loathing we love to attribute to Others! Just exactly as Drum observed, Kelly never explained why the term in question should be considered offensive or a slur. But then, she also didn’t speak to the actual concerns Trump actually raised in his statement about those darn “anchor babies.”

Kelly didn’t even explain why that term is offensive! But down through history, tribal haters like us have never stopped to explain.

The term “anchor baby” migrated, years back, from its original narrow use. It’s now often used in a more general sense, as a reference to all children born to illegal / unauthorized / undocumented residents who become U.S. citizens due to birthright citizenship.

To many people, the practice of birthright citizenship won’t make obvious sense. The claim that taxpayers are getting ripped off will make sense to these people.

On their face, such concerns aren’t crazy. Are we willing to learn to speak to those people's concerns? Or are we anchored to unexplained tribal loathing, the oldest scourge on the planet?

Anchors are brown, Drum’s commenters said. In our view, those comments should serve as a wake-up call to our whole self-impressed tribe.

Are we willing to love our neighbor? or do we love dropping bombs?

163 comments:

  1. [shoulder shrug]

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob,
    I'm going to tell you something, I'm not willing to love those bozos. They're beyond reasoning and whether it's a concern about higher taxes, or crowded classrooms, or yes, a fear of becoming a racial and cultural minority, I've just given up on trying to explain anything to these folks.
    Fear is a powerful drug, Bob. Fox News and talk radio have created a landscape of fear and loathing in these people and I've come to the conclusion that life is too damn short to try a navigate that cratered terrain and make common cause.
    The only way to fix this is to out organize these people in elections and support candidates that will push a more liberal agenda through Congress.
    Kansas is an economic nuclear blast zone because these people don't want to raise taxes. Evidence that their fear-based support of destructive policies means nothing to them.
    If you want to waste your time trying to convince people otherwise, be my guest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, this post has a lot more to do with what do those of us who see ourselves as being enlightened believe and why is it we believe those things than it does with how to win over the 30 to 40 (+?) per cent of Americans whom you would characterize as bozos.

      (By the way, are you suggesting that if you were a member of the majority racial group in a democratic society or felt at home in the dominant cultural milieu of the society in which you lived it would be of no concern to you that in your lifetime, or in the lifetime of your children, that would no longer be the case in the country in which you lived? )

      Delete
    2. World travel is an antidote to fear or distrust of people from different cultures who speak different languages. We should be encouraging high schools graduates to take their gap year outside the country, perhaps even providing some financial aid to do so. It would inoculate them against nativism.

      Delete
    3. How Dr Eboehi The Great Spell Caster help Bring Back My Ex Lover: Husband

      Hello My name is Kathie Sherine, Am from USA, Texas. and I am very happy for posting on this blog on how a great spell caster helped me in bringing back the love of my life. I know there are lots of women like me out there who have done so much to have back their Husband, I am here to tell you all to search no further because the answer is right here. I sincerely believe if there are up to five spell casters like Dr Eboehi this world would be a better place, I have seen people complaining on how fake spell castes promised to help them but couldn't but with Dr Eboehi I tell you your problem is solved already. My Husband and I had been apart for 3 YEARS and I couldn't bear without living without him, I have tried everything to have him back but nothing was working until I saw numerous testimonies about a spell caster called Dr Eboehi and how great his work is. I contacted him via email (eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com) immediately and follow the step that he ask and in the next 48 hours my lover called me and was eager for my forgiveness and that he wished nothing more than to have me in his arms forever. I filled so much joy and happiness that I found Dr Eboehi, I hope you all here will find this testimony of mine and get your husband back in just 48 hours thanks... contact his email: eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com or call (208) 627-4749

      Delete
  3. "We fluff ourselves."

    Future troll fodder, doubtless.

    And, at the same time, an apt description of past, present and future troll activity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure we should not loathe someone who is demonstrably loathsome and proud of it. Draft dodger? Check. Lied about it? Check. Litigious against critics? Check. Bankruptcy law loophole wriggler? Check. Check. Check. Serial adulterer? Who cares He doesn't. Deals with the mob? Well, maybe they made offers he could not refuse. Net worth? Lies, exaggerations, fibs, and... Well. c;mon, who would trust him in the first place. Insanely egotistic? Well, yeah. Trust fund baby? Check, he sure got a pile to help him get started. Aw, forget all that. Putting his name on everything? Let's just call him tacky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @xpara,

      Just the sort of tacky person that would attract HRC to attend his latest wedding and compel her hubby to consult with Trump before he announced his candidacy.

      Delete
    2. My favorite GOP site:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/30835791@N07/sets/72157614241935013/

      Delete
    3. Cicero, this is about the eighth time you mentioned the Clintons went to Trump's wedding. So what?

      Delete
    4. @AC/MA

      The Clintons are cozy with someone whom liberals consider to be a raging racist is nullfied with a "So what?"

      Delete
    5. cicero, do you now understand that the Clintons are not liberals?

      Delete
    6. @6:31

      That would be news to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, David Brock, Paul Begala, James Carville, Planned Parenthood, Chelsea, POTUS/FLOTUS,

      Delete
    7. cicero's blowup dollAugust 28, 2015 at 7:36 PM

      @ 7:11

      Typical gibberish from the Turing-Test troll.

      Delete
    8. I don't think Trump is a racist. It's just that that's where he has to go to get his votes. He could have just as easily take the opposite side of every position he's taking if he wanted to but Dems would laugh him into humiliation. There's a reason he's running in the Republican primaries.

      Delete
    9. @mm

      Trump has taken the other side of the issues for 67 of his 69 years. His phone call with Willie before he announced was about which party he should run for POTUS.

      Delete
    10. Cicero, how irked are you that Trump, a crony of the demonic Clintons, and apparently a Democrat in sheep's clothing, is leaving the whole GOP field in the dust and thrilling the hearts of your side's base?

      Your apparent obsession about her going to this wedding, as I assume a lot of others also did, and your apparent listening in on Trump's alleged call to the former President (who you feel entitled to refer to as "Willie") is beryond nitwitty.

      Delete
    11. @AC/MA

      Jeb never bargained for Trump just as HRC never bargained for Biden. I'm more irked that CNN is keeping Fiorina off their September debate.

      You believe the Clinton social association with Trump is confined to his wedding? Trump's daughter and Chelsea Clinton are BFF.

      You consider it an entitlement to refer to Bill as Willie? Have you considered auditioning for MSNBC as a replacement for Rev. Al's cancelled show?

      Delete
    12. "Trump has taken the other side of the issues for 67 of his 69 years."

      Why do you keep lying, cicero. Trump is your guy. Enjoy.

      Trump at 1988 RNC

      *******************
      2015 GOP establishment Pro-Jeb Bush Republicans continue to make false claims about Donald Trump and his historical political affiliations. Here’s video of Donald at the RNC convention in 1988. Enjoy:
      *********************

      Delete
    13. It doesn't matter to HRC if Biden runs. It is not unexpected that he might try again.

      Delete
    14. @mm

      HRC canvassed and campaigned for Republican Richard Nixon for President. She worked for Republican Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, and was even elected president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans club. HRC is your gal. Enjoy!

      Delete
    15. @9:30

      HRC couldn't care less if Biden gets in?

      "CLEVELAND — Hillary Clinton’s team is getting tired of the Joe Biden talk. And this week, they want to kill it.

