The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Late Night With In The Mailbox: 11.20.18

Posted on | November 21, 2018 | No Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

EBL: Is The FBI Joining Forces With Antifa & The SPLC Against The Proud Boys?
Twitchy: Joe Scarborough’s Past Just Caught Up With Him, And Boy, Is It Awkward
Louder With Crowder: Alexandria Occasional-Cortex Incorrectly Identifies “Three Chambers” Of Government

Adam Piggott: A Follow-Up On The Things We Like In Chicks, also, Australian Leaders In Denial Over Islam
American Power: Joachim Fest, Hitler
American Thinker: White Racists Picking On D.C. Metro Riders, Again
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Ironic News
BattleSwarm: Dan Crenshaw On Face The Nation
CDR Salamander: Next They Came For The Submarines…
Da Tech Guy: I’m A Racist, Not A Victim! also, Moral Preening App
Don Surber: Words Speak Louder Than Actions In D.C.
Dustbury: The Mystery Of the Cubic Crap [POST OF THE DAY]
First Street Journal: The #NeverTrumpers Push An Option That Doesn’t Really Exist
Fred On Everything: Cheng Two – More Notes On Two Weeks In Red China
The Geller Report: Federal Judge Orders Female Genital Mutilation Charges Against Muslim Doctor Dropped, also, A Corbyn Government In The UK Will Be A Threat To Jews And Israel
Hogewash: Like What? also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Throw Another Straw On the Fire
Legal Insurrection: Actress Files Restraining Order Against #CreepyPornLawyer, also, Eastern Michigan U. Ends “The Vagina Monologues” Since “Not All Women Have Vaginas”
The PanAm Post: Christina Kirchner Continues To “Play A Part” For Macri
Power Line: Opinion Rhapsody, also, The Fine Art Of Dine & Dash
Shot In The Dark: The Bolt From The Blue
STUMP: Taxing Tuesday – Election Results
The Jawa Report: Al-Kabaab Has Another Bad Day
The Political Hat: Leviathan’s Play Date
This Ain’t Hell: Hell Freezes Over, also, Judge Bars Administration From Refusing Asylum Between Ports Of Entry
Victory Girls: Obama Says We Won’t Fight Climate Change Because Of “Mommy Issues”
Volokh Conspiracy: Remembering The Dale Akiki Case
Weasel Zippers: South African White Farmer Land Grabs Will Be Legal After Constitution Changed, also, Science Journal Nature Claims Defining Gender By Genitals “Has No Basis In Science”
Mark Steyn: Of Rain And Wrecks, also, Welcome To The Hotel Brexifornia

Black Friday Deals Week
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Amazon Renewed – Certified Refurbs

E-Mail to a Liberal Professor

Posted on | November 20, 2018 | No Comments

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 9:45 a.m. ET
From: Robert McCain ([email protected])
To: Joan C. Williams ([email protected])

Dear Professor Williams:
Your article in The Atlantic (“The Democrats’ White-People Problem”) has come to my attention. You make many interesting points, e.g.:

“Why not just wait for the white working class to die off?” asked an audience member at last year’s Berkeley Festival of Ideas. I get this question a lot, and I always reply: “Do you understand now why they voted for Trump? Your attitude is offensive, and Trump is their middle finger.”

This is in some sense accurate, although I think you (and liberals more generally) are guilty of over-interpreting the 2016 election. Isn’t it true that liberals would have been shocked and alarmed if any Republican had won the presidency? That is to say, after eight years of Obama, liberals seemed to assume that the Permanent Democrat Majority was now a fact of history and, with the massive hype of Hillary’s campaign as the next logical step of Progress-with-a-capital-P (the first female president succeeding the first black president), failure in 2016 would have been deeply disappointing to liberals, no matter who the GOP had nominated. Since the shocking result of Nov. 8, 2016, the professional analysts whose job it is to tell us What It Means have seized upon Trump as a symbol of racism and misogyny without considering the possibility that maybe those 63 million Trump voters just didn’t like Hillary.

If Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio had won the Republican nomination, perhaps the pain of liberals would not be so acute, but why did Trump destroy the GOP primary field like Godzilla stomping through Tokyo? Well, he had the celebrity factor working for him, and he was Not a Politician. Going back at least as far as the Ross Perot campaign of 1992, a sizable number of Americans have shown a willingness to elect non-politicians to high office. Remember pro wrestler Jesse Ventura getting elected governor of Minnesota? Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger getting elected governor of California? Remember Al Franken getting elected to the Senate? Indeed, if you will recall, businessman Herman [Cain] was the front-runner in the 2012 GOP presidential field until accusations of sexual impropriety wrecked his campaign. So the populist appeal of the “outsider” — the Not-a-Politician candidate — was demonstrable before Trump entered the 2016 campaign and, more than anything else, his success showed that a lot of voters are just sick and tired of the status quo. And while many liberals saw Hillary’s campaign as progressive (#ImWithHer), a lot of voters saw her as very much part of the status quo, seeking a dynastic succession to her husband’s presidency.

For a Democrat to lose Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan required something of a Perfect Storm convergence of factors, and perhaps if the Clintons had not rigged the nomination through their control of the DNC (thanks for that information, Wikileaks!), maybe she would have gotten all those Bernie voters who felt they got cheated in the primaries. This sense that “the fix was in” — that Hillary’s nomination was arranged, rather than fairly won — only reinforced Trump’s populist argument that our government had been captured by insiders (“the Deep State”) and was not responsive to We the People. Probably a university law professor would scoff at that argument, but it was persuasive to a lot of voters who aren’t law professors and who, quite frankly, don’t care much for the opinions of law professors. But I digress . . .

Your basic argument is that working-class white voters rejected Hillary Clinton because she failed to articulate a message that addressed the economic interests of those voters. But was that really it? Was Obama’s success due to his economic agenda? Was Bill Clinton elected because of economic issues? I don’t think so. Rather, both of the recent two-term Democrat presidents won mainly on the basis of personality. They were likeable in a way that Hillary Clinton (and Al Gore, and John Kerry) were not likeable. There is a notable tendency of intellectuals to believe that, because elections should be decided on matters of policy, that they actually are decided that way, but is this really true? If policy decides elections, what did the three consecutive Republican landslides of 1980, 1984 and 1988 signify? What did the Republican midterm victories of 1994 and 2010 signify? In other words, when Republicans win elections, isn’t it fair to assume this indicates voters have rejected Democrat policies? Why is it, however, that liberals always react to GOP victories as if some kind of terrible trick has been played on the electorate, that voters have been deceived by those crafty Republicans?

Isn’t it a fact that liberals always consider Republican victories to be illegitimate in some sense? Don’t you, as a liberal, believe that the Democrat Party is the sole repository of political virtue in America, and that Republicans are the party of “hate”? Your particular field of academic expertise is focused on feminism. Would I be incorrect in presuming that you see male-female relations as a zero-sum-game, so that you oppose anything which advances the general interests of males, e.g., efforts to protect the kind of industrial jobs that provide a decent wage for men without college educations? This suggestion may shock you, but if working-class men believe that academic feminists are generally hostile to their interests, are they wrong? And isn’t it true that academic feminists almost universally support the Democrat Party? Indeed, wasn’t Yale Law alumna Hillary Clinton a representative of this alliance between elite academia and the Democrat Party?

What I am driving at here, Professor Williams, is that while working-class white people may not always be articulate in expressing their grievances, it is wrong to suppose that they are incapable of identifying their own interests, and voting accordingly. For more than 20 years, working-class voters have expressed their opposition to trade deals like NAFTA, and also their opposition to an “open borders” immigration policy. Rejecting the standard-issue Chamber of Commerce “country club Republican” line on these issues, Trump gave voice to the grievances of these voters — “Build the wall!” — and won their votes. Insofar as policy issues determine election results, then, Trump’s election was not only a rejection of Clinton and the Democrats, but also a rebuke to the Republican establishment. If racism and misogyny were factors, well, are working-class white men wrong to believe that the Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party are against them? If they are incorrect in this assessment, certainly Democrats have done little since 2016 to persuade them otherwise. And it would appear, based on 2018 exit-poll data, that many white women share the belief that Democrats are the anti-white party (e.g., 75% of white women in Georgia voted for Brian Kemp).

