Happy Leap Day, everyone! Enjoy a yuge LinkSwarm, and if you’re in Texas or another Super Tuesday state, take time to dig out your voter registration card for tomorrow.
Posts Tagged ‘Border Controls’
Early voting started in Texas Monday, which means I’m way behind on covering state and local races. Oh well, maybe later this week…
Sanders’s margin of victory — 60 percent to 39 percent — was the largest ever by a Democrat who wasn’t a sitting president. It was a come-from-behind win: Eight months ago, Sanders was at 9 percent and Clinton held a 46-point advantage. And Sanders overperformed the polls. Only 1 of the last 15 polls had him above 60 percent; the Real Clear Politics average in New Hampshire had him at 54.5 percent going into the vote.
Then there are the crosstabs. The exit polling for Clinton was brutal. Sanders won men by 35 points; he won women by 11. He won voters under the age of 30 by 67 points. People expect that of Sanders and his children’s crusade. Clinton took home senior citizens, 54 percent to 45 percent. People expect that of Clinton’s boomers. But in the big band of middle-aged Democrats, ages 45 to 64 (who made up 42 percent of the electorate), Sanders beat Clinton 54 percent to 45 percent. He beat her among Democrats with a high school diploma or less; he beat her among Democrats with postgraduate degrees. Among people who’d voted in a Democratic primary before, Sanders won by 16 points; among first-time voters, he won by 57. He won self-identified “moderate” voters by 20 points.
Clinton made gun control a substantial part of her pitch in New Hampshire. Sanders won voters who own guns by 40 points. But he won voters who don’t own guns by 14. He even won voters who said that terrorism was their number one concern.
The biggest problem for Clinton, however, came in the candidate-perception categories. The second-most important quality voters said they wanted in a candidate was someone who “cares.” Sanders won these voters by 65 points. The most important quality people said they wanted was “honesty.” Sanders took those people home 92 to 6. Look at that again. When asked “Is Clinton honest and trustworthy?” 53 percent of all voters — not just Sanders voters, but everyone casting a Democratic ballot — said “no.”
Another installment on the battle between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Many of these links come from the #CruzCrew daily briefings I get via email, and from http://conservatives4tedcruz.blogspot.com/.
Unlike so many previously promising GOP leaders who have wilted in the face of media attacks, Ted Cruz has remained unbending while facing a flood of media hostility, as well as hostility from the establishment Republicans and inside-the-Beltway conservative elites. He is firm in his conservative convictions and willingness to speak out against corrupt compromises that defraud the public like the latest Omnibus Spending bill passed by career-minded Republicans in Congress. His positions aren’t swayed by the audience — as noted by his willingness in Iowa to be unwaveringly opposed to unwarranted ethanol subsidies.
Cruz alone – in a full GOP field of talented candidates — has the brain power and experience to excel as a national and world leader in an increasingly violent, troubled world.
How did Republicans and the political class respond to Trump initially? They made fun of how he talked. Everyone was then surprised when people whose speech patterns are among the only patterns that are still socially appropriate to mock responded by liking Trump more (I actually think Trump’s accent is one of his biggest advantages). Making fun of his hair? Think about this the next time you make fun of someone with a mullet. Expressing outrage at his politically incorrect statements? I think Kevin Drum is part of the way there in this typically thoughtful essay in which he discusses the impact that political correctness has on people who feel silenced because they don’t know how to talk. But even this reflects Drum’s own internalized belief that the politically correct way to speak is the correct way to speak, while non-cosmopolitan Americans’ response is more visceral: “Why the hell can’t we call them illegal immigrants? Says who?” And Trump is the only candidate who unambiguously calls this out.
Another one of Obama’s “refugees” makes his presence known:
Authorities said Thursday that two Iraqi refugees have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in Houston and California.
According to the FBI’s Houston office, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was charged with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State, unlawfully attempting to gain U.S. citizenship and making false statements.
Al Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq, entered the United States as a refugee in November 2009 and has lived in Houston since being granted legal permanent residence in August 2011, the FBI said in a prepared statement.
Authorities said Al Hardan is accused of attempting to provide support and resources, including “training, expert advice and assistance and personnel — specifically himself — to a known foreign terrorist organization.”