      The Democrat’s strategy heading into a meeting of party elite on Friday is aimed at dismissing the idea now fueling Biden supporters that her campaign is going off the rails, strategists, donors and political allies familiar with Brooklyn’s thinking told POLITICO"

      "Indeed, Clinton’s rural policy rollout in Iowa on Wednesday was low-key, scoring little national attention. And the Ohio stop also paled. But Friday’s appearance at the DNC meeting is critical. It’s where she wants to address the party’s hand-wringing about her campaign’s troubles, and end Biden’s bid before it begins."




      Delete
    16. This is how it always goes with cicero.

      When you prove him wrong on one thing, he quickly changes the subject, like we're not supposed to notice.

      You think I don't know Hillary Clinton's biography? She knocked on doors for Nixon in 1960 at the age of 13.
      Her parents were conservative republicans.

      Trump wasn't a democrat until 2 years ago. You are a liar.

      Delete
    17. @mm

      You have provided zero evidence of Trump's Conservatism. Where has Trump ever declared that he was a registered Republican? Appearing at the RNC convention back in 1988 is your entire case as evidence of Trump's previous GOP party affiliation.

      If Trump were ever a Conservative why would he say that he has recently evolved on the issues? He couldn't even answer Meghan Kelly's question with any specificity.

      Megyn Kelly to Trump: ‘When Did You Actually Become a Republican?’

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zKvde3eujs

      Delete
    18. @mm

      How is it you never contradict Howler libs who say HRC isn't a lib?

      BTW: Still waiting for you to come up with a rational excuse why HRC lied about communicating with her hubby via email.

      Delete
    19. I said he was a republican. Watch the youtube video. Larry Kings specifically asks him that question.

      Delete
    20. I don't need to come with an excuse, because she didn't say that. You are lying again.

      Delete
    21. notice how cicero writes "conservatism" with a capital "C"?

      fuck, what a Clown.

      Delete
    22. @mm

      Is it your contention that the video of HRC claiming:

      "The server contains personal communications between my husband and me" HRC March, 2015

      is somehow faked?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2N5HrVUuHI

      Delete
    23. No, I'm saying you are lying about what she said.

      "The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, ..."
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/transcript-hillary-clinton-addresses-e-mails-iran/

      Delete
    24. @mm

      Odd that Trump didn't bring up the 1988 Convention as proof of his long standing Republican credentials in answer to Meghan Kelly's question. Trump knows that he was not a registered Republican in 1988 and couldn't explain to Larry King why he identified with Republicans.

      Conservatism of the capital-C, political ideology variety. No wonder you have trouble defending HRC.

      Delete
    25. @mm

      Ok. "From" instead of "between." Now explain how does that change the fact she lied when Willie has sent only two emails his entire life?

      Delete
    26. @mm
      How is it when I did post the exact quote you were still incredulous?





      ciceroAugust 28, 2015 at 8:02 PM

      @mm

      No explanation? How can you be HRC's flack flunky when you whiff on such a soft ball question?

      "But Hillary said during her press conference that her email server "contains personal communications from my husband and me."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2N5HrVUuHI

      Delete
    27. I don't know who "Willie" is. Is that the little thing between your legs that you play with all day while writing about Hillary Clinton?

      I can't help you with your sick psychotic deranged obsession with Hillary Clinton. You and your paid teams of like minded nerds who devour and scrutinize every single word spoken by Hillary Clinton from the beginning of time and then try to cross reference with something she said somewhere else to try to prove she is a liar, when you're the ones stretching the truth and perverting all common sense.

      This little silly ridiculous argument began on another post where I simply noted that contrary to your hysterical rantings, Hillary Clinton did not set up that server in her home, it was already there to serve President Clinton and his staff.

      ****
      Nice question.
      Name another cabinet member who was married and living with a former President of the United States, with round the clock Secret Service protection, and who already had a server set up for himself and his staffs' email.
      Go ahead.
      mm August 28, 2015 at 6:04 PM
      **********


      That is a fact. You can try to shift the focus now to your ridiculous delusions that she lied about getting emails from the President, but that is not supported by what she said.


      So you can't keep saying that Hillary Clinton "stashed" a server in her home. That server already existed. I don't expect Hillary Clinton to be a geek-head who knows all the nitty gritty technical details.

      She knew the server was set up for the President and his staff.

      *******
      CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.

      So, I think that the -- the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure.
      **************


      As is common, this sent you into a rage, grasping at the nearest thing to fling back at me.

      Delete
    28. cicero's lies:

      "HRC claimed that many of her 30,000 private emails were sent to Willie and received from Willie." ciceroAugust 28, 2015 at 7:16 PM

      LIE

      "We know HRC claimed that she communicated with Willie by email" cicero August 29, 2015 at 4:39 PM

      LIE

      "BTW: Still waiting for you to come up with a rational excuse why HRC lied about communicating with her hubby via email. "cicero August 29, 2015 at 1:12 PM

      LIE

      The fever is strong with cicero.

      Delete
    29. @mm

      "The server contains personal communications from my husband and me" HRC March, 2015

      LIE

      HRC claimed she was the target of sniper fire.

      LIE

      HRC claimed her daughter was jogging around Twin Towers on 9/11.

      LIE

      HRC claimed having only one device and only one email account while at Foggy Bottom.

      LIE

      HRC claimed all her grandparents were immigrants.

      LIE

      HRC claimed she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary.

      LIE

      HRC claimed she never solicited Sydney Blumenthal's advise while at Foggy Bottom.

      LIE


      Are you sure you want to play this game?

      Delete
    30. I've never seen such a rabid case of CDS.

      Delete
    31. @ 7:08

      You must have been born after 2008 as BDS spawned an entire propaganda machine* obsessed with every utterance from Bush 43.

      *See Media Matters

      Delete
    32. Every guest at the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes wedding is a closet disciple of Scientology.

      Delete
    33. Oh, I see. Clinton Derangement Syndrome is OK, because "you guys" had Bush Derangement Syndrome.

      Cicero, you are now reduced to accusing Hillary of lying when she said she sent e-mails to Bill on the same account.

      Oh, and by the way, Hillary never claimed she HAD only one e-mail account. She claimed she only USED one e-mail account.


      Delete
    34. Worse than that. Earlier Cicero said she lied when she said she and Bill exchanged e-mails on that account, and now he's claiming she lied when she said she never received e-mails from Bill.

      Damned if she did, damned if she didn't.

      Delete
    35. @ 8:15 & 8:34

      HRC has managed to confuse the both of you which was her intent. Willie does not use email. Willie has never sent HRC an email. How can HRC send Willie an email when he doesn't use email?

      Why did Willie contradict HRC after she committed herself to this story during the March U.N. press conference? Perhaps that is the Clinton notion of foreplay?

      Delete
    36. Please stop calling the former President of the United States "Willie." It is disrespectful. You are only doing it to irritate Democrats here, so that makes you a hostile little turd. If you want to discuss issues, fine. Some people seem to be willing to tolerate discussion. If you are here just to irritate people and call names, you don't belong here and need to go away.

      Delete
    37. @4:13

      No doubt you are apoplectic about liberals calling Bush 43 "Shrub."

      I haven't referred to him by his nickname "Slick Willie." Willie is short for his middle name William. Why does his own name irritate you? I also refer to Eisenhower as Ike. Does that offend you as well?

      Delete
    38. Self-confesse turd. I won't be responding to you again.

      Delete
    39. @8:23

      You see. Some good did come out of this exchange.

      Delete
  5. Back off, Trump. Those so-called anchor babies will be paying for my Social Security for years to come!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob says Trump’s immigration proposals strikes him as utterly ludicrous. Me too. Trouble is, every immigration proposal strikes me as ludicrous. If we legalize the current illegal immigrants, we'll have another 20 million illegals to deal with in a few years. Then, they'll be legalized and we'll have 20 million more.