Personalities matter in politics. As I have said for many years, good candidates win and bad candidates lose. It is a mistake, generally, to read too much into election results as a ratification of one set of policies or a rejection of another set of policies. In a two-party system, presidential elections are decided by “swing” voters who have no strong partisan loyalty and who are often so-called “low-information voters.” Such people are apt to declare, “I vote for the man, not the party,” and form their judgments on a general impression of the two candidates’ character. One reason liberals (and many Republicans) were so shocked by Trump’s success was that he speaks in a rude, crude, bullying way. Why did his obnoxious manner appeal to so many voters? Isn’t it because Trump was addressing grievances that many Americans have long felt, but which no one in public life could express because of political correctness?

Attempting to predict future election results based on recent events is a fool’s errand, because future elections can be influenced by events that political pundits do not anticipate. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were such an event, and so was the economic crisis of 2008. In both of those cases, errors of interpretation led to reversals. Karl Rove and other Republican strategists believed the “War on Terror” would serve to unite a center-right majority for the GOP, but the backlash against Bush’s policy in Iraq led eventually to Democrats winning a congressional majority in 2006, and taking back the White House in 2008. President Obama saw his election as a mandate for “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” which included ramming ObamaCare through Congress on a party-line vote. His hubris was rebuked in 2010 when Republicans gained more than 60 congressional seats to recapture the House. This seesaw battle has recently seen Democrats win a House majority, but not with the kind of landslide “wave” numbers Republicans posted in 2010.

As a conservative Republican, of course, I always want Democrats to lose, and therefore hope they ignore your advice about the way they have alienated white working-class voters, e.g.:

“I want them to talk about racism every day,” Steve Bannon, President Donald Trump’s former strategist, told The American Prospect last year. “If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”

Steve Bannon is a friend of mine, whom I first interviewed in 2011 when he was promoting his Sarah Palin documentary. Whatever his faults and errors, Bannon is correct that Democrats will keep losing if they continue pointing the accusatory finger at white people: “Raaaaacist!”

How did that work out for Democrats in Florida this year? Wasn’t the nomination of Andrew Gillum for governor yet another example of how “the left is focused on race and identity,” as Bannon said? Was the mayor of crime-plagued Tallahassee the best candidate Florida Democrats had? And wasn’t this also the case with Stacey Abrams in Georgia? Liberals have a habit of blaming Republicans for political “polarization,” but who is actually responsible for polarizing elections this way?

The fact that liberals in Berkeley openly avow their desire “for the white working class to die off” demonstrates quite clearly the problem the Democrat Party has created for itself. Trying to blame the GOP for “polarization” is psychological projection, given how widespread this hostility toward the white working class is on the Left. And isn’t it possible for you, Professor Williams, to look around the campus in Berkeley, and the Bay Area generally, and discern the possibility that the current policies of the Democrat Party are not just anti-white, or anti-male, or anti-working class, but also generally bad for America?

The streets of San Francisco are plagued by homelessness, and the middle class is now fleeing California, a state where liberal Democrats exercise hegemonic control of the government at every level. (Nancy Pelosi: “San Francisco values, that’s what we’re about.”) What would it mean for America to follow California’s path? The non-Hispanic white population of California has decreased by nearly 3 million during the past 40 years. Whereas in 1970, California’s population was almost 90% white, by 2010 the majority population of the state was either Hispanic (37.6%) or Asian (13%) and the non-Hispanic population had declined to 40%. Cui bono? This demographic transition has benefited Democrats politically, but has it enhanced the quality of life in California?

Kate Steinle could not be reached for comment.

To congratulate Democrats for their “success” in taking power in California is rather like praising Democrats for their control of St. Louis, Baltimore and Detroit — the three U.S. cities with the highest per-capita murder rates. If you turn an entire community into a “no-go zone” for white people, well, yes, this is good for Democrats in terms of winning elections, but is electing Democrats the summum bonum? Are the residents of St. Louis, Baltimore and Detroit better off for having elected Democrats whose policies had the effect of making their communities off-limits to white people? Isn’t this the general direction of current policy in California? What should we expect, then, if Democrat capture control of the federal government? Wouldn’t this likely produce the “Californication” of America? And is anyone surprised that working-class white voters in, e.g., Wisconsin voted against such an agenda?

