Follow Dr. Waddy

Tragically, Google has suspended the service that allows blog readers to subscribe by email to the blogs of their choice. This means that, in order to keep up with all the WaddyIsRight excitement, you might want to add "WaddyIsRight.com" to your favorites and visit this site OBSESSIVELY! I can't think of any better use of your time, can you? Alternatively, send me an email at nlwaddy@yahoo.com and I will try to get you subscribed from my end.

Friday, March 12, 2021

Joe Biden=Pied Piper?

 


Friends, what's going on at the border is truly alarming, and it's despicable, when you consider the cynicism of the Biden strategy on immigration.  First, keep in mind that Biden has made it clear: if you're under 18, or if the government can't prove that you're over 18, you will be allowed to stay in the United States.  Thus, anyone who is a minor, or who is the parent of a minor, knows that our laws against illegal immigration simply don't apply to them.  That sets up the conditions for a sharp increase in the amount of illegal migration, needless to say.  It also puts migrant children in grave danger, of course: it puts them in the hands of the "coyotes" who smuggle them across the border, who are also often engaged in the drug trade and extreme violence.  It also turns children into a commodity: they are essentially "get into America free cards", which are naturally leveraged by many adult migrants to increase their chances of staying in this country.  What becomes of these children once they are released into the general U.S. population with their parents, or their "parents"?  Who knows -- and little do the Democrats care.  That's because all this illegal immigration also provides Democrats with a critical opportunity.  There's no question that non-citizens vote in our elections.  If the Dems' harebrained election scheme, H.R. 1, passes, then many more will do so.  But even if non-citizens don't vote in sufficient numbers to steal the 2022 and 2024 elections, the Dems have decided that "demographics is destiny": they believe that revolutionizing the ethnic makeup of the U.S. population, and thus, in the long term, of the electorate, will guarantee them permanent political domination.  They're wrong, because Hispanics and Asians (not to mention blacks) are not the progressive automatons that Democrats assume them to be, but their calculations may be sound in the short and medium term.  Look at Georgia: it's domestic and international migration that has transformed it from a red to a purple state.  Look at California: it's immigration that transformed it from a purple to a deep blue state.  Make no mistake, therefore: Democrats may genuinely care about migrant children (ignoring the suffering that their own policies engender), but they also see them as pawns, as tools that they can manipulate to achieve and maintain political control.  We owe it to those children, and to our own, native-born American children, to create a system of immigration based on the rule of law and on the integrity of borders, because ultimately all of us benefit from both.


Anyway, check out this article, which examines Biden's policy dilemma from a "progressive" perspective.  From their point of view, the massive numbers of illegal immigrants don't yet register as a problem, but the "challenges" in providing necessary services to those migrants do.


https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/12/biden-border-wall-475498

 

This article reinforces my view that political opportunism underlies what appears to be rank incompetence in the administration of our border policy:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-border-crisis-incompetence-presidents-plan-chad-wolf-james-carafano 

 

Here's an eloquent exploration of the link between illegal immigration and rising crime, and the Dems' failure to take either problem seriously. 


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/11/predictable_train_wrecks_on_crime_and_immigration__145383.html


This one is important, folks.  Although polling on Biden's job performance generally puts him above 50%, if NBC is showing him underwater, that's significant!  Biden is handing out stimulus checks like they were candy, and still the American people are nonplussed.  When the honeymoon is over, it sure looks like Biden won't be a popular president -- sorry, I meant "president".


http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202103091124.pdf#page=3

 

Remember all those high-handed edicts that emanated from governor's offices and the federal government during the pandemic?  Your business must close.  Your loan payments are suspended.  Your rent is NOT due.  Well, now the courts are beginning to weigh whether the government had any such authority to begin with.  About time!!!

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/cdc-eviction-moratorium-exceeded-authority-federal-judge-in-ohio-rules 


Finally, no one doubts that, in the midst of a pandemic, the government may incur some unusual expenses.  So be it.  However, the amount of spending that has gone on in the last year is completely outrageous and will do serious long-term harm to our nation's fiscal soundness.  There's also been an incredible amount of waste.  As taxpayers, you ought to be indignant!


https://fee.org/articles/federal-covid-spending-will-cost-41-870-per-taxpayer-did-you-see-that-much-in-benefit/

30 comments:

  1. Nick, Biden is not "underwater" in the NBC/Marist Poll. Underwater would imply that his disapproval number is greater than his approval number. Just the opposite is true -- his approval number is greater than his disapproval number.

    The biggest takeaway is really how polarized the country is. Dems' approval of Biden is 85%+ and GQP's disapproval of Biden is 85%+. Independents are evenly split at 43%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi There Rod,

      That 85%+ approval of your hero JB all goes to show that FOOLS of a feather really do flock together.