    A sensible proposal would legalize those who are here, while making sure that future illegals can't come to this country. I don't know how that can be accomplished or if it's even possible. So, voters are left with a choice of ludicrous proposals. They have to decide which is the least bad choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you dealing with them now? How?

      There's no longer significant immigration into this country. Not in the last few years.

      Delete
    2. A "sensible" proposal that may not be possible and may not be doable. Do you even bother to read what you type?

      ".. voters are left with a choice of ludicrous proposals."

      Especially coming from that clown bus you call GOP candidates.

      Delete
    3. @ 7:41

      And the DNC short bus contains all white geriatrics looking for another white geriatric to save their chances in 2016.

      Delete
    4. cicero's blowup dollAugust 28, 2015 at 8:04 PM

      @ 7:55

      Typical gibberish from the Turing-Test troll.

      Delete
    5. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      Delete
    6. @11:36

      All those immigrants who sailed into New York harbor and gazed up at the French gift to the USA went through an immigration process that gave them legal status.

      Delete
    7. Not true. Only after 1906. The statue of liberty was dedicated in 1886. There were restrictions on Chinese then, but no standardized immigration process until 1906 (after the railroads, bridges and tunnels were built).

      Delete
    8. @1:27

      But 11:36 specifically mentioned "The New Colossus" which wasn't mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal until 1903. The first federal immigrant inspection station on Ellis Island opened in 1892. 450,000 immigrants were processed that year. What is your definition of processed?

      Delete
    9. You mentioned a standardized immigration process. It was enacted in 1906. Whatever was done in NYC was not standardized or embodied in law until that 1906 law. People came into the country in lots of other places besides Ellis Island. Before restrictions were placed on who could immigrate, inspection was to determine health and fitness. It was Henry Goddard's claim that large numbers of immigrants from certain countries (especially Eastern and Southern Europe) were mentally defective that led to the quotas. He tested immigrants at Ellis Island using IQ tests that were administered to non-English speakers in English, to determine they were subpar intellectually. That was the justification for the quotas. Not one of the shining moments in US history.

      Delete
    10. @3:45

      All I said in connection to the Statute of Liberty in New York Harbor, which 11:36 made reference to, was that there was an immigration process which did indeed exist since 1892.

      FDR, with the blessing of the liberal SCOTUS, interned 100,000 Japanese Americans. In 20/20 historical hindsight, not a shinning moment either. None of the less than stellar moments in American history have negatively impacted the desire of foreign born folks to continue to want to live here.

      Delete
    11. You were wrong. Admit it instead of changing the subject.

      Delete
    12. @7:07

      You were the one who changed the subject when you jumped in with a non sequitur about "standardized immigration" not occurring until 1906. That doesn't have anything to do with my response to 11:36
      reference to "The New Colossus." immigrants who saw the Statue of Liberty were arriving in the U.S. about to be processed legally rather than those sneaking into the U.S. on the Southern border.

      Delete
    13. You said there were standized immigration processes. There were different processes in different cities, not standardized processes. Those were specified by law in 1906. You were mistaken.

      Nearly half of US illegal immigrants do not come from the South. Many come from Canada, and many overstay tourist and other visas, flying in to lots of cities, not smuggled in. But somehow that Southern border seems to bother you the most. Why is that?

      Delete
    14. @8:13

      Now all you have to do is show me where I ever said "standardized immigration process." How much time will you require before your realize your search efforts are in vain?

      You are the only one who mentioned "standardized" apparently because it gives you cover for some point you have failed to make. The discussion was only about New York City Harbor.

      More than half of the illegal aliens do come from the South and are indeed smuggled in. Why do you champion the Coyotaje?

      "Mexicans make up about half of all unauthorized immigrants (52%), though their numbers have been declining in recent years. There were 5.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012, down from 6.4 million in 2009, according to Pew Research Center estimates"

      Delete
    15. I think nearly half = 52%. It is misleading to call 52% "more than half" because it isn't very much more than half. Not everyone who is from Mexico is smuggled in. Some walk in, some cross as visitors or students and overstay their visas.

      We aren't disagreeing. Your facts (from Pew Research) are the same as what I said.

      You claimed there was a process for legal immigrant in NYC. There were processes for entering (people's names were recorded, they were quarantined if ill, sent back if defective). NYC did these things to cope with the large numbers of immigrants coming off ships. There was not a national immigration process for entry that made people legal, as you claimed. That came later. In other cities, you walked off the ship into the city and looked for a room, a job and friends or family. That's what it was like for most of our grandparents or great-grandparents. It is only after the Eugenicists started worrying about the dilution of American stock by inferior peoples coming from places like Italy and Hungary, that immigration because a big concern. Nativist idiots used the same arguments as Trump and the other Republicans. If you go back and read the arguments against immigration offered in the early 20th century you will be amazed how similar it is to today's arguments. Except then people worried about being polluted by Irish and Scandinavians, not Mexicans. Those nationalities were considered "races" in that time period.

      Delete
    16. The Margaret Sanger Award for Media Excellence is coveted by "journalists." In case this is news to you, Sanger was a notorious eugenicist. I guess liberals pick and chose which eugenicists they champion and which ones they blame for Nativism.

      Delete
    17. Many prominent people were eugenicists around the turn of the century. Of course I pick and choose which ones to champion. For example, I like Galton (who suggested encouraging people to voluntarily consider genetics) but not Goddard (who enacted forced sterilization of people who were considered defective, such as wanton women and alcoholics). Sanger advocated giving women access to brth control, so they could control the size of their families and the spacing of their children. But to you, all eugenicists were the same, I suppose. I know many conservatives have no interest in eliminating birth defects -- it is all God's will that children suffer and die of awful genetic conditions.

      Delete
    18. @7:00

      You champion Sanger whom you characterize as a cuddly eugenicist who merely wished to provide women access to birth control. By the time the NSDAP came on the scene in 1920 Germany, Hank Goddard was admitting errors in his earlier research. On the other hand, by 1938, Sanger was praising the sterilization laws of the National Socialists. In your liberal estimation does blindness, and deafness constitute "awful genetic conditions?"

      "Reports in medical journals state that the indications laid down in the German law are being carefully observed. These are gongenital feeble-mindedness; schizophrenia, circular insanity; heredity epilepsy; hereditary chorea (Huntington’s)’ hereditary blindness or deafness; grave hereditary bodily deformity and chronic alcoholism.

      Surely everyone will agree that the children of parents so afflicted are no contribution to the nation for even if they do not inherit these defects they are children of parents so handicapped that life will give them little, owing to their necessarily bad environment.

      There are 1,700 special courts and 27 higher courts in Germany to review the cases certified for sterilization there. The rights of the individual could be equally well safeguarded here, but in no case should the rights of society, or which he or she is a member, be disregarded."

      Delete
    19. Margaret Sanger is responsible for the Holocaust?

      Delete
    20. @12:53

      She is? Why didn't the Allies try her at Nuremberg?

      Delete
  7. Just enforce the law as it stands and prosecute employers who hire illegal immigrants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happens if you do that and you end up with 10 to 20 million people living in desperate circumstances in this country, but in circumstances that they adjudge to be better circumstances than they would find in a developing nation -whether it's one that's in the OECD or not- (i.e. in what used to be called a third world nation)?

      Delete
    2. Put 10 to 20 million employers in FEMA camps.

      Delete
  8. Those children of immigrants won't get social security or Medicare unless they pay into the system. They will also pay income tax. How will we be supporting them?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bob Somerby seems happily anchored in the same blog post of Kevin Drum for a fourth day. Has he said anything new? Or has he dropped the same "L",and "D" bombs on liberals he has been fruitlessly dropping for a decade and a half with no impact whatsoever?