My point, Professor Williams, is that your concern about the perception of Democrat policies ignores the reality of Democrat policies, which are demonstrably anti-white in their effect, and perhaps also in their intent. If Democrats have chosen to become the anti-white party, then nothing Democrats say can ultimately obscure this reality. Trying to conceal the party’s anti-white policy agenda behind rhetoric aimed at exploiting class divisions among white voters will, I suspect, only increase the hostility of working-class white voters toward Democrats. What could be more insulting to the working-class white voter, really, than a bunch of college-educated liberals trying to persuade him to elect Democrats because he allegedly needs help from these “enlightened” superiors?

Probably your Atlantic article will generate a far more hostile reaction from Democrats than from conservatives, Professor Williams, and you should seriously contemplate what this reaction means. There has been a lot of talk from liberals that Trump’s election represents “hate,” but who is hating whom? In the blowback from the Left that you are getting in reaction to your Atlantic article, aren’t there a lot of expressions of hatred for white people, and for white men in particular?

The phrase “white heterosexual male” has become a popular term of demonization in the rhetoric of the Left, and you cannot expect white men to enjoy being assigned the role of Emmanuel Goldstein in this 21st-century version of Orwell’s dystopia. If the reaction of white men to being scapegoated is sometimes irrational and violent, this is to be lamented, but the irrationality of their reaction doesn’t mean that they are incorrect in their perception, or that they are wrong to be angry about being unfairly demonized as “privileged” by the college-educated Left.

How is the ordinary working-class white man, toiling in a low-status job to support himself and his family, “privileged” in any meaningful way? And how is it that the people accusing him of “privilege” are almost exclusively members of the college-educated elite? The average salary of a law professor at the University of California is over $270,000, whereas the median household income in Wisconsin is $66,432. Is the working man in Sheboygan more “privileged” than you, Professor Williams?

Well, I’ve now gone past the 2,000-word mark and rather than continue extending my argument, it is better to conclude briefly by mentioning that I was born and raised a Democrat, and didn’t vote Republican until I was in my mid-30s. Almost as soon as I changed my partisan allegiance, I found myself being accused of racism by liberals, and guess what? This only increased my contempt for Democrats. Insults and name-calling (which is what such accusations of racism usually are) are not persuasive arguments, and exactly why was it racist to vote against Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry anyway? Long before Democrats nominated Obama, this tactic of accusing Republicans of racism was already a cliché of liberal rhetoric, and repetition has not made it less insulting.

Robert Stacy McCain

Correspondent, The American Spectator


Portland Antifa Mob Riots

Posted on | November 20, 2018 | No Comments


Hannah McClintock was one of six people arrested Saturday in Portland, Oregon, where left-wing “Antifa” attacked a men’s rights group:

One of the six members of far-left extremist group Antifa, arrested in Portland, Oregon, on Nov. 17, was captured on video spitting on and punching protesters before being apprehended.
The latest clash between Antifa — a group that advocates openly for violence against people and groups it disfavors — and people holding permitted rallies and events began with police officers blocking the radicals from a “Him Too” rally, organized by Haley Adams for men’s rights. She said the gathering was to support due process and men falsely accused of sexual assault.
Members of the conservative Patriot Prayer group attended the rally but said they were not its organizers.
After the rally, people departing the site were stalked by Antifa members and others, leading to several flare-ups of violence.
In one scene, people who had attended the rally were confronted by a large group of radicals, including Hannah McClintock, 19, distinctive with purple hair. McClintock “repeatedly spit at a man and hurled punches at him. I had witnessed her trying to fight people over and over,” said journalist Andy Ngo, who recorded the video.
McClintock was later arrested on a charge of harassment.
The other five people arrested were identified as Ruben Delahuerga, 25, Betsy Toll, 68, Brittany Frost, 35, and Elizabeth Cheek, 33, all on one charge each of interfering with a peace officer; and Gary Fresquez, 52, on charges of second-degree disorderly conduct and two counts of interfering with a peace officer.
The Portland Police Department said it saw Antifa members and other people interfering with the Him Too demonstration using a number of weapons. “Officers observed sticks, glass bottles, lit road flares, bottles filled with a substance believed to be urine, and gopher gas used as projectiles,” it said.
The projectiles were thrown at officers and demonstrators, the police said.

