Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Non-Citizen Voters: The Ultimate Form of "Foreign Meddling"?

Friends, you may have noticed that there is increasing support in "blue" cities (is there any other kind?) for the idea of allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. Many Democrats believe immigrants, even illegals, should be allowed to vote in ALL elections. But here we are talking about changing the law.  From the Left's perspective, though, why change a law when you can simply ignore it, and thus tacitly invalidate it? Evidence is strong that non-citizens are already voting, because the encouragements to vote are myriad, and the mechanisms in place to prevent non-citizen voting are often very weak.  Probably we are only talking about small numbers of voters at this stage, but there are elections, like the Senate election in New Hampshire in 2016, where the result is extremely close, and fraud of various kinds could easily be responsible for determining the outcome. This is a problem that we need to keep on top of, if for no other reason than because it is part of the pattern of lawlessness that the Left seems to feel it is entitled to perpetrate.

Here is a FoxNews piece about the issue:

And here is my latest interview on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480 in Hornell.  Brian O'Neil and I discuss the issue of our growing "trade war" with China, and I highlight China's attempt to interfere in our 2018 midterm elections. We also discuss the potential for violence against conservatives, as well as against the police and ICE agents.  Don't miss out!


  1. Dr.Waddy: My computer denied me access to the Fox piece and then cut me off at the end of your interview. From your introduction and from what I heard of your interview: I agree that the left is personally and emotionally invested in hate for President Trump and in his personification of the wickedness of the right. I'd like to say that they would have directed this poisonous antipathy to anyone who dared to thwart them in their halcyon, their climatic year, 2016 but there was no one else who could have done this and his advent has to be beyond pain for them. They cannot abide the possibility that it may have been ordained by a power far beyond their ken.

    I agree with you that anti - ICE sentient may inspire violence. But I know one of those ICE guys; I don't think they are afraid .

  2. Interesting. I'm sure ICE officers are a special breed, but if they're not afraid I don't hesitate to admit that I'm afraid for them. I'm still waiting for the Justice Department to swing into action against all those who are obstructing justice vis-a-vis our immigration laws. Perhaps ICE should start arresting anyone attempting to impede their performance of their duties?

    That's a good point -- maybe Trump WAS the only Republican who could have won in 2016. I'm not so sure, though. Clinton was an abysmal candidate. I do think Trump', if I can describe it that way, enhances the antipathy that the Left feels for him, but you're right that anyone who denied them ascendancy in 2016 would have been ripped to shreds by the media.

  3. Dr. Waddy: You may well be right; maybe someone else could have beaten her. Maybe in Ted Cruz we would have gotten one as similarly faithful to conservative principles as to have followed through on his promises as has President Trump. She was an "offensive" candidate for public office, with her disdain for everyday people so obvious and did have remarkable weaknesses. But the President's being a non politician has to have been intensely galling for the left considering their decades long effort to preempt our polity.

    Like your thought about ICE officers taking the offensive against those who obstruct law enforcement. It would be a powerful reminder to activists that they must follow the law making and amendment process and if they think that inconvenient, either be prepared for the consequences or repair to those countries in which policy is decided in a far more chaotic fashion which few of them could endure.

  4. Hmm. Could Ted Cruz have beaten Hillary? That's a head-scratcher. Naturally, the short answer is: we'll never know. So much of it is (media-generated) perception. I remember when Cruz was polling better than Trump versus Hillary. Then Cruz started getting more attention from the media, and before you knew it he had bitten the dust... That's what's incredible about Trump. The media's usual bag of tricks simply doesn't work on him. They called Reagan the "Teflon President," but it's a moniker that applies far better to DJT! If I were the media, I would start to worry that maybe Nietzsche was right: "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger"!

  5. Dr. Waddy: I didn't know it was Nietzche who said that. I've had a generally bad impression of him but that maxim has much that is constructive about it.

    I think it was Reagan's style ( and the courage to use it) which enabled him to best the media time and again. Another person who was good at that was Johnny Carson; I saw him smirk his way through an interview on "60 Minutes" with Mike Wallace and say without saying "C'mon Mike, you don't really think you can get me with that day one stuff do you?" Our President is a combination of that style and that easy confidence and is more than a match for most of those MSM second raters.

  6. Jack, you're right -- Trump is quick on his feet, and knows how to best his adversaries in the cut-and-thrust of politics and public repartee. One of the most curious things about leftists is how seldom they have a sense of humor...especially about themselves. You can tell that many of Trump's gibes are tongue-in-cheek, but his targets don't comprehend that -- thus their unending outrage...