    ReplyDelete
  10. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suck it, Becky Miller!

      Delete
  12. Credit to Somerby for his discussion of the origins, evolution, and influence of conservative misinformation regarding immigration. Particularly "anchor baby" misinformation.

    Spoken like a true liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Uh-oh! Under immigration law, a family can’t automatically stay in the States just because its child is born a citizen. That baby can’t sponsor his parents for citizenship until he turns 21!

      This complicates the initial, simple-minded claim in which entire families were able to come to the U.S., “anchored” by one birthright citizen baby. As it turned out, that initial claim was misleading, facile, massively simplified." BS

      Credit to Somerby? Uh oh. His discussion complicates the simple fact that the term "anchor baby" is a lie.

      Delete
    2. Bob is never offended by lies from right-wing demagogues. He only gets offended by those who call out those lies.

      Delete
    3. How do you know what Somerby is or is not offended by, beyond what he says in his posts?

      Delete
    4. You don't really have to go beyond his posts to see that Somerby is far more offended, far more often, by Rachel Maddow alone, than by all the outrageous things all the right-wing demagogues on Fox put together have ever said.

      Delete
    5. Again, how would you know that? You don't know what Somerby does with his time beyond writing this blog. You certainly cannot know what he feels without being a mindreader.

      Delete
    6. I know what I think. I think Bob is right that the whole lot of you are lazy and nobody likes you. This seems to be the most important thing to him.

      Delete
    7. So what you are saying is that Somerby lacks integrity -- in the true meaning of the term -- and is a completely different person outside this blog than he is on it.


      Delete
    8. So who is saying what, that you, a day later, are redefining for them @11:23?

      Delete
  13. Are we willing to love our neighbor? or do we love dropping bombs?

    Answer: the latter. This is demonstrated by Hillary Clinton apparently comparing Republicans to Nazis carrying out the Holocaust. As we know, Jews were indeed transported to death camps in boxcars.

    Hillary: These Republicans want to round up illegals and put them in “boxcars”

    But, give her points for subtlety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary Clinton did not compare Republicans to Nazis carrying out the Holocaust.

      But you just did.

      Until your leading candidate gives a intelligible and coherent explanation for how his plan would work, we're free to imagine anything.

      Delete
    2. People do not generally understand this, but Hitler didn't just round people up and put them in camps. He also redistributed the populations of countries in Europe in order to make them more racially/ethnically homogeneous. It is directly analogous to what Trump and other Republicans are suggesting. They did it by putting people on trains. How else does Trump (or anyone else) think they are going to move hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people? The Nazi's also moved people for purposes of forced labor. Directly analogous to ideas about having deportees build the border wall. The extermination of unwanted people was part of Hitler's larger plan to have Germans be supported in luxury by the slave labor of the inferior people's in the other countries in Europe. Read some history.

      Delete
    3. mm says Hillary wasn't making a Nazi allusion. OTOH Anon 9:27 says the Nazi allusion was appropriate. Now Bill Maher weighs in: "That’s the way Hitler used to talk about the Jews." Isn't it a bit early to start calling Republicans "Nazis"? Are Democrats that desperate?

      There's enormous resentment of politcal correctness in this country. According to Rasmussen, nearly 3 in 4 Americans think political corretness is a problem. This sort of ridiculous attack on Trump only makes him stronger. He's respected for not kowtowing to PC.

      Please stop, or he'll be our next President!

      Delete
    4. Hitler was very popular in Germany. It is in retrospect that we recognize the dangers of his planning. Left to themselves, I've no doubt many people would find Hitler's ideas popular today -- if they were disassociated from Hitler so people didn't recognize their source.

      The Right has long had a love affair with fascism. It is part of its historical legacy, just as the left had a love affair with communism. These pernicious political movements are dangers to our society -- if you think they are safely in the past, you are fooling yourself.

      There were enormous resentments in pre-WWII Germany too. Those resentments were manipulated by Hitler to create his political base. Trump is manipulated the resentments of conservatives every bit as cynically and for the same purposes -- ego aggrandizement, narcissim, power. It is not ridiculous to point out the similarities. Failure to recognize those similarities is how we fall into the trap of electing someone who would not be good for our country.

      Not kowtowing to PC or the Jews or other minorities (blacks, women, Asians, professors) is how Hitler gained popularity.

      Fortunately, we do not have an economic crisis that would help put a person like Trump in power. In Germany, the Army sided with Hitler, as did the Christian Democrats. He was able to put together a coalition and with the tolerance of the Army, he declared himself first chancellor, then dictator. We don't have coalition government and we don't have involvement Church or military in politics. But note that both our military and our Christian conservatives are in favor of right-wing policies and tend to support Republican candidates. They were Hitler's coalition and they are most likely to support someone like Trump now. Labor and the left are once again left to point out the dangers of somehow who has no respect for the rights of minorities, due process, and adherence to law. The parallels are obvious.

      If Trump acts like Hitler, no one is going to keep silent about that. Keeping silent is the surest way to repeat the mistakes of Europe. I think it is a huge mistake to treat Trump as a big joke. He is proposing things that trample due process, make a mockery of the constitution, and are frankly scary. He isn't entertaining -- he is awful. We need to say that loudly and often so that even conservatives can see where their fantasies lead when implemented by someone with no restraint.

      Delete
    5. According to a 1990 Vanity Fair interview, Ivana Trump once told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that her husband, real-estate mogul Donald Trump, now a leading Republican presidential candidate, kept a book of Hitler's speeches near his bed.

      "Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed ... Hitler's speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist," Marie Brenner wrote.


      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8#ixzz3kEBPgrz9

      Delete
    6. AnonymousAugust 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM -- Actually the left had a big time love affair with Italian fascism. Read "Liberal Fascism". But, this doesn't mean that current Democrats are fascists or Nazis. No American party or serious candidate supports the kind of things Hitler did. It's easy to find one resemblance, but it's dumb and invalid. Consider the stupidity of the following
      1. Democrats focus on treating races differently, like Hitler
      2. Democrats are less supportive of Israel's security, so they want another Holocaust.
      3. Democrats favor a strong central government, like Hitler.

      One could make up any number of inane comparisons, but we all know that nobody in American today is another Hitler.

      Delete
    7. Liberal fascism is a crock that makes its case by redefining terms like liberal and fascism until they don't mean what anyone else understands by those terms. If you believe anything in that book, you are majoring gullible and entirely out of touch with everything else written on the topic.

      Trump supports the things Hitler did. He supports rounding up millions of people and sending them away because they are of a different culture or ethnicity. That's exactly what Hitler did.

      Hitler didn't favor a strong central government. He favored a dictatorship. Name one Democrat who favors a dictatorship. Trump, however, behaves like a dictator. He punishes members of the press who he doesn't like and believes he can ignore law if it is inconvenient to his purposes, like a dictator does.

      I think it is very odd for you to think that rectifying disparities and trying to put people on a level playing field constitutes treating races differently. It is not like Hitler because Hitler did so to harm people of the lesser races whereas Democrats wish to repair harm to racial minorities and counteract the effects of discrimination by people who share Hitler's racial attitudes. Your point #2 is majorly confused. The Holocaust affected not only Jews but also Roma, Slavs and Russians, dissidents of various sorts especially communist, professors and intellectuals, gays, the mentally and physically disabled, the aged, artists and musicians, and dissident clergy. Israel is today a refuge for Jews but Jews were half the people murdered by the Nazis. Israel's security has nothing to do with another Holocaust. Preventing people from hurting those who are different from themselves (by policy or by individual action) will do far more to prevent another Holocaust. Classifying people as immigrants and then taking various forms of inhumane action against them is much closer to enacting another Holocaust, in my opinion.