The FBI also said that Al Hardan lied on his application to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.
“He allegedly represented he was not associated with a terrorist organization when, in fact, he associated with members and sympathizers of ISIL throughout 2014,” the FBI said.
Somehow all these terrorists and rapists keep slipping through that “rigorous screening” Obama likes to talk about…
More links from the big bucket of Jihad news:
Europe has been following the liberal, progressive, pseudo-socialist path a lot longer than we have. Instead of doing little things that make sense all along, they’ll let the problem get really big and stupid, and then it is guillotines, gulags, and cattle cars. There’s a lot of really pissed off Europeans right now, and over the centuries we’ve got plenty of examples of what masses of pissed off Europeans do when pushed.
I stopped doing the regular This Week in Jihad update because: A.) It took a lot of damn time, and B.) Sites like JihadWatch were doing it better.
But since the Paris attacks, a metric ton of Jihad-related links have come streaming out of the firehose, so here’s a new This Week In Jihad just so a I have a place to put them all:
When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world’s leaders will fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist rather than to address the one that does. But don’t worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there’ll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?
What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.
And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.
Over nine years, as I witnessed the neighborhood become increasingly intolerant. Alcohol became unavailable in most shops and supermarkets; I heard stories of fanatics at the Comte des Flandres metro station who pressured women to wear the veil; Islamic bookshops proliferated, and it became impossible to buy a decent newspaper. With an unemployment rate of 30 percent, the streets were eerily empty until late in the morning. Nowhere was there a bar or café where white, black and brown people would mingle. Instead, I witnessed petty crime, aggression, and frustrated youths who spat at our girlfriends and called them “filthy whores.” If you made a remark, you were inevitably scolded and called a racist. There used to be Jewish shops on Chaussée de Gand, but these were terrorized by gangs of young kids and most closed their doors around 2008. Openly gay people were routinely intimidated, and also packed up their bags.
The first, and most obvious, difference: There was no international conspiracy of German Jews in the 1930s attempting to carry out daily attacks on civilians on several continents. No self-identifying Jews in the early 20th century were randomly massacring European citizens in magazine offices and concert halls, and there was no “Jewish State” establishing sovereignty over tens of thousands of square miles of territory, and publicly slaughtering anyone who opposed its advance. Among Syrian Muslims, there is.
And after all that, I probably have another boatload of Jihad links to put up…
Hey, remember how the plight of #SyrianRefugees was suddenly The Most Pressing Moral Issue Since Cecil The Lion? At least among your liberal friends on Facebook and Twitter?
Never mind that right up until the moment Obama announced he wanted to distribute these teaming masses across America, most of those same liberals had never uttered a peep about America’s “duty” to take in Syrian refugees.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the intersection of Righteous Indignation and Moral Preening: After the Paris bombings, a whole lot of people are getting cold feet about the whole idea. Polls show that Americans oppose settling Syrian refugees by at least a 2-to-1 margin.
Among those coming around to more rigorous screening procedures: elected Democrats, especially those up for reelection in 2016.
Now the House has passed a bill that “would halt the resettlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the U.S. and overhaul the screening process,” with 47 Democrats joining Republicans in a veto-proof majority.
Even Hillary’s top donor* is balking at the idea of bringing in more Syrians.
One reason Obama and other Democrats were able to win elections was that they made just enough noises about national security for independents not paying attention to go “Eh, good enough.” But Jack and Jill America, already angry about unchecked illegal immigration and made nervous by jihad attacks here and abroad, are starting to get angry at standing in line to get groped while Democrats insist on importing potential jihadists by the tens of thousands.
Democratic officeholders can certainly defy public opinion when they thinking they’re getting something concrete out of the deal (socialized medicine, graft opportunities, etc.), but aren’t so wild about losing elections for nothing more than moral brownie points. If Syrian refugees are the hill Social Justice Warriors really want to die on, we should let them, and let them take still more Democratic incumbents with them. I’m guessing most elected Democrats aren’t that eager for electoral martyrdom…
*Well, at least top on record donor, discounting all those thinly disguised bribes from Arab rulers…