By the way, Andy Ngo’s got a tip jar to help support his journalism. His work is excellent, and he deserves your support.


Late Night With In The Mailbox: 11.19.18

Posted on | November 20, 2018 | No Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

357 Magnum: It’s Good To Help The Environment, Until You Ask Them To Pay More
EBL: Welcome To Wisconsin, Porn Professor Nina Hartley
Twitchy: Rep. Swalwell Turns To Snopes To Dig Him Out Of His Nuking Gun Owners Hole
Louder With Crowder: Tim Allen – Being A Funny Conservative Pisses People Off, And I Like It

Adam Piggott: Podcast #96 – The 28 Traits Of The Modern Man Episode, also, The Traits of The Modern Marriageable Woman
American Power: Why Trump Is Right About The California Wildfires, also, Womens’ March Founder Slams Leadership, Calls For Resignations
American Thinker: American’t – From Midterm Elections To End Times, also, Voters Electing Democrats Who Despise Them
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
BattleSwarm: California Democrat – Nuke Those Damn Gun Owners, also, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – Making Friends & Influencing People
CDR Salamander: A Hospital Ship’s Soft Powers Sharp Elbow
Da Tech Guy: Troll Feeding And You, also, President Trump, Please Fix The Pentagon
Don Surber: Trump Has Won The Midterms, also, The Unsung Hero of The Midterms – James O’Keefe
Dustbury: Strange Search Engine Queries, also, Back On The Food-Chain Gang
First Street Journal: The Racism of Gun Control Advocates
The Geller Report: Muslim Congresswoman Wants Hijabs In The Capitol, also, Not One Democratic Leader Condemns Antisemitic Democrat Reps
Hogewash: Everything Is Proceeding As I Have Foreseen, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Down & (Finally) Out In Florida
Legal Insurrection: Rasmussen Poll – Michelle Obama Would Beat Trump, also, Broward County Election Supervisor Snipes Submits Resignation
The PanAm Post: Venezuela Has The Worst Internet Connectivity In Latin America
Power Line: It’s Official – Liberals Hate The Constitution, also, The Ultimate Fake News
Shark Tank: Trey Gowdy Wants To Talk To Trump About Attorney General Job
Shot In The Dark: A Guy Can Dream
STUMP: Arguing Against The Public Pension “Truths” And “Myths”
The Jawa Report: But Where Was Ayman?
The Political Hat: (Pseudo) Nativist Anti-Trump Voice Actress Attacks Naturalized American Citizen
This Ain’t Hell: It Never Really Goes Away, also, 20% Of Army Generals Undeployable In 2016
Victory Girls: Nina Burleigh Dusts Off Her Kneepads
Volokh Conspiracy: American Civil Liberties Union, RIP
Weasel Zippers: Angry Tijuana Residents March Against Migrant Caravan, also, Governor Moonbeam Quietly Admits Trump Was Right, Eases California Logging Rules
Megan McArdle: This One Little Trick Will Make Thanksgiving Perfect
Mark Steyn: Whatever Happened To Non-Super Heroes? also, Break A Leg

Black Friday Deals Week
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Outlet Deals

Illegal Alien Who Shot at Cop Was DACA, Allowed to Stay by Obama Policy

Posted on | November 19, 2018 | No Comments


You’ve probably seen the police dashcam video of illegal immigrant Luis Cobos-Cenobio shooting at an Arkansas deputy who pulled him over for a traffic violation. Now the rest of the story:

The illegal immigrant whose shootout with an Arkansas sheriff’s deputy last week was caught on a dashboard cam and went viral was in the U.S. under the Obama-era DACA program, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Monday.
Luis Cobos-Cenobio, 29, faces charges of terrorism and attempted capital murder after a shooting spree that saw him open fire at on police during two separate confrontations as he tried to escape a routine traffic stop last week, authorities said.
Mr. Cobos-Cenobio had at least two previous arrests, officials said, including one misdemeanor charge in 2015 that brought him to ICE’s attention. But the Obama administration, which was in office at the time, concluded he wasn’t a danger, and declined to pursue deportation.
“ICE did not lodge a detainer against Mr. Cobos-Cenobio in 2015 as he is a DACA recipient and did not meet the threshold for enforcement under the DHS enforcement priorities in place at that time,” the agency told The Washington Times.
ICE said Mr. Cobos-Cenobio also appears to have been arrested on another misdemeanor charge earlier this year, but the federal agency didn’t get notified, so it couldn’t place a detainer to effectuate his deportation. . . .
DACA is the deportation amnesty President Obama announced in 2012 to grant tentative legal status to illegal immigrant “Dreamers.”
The Obama administration concluded that even illegal immigrants with some criminal charges should be eligible for DACA, which explains how Mr. Cobos-Cenobio’s 2015 arrest on drug possession charges did not cause him to be expelled from the program, much less be deported.
“This is the kind of thing that happens when you don’t enforce standards,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “The idea that DACAs are all choir boys is obviously untrue, and yet the Obama administration was much too willing to let people with criminal records avoid deportation.”

If you think foreign criminals should be deported, you’re a racist!


Ohio Democrat Stabbed Ex-Wife to Death in Front of Their Children, Police Say

Posted on | November 19, 2018 | No Comments


The kind of “violence against women” that feminists will ignore:

Former Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Lance Mason, who spent nine months in prison for beating his then-wife in front of their children, is accused of fatally stabbing the woman Saturday morning at his Shaker Heights home, according to three sources.
Mason was arrested on suspicion of murder in connection with the death of his estranged wife, Aisha Fraser Mason, at his home on Chagrin Boulevard near Normandy Road, the sources said.
The house where the stabbing happened is near where police reported that a Shaker Heights police officer was hit by a car fleeing a domestic violence incident. The officer, who was in his cruiser at the time of the crash, was taken to the hospital and his condition was unknown. . . .
After Mason’s release from prison, he was hired by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson’s administration as a minority business development director. The city said in a statement later in the day Saturday that Jackson fired Mason from his $45,000-per-year job because of his arrest. . . .
Mason in August 2014 punched his then-wife 20 times and slammed her head against the dashboard of his car five times, breaking her orbital bone.
The couple’s children were in the back of the car when the attack occurred. Mason, who previously served in the state legislature, was a sitting Cuyahoga County judge when the attack happened.

(Hat-tip: Melissa Mackenzie on Twitter.) Notice that nowhere in the news article does it mention that Mason is a Democrat. For that, you have to go to Wikipedia, where you learn that Mason served four years as a state representative and two years as a state senator before being appointed as a judge by former Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland. Also, when he was arrested in 2014, Mason had an arsenal in his home:

  • About 2,300 live rounds of various calibers
  • Nearly 500 shotgun slugs
  • A Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun
  • A Winchester shotgun
  • A 50-shell shotgun belt
  • A FNH P90 semi-automatic rifle still in the box
  • A JLD Enterprises Inc. PTR-91 semi-automatic rifle with a scope
  • A Smith & Wesson handgun
  • A Springfield Armory .40 caliber-handgun
  • A sword
  • Four canisters of smoke grenades
  • A KDH bulletproof vest
  • A Jaguar knife

So, a heavily-armed Democrat beats his wife so badly he breaks the bones in her face and then, after serving only nine months in prison, he is hired by the Democrat mayor of Cleveland for a $45,000-a-year job. Then he stabs his ex-wife to death in front of their children. But he’s not a Republican, so CNN and feminists will pretend this didn’t happen.


News CNN Will Ignore

Posted on | November 19, 2018 | No Comments

Remember when President Trump said the migrant caravan from Honduras included Middle Easterners? Remember how the liberal media claimed that was paranoid fear-mongering? Guess what?