      If you consider my comparisons between Trump and Hitler to be inane, please address your criticisms to that comparison. You cannot refute my statements by thinking up a list of your own idiocies. That isn't thinking -- it is distraction. If you cannot clearly explain why Trump's behavior is not like Hitler's, perhaps it is more similar than you want to admit.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousAugust 29, 2015 at 3:30 PM -- Are you serious?

      I do not favor Trump, but your accusations are incorrect or spin. He favors kicking people out who are here illegally, not because they have a different culture, but because that's what our law says. Trump's treatment of the press is not nearly as dictatorial as Hillary's, not that this makes either of them like Hitler. You accuse him of breaking the law. Yet your biggest complaint is that he says he wants to enforce immigration law. You're the one who advocates breaking the law.

      Anyhow, comparing any candidate to Hitler is ridiculous.
      1. Hitler was a total dictator.
      2. Hitler tried to conquer the world by means of war.
      3. Hitler asserted and enforced racial superiority
      4. Hitler sought to wipe out the Jews and Gypsies, and came pretty close to doing so.

      Delete
    9. You cannot round up 11 million people and send them anywhere without using the Army, invading privacy and constitutional rights of citizens in the process, and mobilizing detention camps and trains. In other words, making the US into a police state.

      Trump seems to think he has racial superiority over Mexicans, most of which are criminals and rapists (but some may be nice people).

      Trump doesn't like having to enact laws or follow the constitution. He thinks he should be able to order something and have it done. He thinks it is OK to arbitrarily throw members of the legitimate press out of his conference for asking a question when it was his turn. He thinks it is OK to attack and threaten members of the press he doesn't like. He clearly does not understand the role of a free press in our society and their duty to vet candidates by asking them questions. Hitler was impatient too with elections and touchy about threats to his dignity. He had people disappeared (you're fired).

      The main difference you note between Trump and Hitler was that Hitler was in power whereas Trump is seeking it. The arbitrariness, order-giving, bullying tone, and his high-handedness with the press suggest he would be more than willing to abuse power should he attain it.

      Have you never heard a Republican candidate say he will bomb Iran, bomb Iraq, bomb ISIS, exert war-like powers to solve a problem in the Middle East? I hear that every time one speaks. Trump asserts he has a secret plan to end problems with ISIS. Hitler agreed to peace terms with any number of neighboring countries then turned around and attacked them without warning (when he wasn't subverting them from within). Why do you suppose high-handed politicians talking about secret plans to conquer ISIS might make historical-minded people nervous?

      We don't need to Trump to specifically target Jews in order to recognize that he and Hitler are brothers -- small men with few accomplishments who like being flattered and like to throw their weight around.

      Delete
  14. The logistics involved in a mass deportation of 11 million people, the elderly, men, women and children, wouldn't be a pretty sight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not recommending the following policy, but it's not that complicated. Suppose we did the following steps:

      1. End Sanctuary Cities.
      2. Punish employers who hire illegals
      3. Prohibit Illegals from receiving any welfare benefits.

      Then most illegals would deport themselves, because they couldn't afford to live here. And, new ones wouldn't come in.

      Delete
    2. @ DiC

      Why are you not advocating ending Sanctuary Cities?

      Delete
    3. Do you guys have any idea how many Americans live in Mexico illegally, without paying any taxes?

      Do you imagine that there are not already "punishments" for employers who hire undocumented workers? Do you think undocumented immigrants are currently receiving welfare benefits? What is the current rate of illegal immigration? Has it slowed down with our recession? Do we have a net increase currently?

      For the people currently living in the US, how disruptive to their lives would it be to make it difficult for them to survive economically? Would that help or hurt our economy, generally speaking?

      I'll bet you do not know the factual answers to any of these questions. I'll bet you both are just mouthing talking points handed to you by conservative websites. If you read the studies of economists and sociologists who study such things, the knee-jerk answers to my questions would be entirely different.

      If you send back all the immigrants because they are supposedly a drain on our economy, who will support our aging population as the baby boomers reach retirement age? We are doing better than Europe at supporting our elderly, largely because of the very large number of younger people who came here as immigrants. We have a more favorable ratio of younger to older people in our country largely because of immigration. If you think it would be wonderful to rid ourselves of immigrants, look first at the struggles Japan is now having in caring for its aging population.

      Delete
    4. Anon 1:03 -- I pretty much agree with you. My father was a (legal) immigrant. He and his family worked hard and no doubt aided the economy. Silicon Valley is full of Latin American and Asian immigrants who work hard and benefit the economy.

      Nevertheless, the US should define who may or may not immigrate here. We have laws allowing a relatively generous number of legal immigrants. We shouldn't ignore the law just because there are a big number of law-breakers. That's essentially mob rule.

      Cicero -- I just didn't want to get into a nasty debate on the merits of that proposal, so I didn't take a position.

      Delete
    5. David, what makes you think we don't have laws about who may or may not legally immigrate here? Who ignores the law? Obama has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, compared to Bush and compared to other presidents. He has been very energetic about enforcing immigration policy. Further, no one on the left has proposed ignoring the law as a matter of policy. These are all straw men.

      There are some difficult cases. Do you send a child back to a country where he will certainly be killed? Do you deport a 20-something college student to Mexico because he finds out at age 20 that he wasn't born in the US, having lived all his life believing he was a US citizen by birth. Is it right to deport someone to a country where they don't speak the language, have never visited, know no one and would be unable to support themselves? How would you reconcile legal requirements with compassion in such cases?

      Delete
    6. Other liberals here and in the real world say Trump's intent to deport illegals makes him like Hitler. OTOH 3:17 boasts about how many Obama has deported. Does that make Obama like Hitler? Can you guys get your stories straight?

      Delete
    7. Obama and HRC have both said that it is physically and economically not feasible to deport all 11 million people who reside in the US without documentation. Trump's intent to circumvent the 14th amendment to the constitution and deport people born in the US and citizens by virtue of that makes him a lawbreaker. It makes him someone who thinks he is not governed by the constitution -- which gives him a lot in common with Hitler when he took power in Germany and immediately set aside the constitutional restrictions on the chancellor. Trump, who supposed is a wonderful businessman, doesn't seem to understand the logistics involved -- that you would need to invade the privacy of many legitimate citizens even to locate the ones who are not here legally. He doesn't appreciate the costs involved in housing and transporting 11 million people. He is so cavalier about this that one can have little faith he will treat those being deported humanely. His willingness to spend huge sums on something like that suggests it is disproportionately important to him to get rid of people who he thinks don't belong here. It is worth the money because his attitude toward those people is that they should be rooted out AT ANY COST. That suggests he does not see them as human beings, like himself, but as something so contaminating that huge amounts of money should be spent to eliminate them. Who else spent huge amounts of money and effort to eliminate people who were viewed as a contaminating influence -- can it be Hitler?

      Obama has been enforcing the law. Demands for complete elimination of all undocumented residents of the US go far beyond that. They call for drastic measures that would disrupt the lives of all legitimate citizens -- to what end? When your neighbors are shipped off in the dark of night, how secure will you sleep in your own bed?

      Delete
    8. Anon - it's not necessarily the case that the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to anyone born here. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this question.

      Delete
    9. The supreme court doesn't ratify constitutional amendments. An amendment is law unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, but if there is no ruling then the amendment is law. The amendment was ratified in 1868. Like it or not, it is law. Trump cannot interfere with the rights of citizens because he doesn't like the law.