      Delete
  2. With regard to our current "Border Troubles," The "Banana Wars" have come home to roost. If Marine General Smedley Butler (two Medals of Honor by the way. Look him up.) were to return, he would probably say "I told you so, what did you expect".

    The U.S. has been "plundering" Central America since the early 20th Century, almost nonstop, beginning with The United Fruit Company. Whenever workers went on strike or complained about lousy pay and conditions, The U.S. Marines were called in to put down the revolts. This same policy applied to places in The West
    Indies such as the Dominican Republic, and later Cuba.

    Clearly, political and business decisions have historical consequences. General Butler once wrote "and during that period (The "Banana Wars") I spent my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers." This period of history is the beginning of constant U.S. interference in the affairs of Central America.

    All those Central Americans hammering at our Southern Gates are living proof of The U.S. destabilization of the region for the past 100 years. Welcome to historical realism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My husband no longer recognizes the current sad state of the Marine Corp...(coming from a Marine, btw). Have you seen the latest news article? Horrible...and the comment my husband made can not be repeated.

      https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/03/14/backlash-after-official-marine-corps-twitter-account-blasts-tucker-carlson/

      Delete
    2. Linda,

      Tell your husband to cheer up, and watch "Sands of Iwo Jima" with John Wayne.

      Delete
    3. Linda, the policy about women serving in the military was settled long ago. Women have served ably and heroically. Carlson was WAY out of line and glad to see military personnel and officials shut him down.

      Sorry your husband falls into the bucket of Neanderthals that our president ably described.

      Delete
    4. Rod,

      Well let's be fair here...sure, my sister serves in a medical regiment and has command of a Company, and she is among the most capable, ambitious, and motivated people I have ever met. I don't doubt she does a fine job and that if she was put into a live warzone that she'd serve ably and heroically.

      But so did this bear:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(bear)

      Interestingly you don't see many calls for more bears to serve in combat roles...in either case, the question is not about women being in the armed forces, women have historically served in medical roles in war time, though often in a less efficient and decentralized way than our integrated medical units do today; it's about the delusional attitude regarding the role women should be expected to play in war, that they are no different from men on average with respect to combat capabilities, which is simply not borne out by the facts.

      As far as the verdict on women in COMBAT roles is concerned, the ruling is in, and it's that women serving in combat makes our armed forces less capable:
      https://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439246978/marine-corps-release-results-of-study-on-women-in-combat-units#:~:text=Organization-,Marine%20Corps%20Releases%20Results%20Of%20Study%20On%20Women%20In%20Combat,gender%20units%20across%20the%20board.

      Mr. Carlson nailed it, you can tell from the volume and vitriol of the attacks he has endured for it. The flak only gets heavy when you're over the target.

      - Lee

      Delete
  3. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Ray' s comments certainly give me pause. Has U.S. influence been destructive? Or, did it prevent a murderous , totalitarian Marxist usurpation of polities fundamentally weakened by their Spanish colonial provenance?


    tally weakenec by their












    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Pore ol Joe has only campfire Kumbayaa to inform him of the realities of third world poverty.He cannot comprehend the sociopathic dynamics which inform any realistic view of it. " Why we have plenty of room, except in my yard that is! " " A little compassion, a little Peace Corps, a little Kumbayaa, why they will fit right in, again, not in my yard, though! " "And if you have any doubt, you are all manner of ICK!"


    view of it.


    ReplyDelete
  5. Rod: agreed. Polarization ensures that no U.S. president will ever again be broadly popular, at least not until our media environment changes substantially. Right now Biden is popular ENOUGH to govern. He's dangerously close to Trump's numbers, though, and as per Rasmussen more or less in the same spot. Certainly he's in no position to scare Republican politicians straight, i.e. intimidate them into backing his agenda.

    Ray, I think you're too hard on the U.S. vis-a-vis our role in Central America. Sure, we "played God" to some degree and destabilized some regimes. We stabilized others. Broadly speaking, we took action to counter socialist/communist aggression and infiltration...for which the people of Central America ought to thank us profusely! I personally refuse to take responsibility for the poverty of any other part of the world.

    Jack, good point that most limousine liberals comprehend no practical limits to the numbers of the Earth's poor who can move to America...and they can simultaneously count on the fact that none of them will end up in their upper crust neighborhoods. For the VAST MAJORITY of the world's people, moving to the U.S. would be a no-brainer: a surefire way to improve their standard of living. An open borders policy would thus invite demographic armageddon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Nick

      Regrettably, the United States has not won any war against socialists/communists. We "held the line" in Korea but at a terrible cost, and failed utterly in Vietnam with many more killed and maimed physically and mentally for life. All we did for 50 years in Europe was contain The Soviet Union at great expense, but it was the Central and East Europeans who finally broke free of that, and not because of anything Reagan did or said. Likewise, we failed in Central America as well. All this, while the U.S. itself was being infiltrated by home grown socialists/communists, who are now poised to rule over us for God knows how long.