Laredo Sector Border Patrol agents continue to find illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who cross the border from Mexico. During a 12-hour period beginning on Saturday evening, six Bangladeshi nationals were apprehended in two separate incidents.
Agents assigned to the Laredo South Border Patrol Station came upon a group of four suspected illegal immigrants while patrolling near Masterson Road in Laredo, Texas, on Saturday. The agents conducted interviews as part of Laredo Sector line watch operations. The questioning revealed the four young men were Bangladeshi nationals, according to Laredo Sector Border Patrol officials.
The following morning, Laredo South Station agents carrying out line watch operations came upon another group of two suspected illegal immigrants walking near Oleander Street in Laredo. An interview with the subjects revealed the young men to also be Bangladeshi who were smuggled into the U.S., officials reported.
In an incident on October 29, Laredo South Station agents patrolling along the Rio Grande River rescued a group of Bangladeshi nationals as they attempted to cross the river, Breitbart News reported. Two of the migrants nearly drowned before agents were able to pull them into their boat.
During the month of October, the first month of the new fiscal year, Laredo Sector agents apprehended at least 75 Bangladeshi nationals. This represents an increase of more than 10 percent over October 2017.
During FY2018, which ended on September 30, Laredo Sector agents apprehended 668 Bangladeshi migrants — up nearly 270 percent over the previous year’s total.

If hundreds of immigrants from Bangladesh are being caught at the Mexican border, what does that suggest about the migrant caravan?


Democrat Election Official Resigns

Posted on | November 19, 2018 | No Comments


She failed to steal the election, so she’s quitting:

Just hours after finishing a tumultuous election recount, Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes submitted her resignation, ending a 15-year tenure full of botched elections, legal disputes and blistering criticism. . . .
In the final version of the resignation letter, sent to Gov. Rick Scott, Snipes said it was her “passion and honor” to have served in the office. “I am ready to pass the torch,” she wrote in the letter, which made no mention of controversies surrounding the 2018 election. . . .
During the just-completed recount of the midterm election, Scott was a fierce critic of Snipes, accusing her of years of incompetence and asking the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate what he said “may be rampant fraud.” . . .
Broward’s vote counting was an outlier among the state’s 67 counties, taking a long time to complete. For days, Snipes wouldn’t say how many ballots were outstanding and uncounted and her office wasn’t reporting updated results as frequently as the law required.
And there were repeated hiccups during the recount period, including Snipes’ acknowledgment on Saturday that her office couldn’t find 2,040 ballots that had been included in the first vote count but not in the machine recount of state elections.
She said she was sure they were somewhere in her office, probably mixed in with other ballots.

Thank God these corrupt Democrats are so incompetent. If Snipes actually knew what she was doing, she might have gotten away with it.

UPDATE: Will Snipes be the scapegoat for Nelson’s defeat?

A telltale sign of bad ballot design in Broward (where the Senate race was tucked below the instructions in the lower left-hand corner) was how Broward’s undervote rate in the Senate race was so much bigger than in any other Florida county. Unlike Miami-Dade to its north and Palm Beach to its south, Broward County had fewer votes for the top of the ticket Senate race than governor (as well as the three Florida Cabinet posts). Thousands of people just undervoted the race because they probably didn’t see it on the ballot. . . .
If we assume Broward would vote like demographically/geographically/politically similar Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, then Broward Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes’ bad ballot may have killed Sen. Nelson’s political career. In Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, an average of 0.34 percent more ballots were cast for Senate than governor. If we apply that percentage increase to Broward’s governor’s race (709,179 votes), then the Senate race would have had 711,610 votes (instead of 683,636). And if that happened, then Nelson would have netted 10,674 more votes than Scott. Nelson therefore would have won Florida by 641 votes.
If Democrats want to argue that Snipes helped cost them a Senate seat, the above numbers (which are just estimates, and not the only ones) are reasonable grounds for that. But the criticism has been muted. Snipes is a Democrat. And Democrats signed off on this ballot design without objection. Maybe that’s why team Nelson wanted to argue that faulty tabulating machines (and not bad ballot design) were to blame? The manual recount put that theory to rest.

Yeah, Democrats blaming the black woman because the old white guy lost the election. Go with that theory. It’s perfect.


keep looking »