      Delete
    10. Anon -- go read the Amendment. The key phrase is,
      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

      What is the meaning of the phrase I highlighted? IMHO it limits automatic citizenship in some way -- namely to people subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Now. I don't know what this phrase means. Maybe it means people residing in other countries are subject to other countries' jurisdiction, rather than US jurisdiction. Maybe it means something else. It's up to the SC to decide.

      Delete
    11. In the meantime, children born in the US are citizens. You can't set aside the law in anticipation of a ruling, especially if there is no case pending. If people could selectively set aside laws because of concerns over phrasing, in the absence of court involvement, we would have chaos. When we have been granting citizenship for over 100 years, the court is unlikely to change things now. This makes it even more ridiculous for Trump to promise he will deny these children citizenship. He has no authority to do that, so it sounds like he is promising to set aside the constitution. That is inflammatory talk.

      Delete
    12. I'm not recommending the following policy, but it's not that complicated. Suppose we did the following steps:

      1) Correct stupid comments based on fiction:

      A) "End sanctuary cities" There is no legal definition of a "sanctuary city." How does one end something which does not exist.

      B) Punish employers who hire illegals. It is already a felony to do so.

      C) Prohibit Illegals from receiving any welfare benefits. It is already illegal for them to receive any public financial assistance. If there are households headed mby non legal residents which have citizen children who are eligibile
      for assistance, those citizens may receive benefits.

      2) Remove people from public office who, after being notified
      they are making stupid comments about immigration based on fiction, repeat such comments.


      Delete
    13. We know what that phrase means, David.

      It excludes Native Americans living on reservations.

      But nice try, all you have to do is get Mark Levin and Sean Hannity on the SC and maybe you got a shot.

      Delete
    14. "I don't know what this phrase means."

      But you are going to interpret it the way you want to anyway, even after admitting you have no idea what it means.


      Delete
    15. People born in the US but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof refers to children of diplomats.

      Delete
    16. D in C, I'm a lawyer. There may nt be any US supreme Curt cases right on point, and I don't know if any lower feferal court has decided on this precise issue. But I think the argument that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. somehow disqualifies person born in the U.S. of nn-citizen parents from U.S. citizenship is a loser. When you are physically in the U.S/ you are subject to U.S. jurisdiction - do you think someone in the U.S. doesn't have to obey U.S. laws or is otherwise exempt from U.S. law? You don't know much about the law of jurisdiction.

      Delete
    17. AC/MA I'm not a lawyer. But I'd kick your ass in court.

      There may not....

      I don't know if.....

      But I think....

      Delete
    18. @12:05

      If you're not a lawyer, you wouldn't be permitted to speak in court. If you tried to kick anyone's ass, the bailiff would remove you promptly.

      Delete
    19. AC/MA -- I'm not a lawyer, FWIW I think you're probably right. i think the SC would interpret the phrase so as to include pretty much all babies born here.

      Delete
    20. @8:07

      As to "A"

      Aspan Law offices with 30 years of immigration experience says you are full of it. There are currently 33 states (and the District of Columbia) that have numerous sanctuary cities.

      http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html

      Delete
    21. From the link you gave cicero:

      "Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws. These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning.

      From comment @ 8:07:

      " There is no legal definition of a "sanctuary city.""

      There is a prescription @ 8:07 for repeating stupid comments about immigration once an elected official is informed of the fiction. Good thing you are not an elected official cicero.

      Prohibition of stupid blog commentary, like prohibition of drugs, alcohol or illegal immigration are a fool's errand.

      Delete
    22. The other 11:27,too bad I can't go against know-nothings like you in court all the time - I'd never lose

      Delete
    23. @3:53

      8:07 claimed there is no "legal definition of a "sanctuary city" so they do not exist. My link to a law firm describes exactly what constitutes a sanctuary city and that even though there is "no legal meaning" for the term has not stopped law firms from recognizing the names of Sanctuary Cities and directing illegal aliens to them.

      "Assault Weapons" had no "legal meaning" until the 1994 federal 10 year ban on them. Apparently, legal meaning can be secured whenever legislators desire it.

      Delete
  15. "Every liberal knows to cite it, after which we get to return to the practice we love—taking offense at the “slurs” The Other Tribe is employing.

    We modern liberals love the act of taking offense in this manner."

    Let's see. Is taking offense at "false" criticism of candidates Gore and Clinton, then calling these criticisms acts of "War" or "Jihads"a demonstration of the modern liberal doing what liberals love?

    ReplyDelete
  16. First you ignore Trump - ("Is he even running?") - then you laugh at Trump - ("Ridiculous hair;" "He's a circus clown") - then you fight Trump - ("HE'S A NAZI WHO WANTS TO KILL SIX MILLION JEWS!!") - then Trump wins - ("Political and economic elites, YOU'RE FIRED!!")

    Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one called Trump a Nazi who wants to kill Jews. He is a fascist who wants to deport "Mexicans" who are all rapists and criminals (but maybe some nice people).

      Trump isn't going to win unless the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by nominating someone other than Hillary Clinton. Trump IS a member of the economic elite. Any talk otherwise is distraction for the gullible.

      Delete
    2. What would Trump be if he hadn't inherited his father's wealth? Broke.

      Delete
    3. Where would FDR have wound up if not for his mother's father's wealth?

      Where would JFK, RFK, Teddy have wound up if not for their father's wealth?

      Where would McCain have would up if not for his 2nd wife's family money?

      Delete
    4. Gosh Cicero, you really know nothing whatsoever about history, do you?

      Trump has failed in business (e.g., lost lots of money) and only has money now because he was left so much of it by his father. He has lost more than he has made.

      FDR, JFK, RFK and Teddy all succeeded in politics. They were not businessmen at all. Similarly McCain -- and you left out John Kerry.

      If you want to participate in this discussion, you might ask what kind of businessmen JFK, RFK, McCain, Kerry etc. would have made. I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't lose more money than they made -- so they'd be better in business than Trump.

      All those you have named are already better in politics than Trump. Trump is the only one of the bunch who has not been elected to any political office.

      Delete
    5. @ 3:54

      Without being born into wealth, neither FDR, JFK, RFK nor Teddy would have had the connections, money and influence behind them to assure their political fortunes.

      McCain didn't get into politics until after he married Cindy.

      Kerry was already in politics long before he married into the Heinz fortune.

      Ike hadn't been elected to anything before he was elected POTUS.

      By your inane definition of successful businessmen, Howard Hughes failed in business because he lost lots of money but was left money by his father's Hughes Tool Company.

      Trump has numerous legitimate foibles without you manufacturing them.

      Delete
    6. I hate Trump.

      Delete
    7. @10:08

      "No one called Trump a Nazi who wants to kill Jews. He is a fascist ..."

      Glad we clarified that. He's not a Nazi, just a fascist (who wants to round people up in boxcars, according to the democratic frontrunner).

      As a Trump fan, I strongly urge his opponents to continue these hysterical attacks, as they will make his victory all but assured.