      Delete
  6. Interesting take, Ray, but I'd say we assisted in the defeat of communists in many places. France, Italy, Chile, Malaya, Nicaragua. And I certainly disagree about Eastern Europe. I doubt very much that the Soviets ever would have left if we hadn't kept up the pressure on them for 40+ years. Anyway, that's water under the bridge. Sure, we made mistakes in EVERY corner of the globe. Hard cheese, El Salvador. Now you chart your own course.

    Where we would be entirely on the same page is in the existential threat that our own homegrown Marxists pose!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Mick,

      One thing for sure is that the PRC will try to grab Taiwan in the very near future. What the U.S. does (or does not do) about that will be a real test of our ability to deter Communism. Oh well, guess we can thank Tricky Dick Nixon and Dr. Strangelove for setting us up for that, combined with the rush of our greedy corporations to ship most of our industrial base over there, so they could build up the PLA. Nothing like giving the enemy the tools to kick your ass. Political decisions have historical consequences don't they? I do hope our current administration is working hard on perfecting maternity uniforms for pregnant female ship captains. Yes indeed, that will be a key factor in sending a message to the PRC. Of course, an unpleasant confrontation with the PRC can be avoided if we just let the PRC have Taiwan as a consolation prize. Well, none of this will be boring now, will it?

      Delete
    2. SORRY,

      I meant Dr. Nick.

      The only other thing I can think of to deter a PRC move on Taiwan would be to beef up our Yangtse River Patrol. How about another "55 Days at Peking"? Remember in the movie that it was a Marine Major who was the hero. What the hell! We need to do a remake of that with Brad Pitt? Also we could do a remake of "The Sand Pebbles" with your choice of lead man. How about you playing the part of the missionary? Just a suggestion.

      Delete
  7. Fascinating story, Linda! I agree that the politicization of the military is EXTREMELY disturbing. It's of a piece with progressivism in general, however, which calls for everyone, everywhere to become an SJW.

    And women in combat is one thing --in my opinion, a pretty poor idea, but hey -- but the notion that women will DOMINATE future battlefields is rank absurdity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree, Dr. Waddy. For years I have heard about WM'S and their roles. I keep repeating, the military is NOT a social experiment. Of course the military has since backtracked (overnight) over this.

      Delete
    2. Linda,

      The military has ALWAYS been a social experiment beginning with the aftermath of World War 2. Our Armed Forces are a "captive audience" for whatever civil administrations in DC try to foist on them at any given time. Usually the fools doing the "foisting" have never served one second in the military, but always seem to know what is best. Ha!

      Of course there have been many beneficial results of this social experiment, such as racial integration. Actually, some of that began during World War 2.

      In any event, I think the most important thing now is to start forming Precision Drill Teams composed of overweight, pregnant women, to perform at military parades and ceremonies in DC and elsewhere. I'm going to let you come up with a name for these marching ladies. We also need elite transsexual units.

      Delete
  8. Nick,

    My take on Democrat/Progressive Immigration policy:

    The immigration policy of the Democrats, in conjunction with their indiscriminate xenophilia, is nothing more than the deliberate inauguration of unending internecine tribal warfare upon our shores and our children. Not having sufficient numbers themselves after losing their grip on the South and after the Catholics started batting .500 for them, Liberal/Progressive White's are using immigration to wage a war on their ideologically opposed co-ethnics by importing mercenary voting blocs. Inevitably the aim is the "Brazilification" of the United States, wherein the middle class will be annihilated and subsumed into the racially, religiously, and ethnically divided lower classes, who will be so diverse that they cannot reasonably mount any sort of coordinated defense, much less a counter-offensive, against the Cosmopolitan Class who will live in their gated communities under armed guard like kings.

    The Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumers of the world as not fools, go back to the 90's and you can hear from their own mouths that they fully comprehend the impact of their immigration policies, they've merely traded one mule, the working class, for another, the globalists.

    Global Capitalism is the continuation of Marxism by other means.


    - Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee

      Sounds like the new "feudalism" to me, without the religious part. Gated communities will become the castles without moats. Fortunately, I'm old enough that when all this reaches "full bloom" I'll be dead, and hopefully at the mead hall in Valhalla. Cheers!

      Ray

      Delete
  9. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Criminals loathe the police;far leftists loathe the military. Both think the object of their contempt to deserve all manner of truck!