      Delete



  17. How To Get Your Lost Husband Back

    “LOVE is the key to LIFE”. That was the word from Dr Ukaka when I consulted his powerful Love Temple. I married the wrong man; I realized that after four years of our unfruitful marriage. Everything was going from Best to Worst in our life, no child, I got demoted from work after our marriage, my husband was sacked a year after. His application for new job in various offices was constantly declined even though he was qualified enough. I was made to take care of my family with the low income I earn get that wasn’t enough to pay our rent. We keep praying a seeking for help from some people, my friends laugh at me behind because I was advised not to get married yet.It was one Thursday night that my husband woke me up and told me that has thought enough about our crisis, he said that our crisis is not ordinary and it’s beyond our spiritual level. He suggested we should consult Dr Ukaka from testimonies he showed me online about how he has been helping families. I was afraid, I don’t like evil or spell but I supported him to contact him if he can help us. We consulted him via freedomlovespell@hotmail.com and he replied positively after 20munites with congratulating email that he can help us but he will need our pure heart and trusts in his work if he will cast the spell on us and purify our life. We agreed to his terms. He cast the spell and told us to expect results within 5days. I waited for three days nothing happened, so I started having doubt and blaming my husband for emailing Dr Ukaka. It was on the fifth day that my husband was called for an interview and he got a well-paying work, I was prompted to a higher position. I missed my period on the 5th day and it was confirmed that I am with a baby. Things have really changed for us for good and we now have our own house and cars. I will never forget what Dr Ukaka told us “LOVE is the key to LIFE”, this word keep me going. People that laughed at us are coming close for help and I am delighted to welcome them because my family is now blessed. Dr Ukaka is a savior and man that keep to his word even when I doubted his powers at the end of the spell. Thank you great Dr Ukaka and your Oracle for helping us via freedomlovespell@hotmail.com and I will keep spreading this message to people in need of help. also contact him for help.website address: freedomlovespelltemple.yolasite.com ;

    ReplyDelete
  18. New poll shows Clinton beating everyone in Iowa, yet headlines frame it as bad news for Clinton:

    http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214461/clinton-poll-lead

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the poll:

      Trump remains deeply disliked by the majority of voters who are not his supporters; 26% of Republicans say they would never vote for him and 54% of all voters view him negatively. Clinton, who is still dogged by questions about her use of a private email server, now has 61% of Americans viewing her as untrustworthy and 51% viewing her unfavorably.

      Delete
    2. As Nate Silver has pointed out, a candidate's unfavorable ratings have little impact on voting. Is it any surprise that most Democrats view Jeb Bush unfavorably, for example? What matters are the favorable ratings. Clinton's are unchanged by the questions about her use of her server and have remained steady since last March. She beats every proposed Republican candidate by a healthy margin.

      Digby yesterday suggested that Trump can win by attracting Democratic voters who dislike Clinton, especially men. I find the idea that Democrats would vote for Trump pretty ludicrous, but maybe I am underestimating sexism. It is also entirely consistent with the attacks on Clinton "from the left" perpetrated by diehard Obama people (joined by first-time voters), who have now shifted their allegiance to Sanders. Those Sanders enthusiasts are certainly capable of siphoning off support from the Democratic frontrunner and giving the election to the Republican of their choice. I find myself deeply disliking those people for reviving the inter-party animosity of 2008. I think these guys got their way in 2008 and now need to BACK THE FUCK OFF and let Hillary have the chance she has earned. Similarly, urging poor old Joe Biden to run is pretty low -- let the man grieve his son and finish his career in dignity, without blowing money and years in a useless campaign aimed largely at keeping Clinton out of office (knocking out our first viable female presidential candidate).

      With the press calling Clinton a liar 24/7, what else would you expect in polling of such questions? It takes a moron to point to such numbers as if they mean anything real.

      Delete
    3. Clintonomous at work posing as Anonymous @ 1:12:

      Digby yesterday suggested that Trump can win by attracting Democratic voters who dislike Clinton, especially men.

      What Digby actually wrote:

      "Here's something to ponder, however. If Trump keeps on this path of taxing the rich and defending social security, what are the chances that some white Democrats who are deeply distrustful of a woman in leadership and don't care much for immigrants themselves start to look at Trump and think he's talking some truths for them too. I don't know how many of those there are, but I have to assume there are a few..."

      Delete
    4. Yes, and the implication is that we will be stuck with Trump if we run that awful Clinton woman that those white Democrats are so distrustful of. Never mind that blue collar white Democrats were Clinton's core in 2008. Digby has been doing a lot of anti-Clinton pondering lately.

      Delete
  19. New poll cited by article linked to by @ 10:04 is not a poll of Iowa.

    Headline and article linked to by @ 10:04 cited as bias against Clinton shows bias in favor of Clinton. Headlines chosen actually reflect the headline of the pollster, Quinnipiac, in its own press release:

    " Biden Runs Better Than Clinton Against Top Republicans, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Trump GOP Lead Grows As Clinton Dem Lead Shrinks"

    Vox article fails to mention last point, Clinton has dropped 10 points among Democrats in just a month, with no Democrat campaigning negatively against her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Clinton is going to drop as new candidates enter the race. Where do you think votes for those new candidates come from? There aren't a lot of undecideds.

      All Democrats who aren't defending her against this ridiculous email pseudo-scandal are campaigning negatively against her. It is craven of Bernie Sanders to let the Republicans do his dirty work for him.

      Clinton is the far and away front runner in the Democratic party. To suggest she is in trouble or "dropping" is silly and would not be stated that way if she were anyone but Hillary Clinton.

      Delete
    2. Biden has several liabilities: (1) the anti-bankruptcy bill, (2) the anti-crime legislation, (3) his advice to Obama not to go after Bin Laden, (4) his inability to keep his hands to himself around women, including young girls, (5) his tendency to make ill-considered remarks (gaffes). He has sympathy now but if he seriously runs, these issues will make him vulnerable. They are all more serious than the pseudo-scandals being aimed at Clinton. Biden would be a fool to run.

      Delete
    3. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed right now. If Biden was the presumptive nominee and Hillary Clinton were playing this ridiculous game of Hamlet?

      The press would be roasting her worse than they are now already. All she had to do was come was come in 7 % behind Obama in Iowa in 2008 and they were demanding she get out of the raise so as not to hurt poor Obama.

      The double standard is simply astounding.

      Delete
    4. @mm

      The Obama Administration and the main stream media have it in for poor little HRC and still HRC has the ḥutspâ to whine about how all her self induced troubles are the result of a "right wing conspiracy."

      Has it occurred to the Howler libs who support HRC that those who find her unctuous, vapid and veal are spread across the political spectrum?

      Delete
    5. hutspa? Phonetic Yiddish? Veal?

      Delete
    6. Of course @ 12:59 is not going to acknowledge the mistakes she/he made @ 10:04. One reason for the attraction to Clinton.

      Instead @ 12:59 merely plows ahead with a new error, that Clinton's dropping support is the result of "new candidates."

      The names on the Quinnipiac poll last month were the same as the one's this month. Clinton has lost 10 points, going from a majority to a plurality.

      Delete
    7. Can you imagine how much more ludicrous the whining from mm and other Clinton supporters will become if the candidate they favor blows another inevitable nomination?

      Delete
    8. That's another Clinton rule. They proclaim her nomination inevitable, do everything they can to prevent it, then blame her for blowing it. Clinton herself has never considered her nomination inevitable. This is a media game.

      Delete
    9. Clintonomous, this time performing as Anonymous @ 4:54,
      ignores his/her doubling down on polling errors and comes back with the old blame the media whine.

      This time it is the media's fault that Clinton's nomination in 2008 was considered "inevitable."

      From Gallup in October 2007:

      The Democratic Race: Conditions Auspicious for Sen. Clinton to Win

      Gallup’s national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the Democratic primaries. Clinton that he has been in all year.

      No other announced or potential Democratic candidate has come close to threatening Clinton’s front-runner status since the campaign began.

      Consistent Run at the Top

      Clinton has led the Democratic pack in every Gallup Poll conducted. For most of this time, Clinton has led a double-digit margin.