    ReplyDelete
  10. QUESTION: Why do farts smell bad?

    ANSWER: So deaf people can enjoy them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our Armed Forces can become even more progressive if we allow men who want to become "warrior monks" to voluntarily have themselves castrated and then serve for life in the military as elite eunuchs. I realize this is extreme, but it's a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ray, I dunno if China will have the moxie to invade Taiwan, but if it does I predict we'll have the moxie to send them a very stern letter of protest. We might even go so far as to cut our imports from China by half a percent. I predict our "elite transsexual units" will be kept on standby.

    Linda, the military shouldn't be a "social experiment", but Ray's right that this wouldn't be the first time. Truthfully, Trump should have exerted himself A LOT harder to reverse the march of wokeness in the military. It's every bit as important as winning back the courts. Someday our military will probably decide which party gets to run this poor excuse for a Republic. We better hope that there are still a few rednecks left in the ranks when that day comes.

    Lee, I think there's little doubt that the Dems realized several decsdes ago that they couldn't reliably win elections given the then-current state of American demographics. Ergo, they decided to change them. And Republicans were too busy underpaying their illegal immigrant workers to notice or care. C'est la guerre.

    The surreal marriage between globalist capitalism and cultural Marxism is something very hard to understand. Is it merely a marriage of convenience? Is a reckoning between these fundamentally disparate ideologies inevitable -- assuming they sweep their mutual enemy of nationalism/populism aside? Maybe, maybe not. It bears remembering that cultural Marxism IS NOT actual or traditional Marxism. Those who believe in systemic racism and related nonsense aren't necessarily opposed to making a buck. Perhaps the marriage is less surreal than it seems? Ray may be right: maybe it will all end up in a sort of feudalism, in which an elite rules, but its membership is chosen not based on hereditary privilege but on ethnic, racial, and gender "equity".

    True, Jack -- traditionally leftists have loathed the military. They loathe corporations too...but that doesn't stop them from investing in them and dictating their politics and their social views.

    Ray, you jest on the topic of eunuchs, but I am seriously starting to wonder why anyone consents to be "male" these days. There are at least 30+ genders to choose from. Surely there has to be a better option than "man", right? Who wants to be the whipping boy? Sorry, "boy".

    ReplyDelete
  13. And Rod, I have to agree with Lee: it's one thing to suggest that some women can serve capably in the military -- they can -- it's another to suggest that making the military more feminine will make it stronger -- it won't. I've got a newsflash for you: the science is "in", and men and women aren't fictional creatures, and nor are they the same. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr.Waddy et alfrom Jack: Step off Rod! "Bucket of Neanderthals" ehh? Smacks of Hillary's monumental faux pas "basket of deplorables". Course we know how much Hillary honored the military(eg by making Marine officers into waiters). Surely the similarity of your metaphorical quote from plagiarist Joe is purely coincidental, yes? By the way, did you serve, as did Linda's husband? If not, you may not appreciate the intensity of military life and the wisdom it imparts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: I remember how at the inauguration of a scraggly draft dodger in '93, an exultant attendee exclaimd, as jets passed overhead , "those are ours now!" . Ithink the ingrate faction of the boomers has never forgotten the thrill of that thumb in the eye of the greatest generation which dared to expect them to serve in the '60s! They are baaack and eager to mess with the despised military again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. from Jack: An experiment is an intellectually principled process which, by definition, does not presuppose certain results. The imposition of controversial social change on our military is politically correct dictation enabled by civilian control the original purpose of which was not to provide for presumptuous radicwl fiat.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: It is one thing for Pres. Truman, an army combat vet who once said he would prefer winning the Medal of Honor to being President, to say, we cannot send black men into war and at the same time consign them to 5th class citizenship within and without the services. This cannot be!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr.Waddy from Jack:It is entirely different for presumptuous radicals to say to our senior officers: " You WILL enact the folowing measures. Your misgivings are of no moment; you WILL ensure the establishment of the institutions we mandate, at the hazard of your hard won careers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hmm. It's an interesting analogy, Jack. I suppose, for Truman, the question was a binary one: you can either segregate the armed forces, or you can integrate them. For the Left, though, circumstances are not so cut-and-dried. One could, for example, eliminate all consideration of gender in the U.S. military. That, however, would put women at a disadvantage, insofar as they are physically incapable of performing many military functions. The answer? I think it's clear that the Left is coming to the conclusion, via identity politics, that "non-racialism" and, I guess, "gender blindness", isn't the solution. The solution is to discriminate IN FAVOR of the groups one likes, and against the groups one doesn't. That, I fear, is the future of the U.S military.

    ReplyDelete