      Gallup polling on Democratic nominations going back to the 1972 election shows that, by historical standards, a lead of even 20 points is large for Democratic candidates. The two candidates who held this distinction in the fall months before the election year (Gore in 1999 and Walter Mondale in 1983) eventually won the Democratic nomination.

      Gallup was not the media playing a game.

      Delete
    10. @4:54,

      Exactly. She sure is working her ass off for someone who feels "entitled" to a "coronation".

      Delete
    11. She has to work her ass off mm. The last time she had a huge lead she blew it to an unknown, inexperienced guy.

      These lazy dumb liberals won't just "BACK THE FUCK OFF and let Hillary have the chance she has earned" to quote one of those people Bob Somerby may have guessed are Hillary's biggest problem.

      Delete
    12. "Clinton has led the Democratic pack in every Gallup Poll conducted. For most of this time, Clinton has led a double-digit margin."

      And then the NY Times hopped in bed with a republican ratfucker filled with lies, half-truths and unfounded innuendo, which permitted the entire weight of the Washington establishment media come stomping down on her announcement as a candidate.

      Followed by the NY Times publishing another front page story essentially calling her a criminal which they had to almost entirely grudgingly withdraw but not after the damage was done.

      It is remarkable how much contempt the elite media has for the average voter watching what is going on. We're not supposed to notice the extraordinary efforts that are putting forth to apply their considerable weighty thumbs to the scales.

      Maybe that's why the media polls slightly higher than pond scum with the American people.

      Delete
    13. Here is an interesting discussion of the discrepancies between national and state polling and why the results are screwy.

      "The 2016 presidential polling is deeply weird (but does that matter?)" by Steve Singiser at Daily Kos

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/30/1416196/-The-2016-presidential-polling-is-deeply-weird-but-does-that-matter

      Delete
  20. IMHO the Dems don't have an ideal candidate. Hillary is too old. Biden and Sanders are much too old. One senile President was more than enough.

    Hillary has no history of greatness or heroism, as Ike did. Her one big administrative job, Secretary of State, isn't regarded as a great performance. In fact, fairly or unfairly, it's a negative because of the e-mails. She's not a great speaker or campaigner. Like Jeb Bush, her candidacy was built on the coattails of a relative.

    Of course, if Trump is the Republican candidate, then he'd be worse than any Democrat.

    The candidate I worry about is Elizabeth Warren. She's smart and attractive, a good speaker. She hasn't done anything, but that means there's nothing to attack with negative ads. I would dread the harm she'd do to the country, but, I think she'd have a better chance to be elected President than Clinton, Biden, of Sanders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ronald Reagan was not senile. He had Alzheimer's disease. You can get that at age 50. Senile dementia is a catchall term that encompasses symptoms that can have a wide variety of causes from dehydration to drug side effects to diabetes. It is important for older people to have good health care so that such causes can be dealt with preventatively and cognition can be preserved. There is no reason to think Biden, Sanders or Clinton would not have the best of health care, and no inevitability to cognitive decline absent health problems. Each of them seems plenty sharp and there is no reason to believe they would not remain so, at least for one term (which is all anyone runs for at a time).

      Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State IS regarded as successful by Democrats. It is no surprise to find you knocking it. The emails, similarly, are not a negative to Democrats. She is quite inspiring, especially in smaller venues where people really get to see her personality. She has inspired widespread support -- and don't forget that she won the primary vote (Obama won the caucuses and superdelegates). Again, it is no surprise that you don't find her inspiring. Your pretense at objectivity is kind of obnoxious.

      Elizabeth Warren is not running. Her lack of experience would be a huge negative, even among Democrats. We have had one relatively inexperienced president and voters are unlikely to trade charisma for experience again. Your fantasy that she would be more electable than Clinton is grounded on nothing. Also, she is the same age as Clinton and only slightly younger than Sanders and Biden.

      Delete
    2. I think it is time somebody regularly follow Clintonomous, the commenter this time performing as Anonymous @ 3:44 with the truth.

      " and don't forget that she won the primary vote (Obama won the caucuses and superdelegates)."

      Time and again the claim is advanced that Clinton led in primary votes in 2008.

      This repetitive claim requires counting Clinton's improbable 328,309 to 0 victory in the Michigan primary Obama and other major Democrats did not contest in 2008.

      Delete
    3. Clinton didn't tell Obama not to run in Michigan. That was his error, which the DNC Rules Committee fixed for him. It doesn't change the facts. Since Obama didn't run in Michigan, he had more time and resources to campaign elsewhere. I doubt you'd be willing to adjust the total in any other state to account for that. The claim is true.

      Delete
    4. Anon 3:44 Alzheimer's Disease is a synonym for senility, according to the dictionary.

      synonyms: doddering, doddery, decrepit, senescent, declining, infirm, feeble; aged, long in the tooth, in one's dotage; mentally confused, having Alzheimer's (disease), having senile dementia; informalpast it, gaga

      Delete
    5. Anon 3:44 IMHO Obama has set a new standard making lack of experience no longer a huge negative. Warren's experience is comparable to Obama's -- law professor and briefly a Senator. Similarly on the other side, I've seen plenty of criticism of Ted Cruz, but not lack of experience. Yet, by old standards, his experience is skimpy -- lower level government positions and briefly a Senator. And, look who's leading the Republican polls, with no relevant experience at all. Ugh!

      Delete
    6. Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State IS regarded as successful by Democrats. It is no surprise to find you knocking it.

      I don't want to be unfair, but I cannot think of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State. Maybe she doesn't deserve blame for Benghazi, the e-mails, and the messes in the middle east and the Ukraine, but these are not positives.

      Delete
    7. ". . . I cannot think of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State."

      And how surprising is that?

      Delete
    8. You don't look up medical terms in the dictionary.

      Delete
    9. 6:21 -- Can you please describe some of Hillary's achievements as Secretary of State?

      Thanks.

      Delete
    10. @DiC

      HRC presented Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift-wrapped button swiped from a Jacuzzi emblazoned with the English and Russian words for “reset.”

      Unfortunately, Lavrov pointed out that peregruzka – printed not in Cyrillic but in Latin script – means “overcharge.”



      Delete
    11. David,

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State

      Delete
  21. My Husband divorce me for no reason for 9 months and i tried all I could to have him back because I really love him so much but all my effort did not work out,My name is Becky Miller, I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My Husband divorce me for no reason, this is how i get him back today because i really love him so much,I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony, My name is Becky Miller, from USA a banker by Profession. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How Dr Eboehi The Great Spell Caster help Bring Back My Ex Lover: Husband

    Hello My name is Kathie Sherine, Am from USA, Texas. and I am very happy for posting on this blog on how a great spell caster helped me in bringing back the love of my life. I know there are lots of women like me out there who have done so much to have back their Husband, I am here to tell you all to search no further because the answer is right here. I sincerely believe if there are up to five spell casters like Dr Eboehi this world would be a better place, I have seen people complaining on how fake spell castes promised to help them but couldn't but with Dr Eboehi I tell you your problem is solved already. My Husband and I had been apart for 3 YEARS and I couldn't bear without living without him, I have tried everything to have him back but nothing was working until I saw numerous testimonies about a spell caster called Dr Eboehi and how great his work is. I contacted him via email (eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com) immediately and follow the step that he ask and in the next 48 hours my lover called me and was eager for my forgiveness and that he wished nothing more than to have me in his arms forever. I filled so much joy and happiness that I found Dr Eboehi, I hope you all here will find this testimony of mine and get your husband back in just 48 hours thanks... contact his email: eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com or call (208) 627-4749

    ReplyDelete