Blame game goes on
For the first year after Democrat Hillary Clinton lost her bid for the presidency in 2016, she cited myriad reasons for the loss. Now far-left filmmaker Michael Moore wants to lay the blame at the feet of then-President Barack Obama.
Obama, he said on an appearance last week on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” didn’t do enough to convince Michigan residents that everything that could have been done about the water crisis in Flint in 2016 had been done.
Michigan, which hadn’t voted for a Republican candidate since 1988, gave Donald Trump a .22 percent edge in voting in 2016. However, Genesee County, which contains the city of Flint, gave Clinton a 10 percent edge in the balloting.
But Moore, despite what the results showed, plowed on in his explanation, citing a moment in his film “Fahrenheit 11/9.”
“In the film,” he said, “I show something that sadly President Obama did by coming to Flint and telling the people the water was OK. It was still poison. And then he pretended to drink from a glass of water and then said that it wasn’t a stunt. And it was.
“And it just put a knife in the heart of so many people in Flint who were hoping he would come with the Army Corps of Engineers, dig up these poison pipes, and replace the pipes in the city. And he didn’t do that. And then people gave up and a lot of people stayed home. They didn’t vote for Trump, but they just stayed home,” he added.
In fact, more than 131,000 fewer Michiganders, compared to 2012, did vote in 2016, but whether they all would have voted for Clinton cannot be known.
Let them all vote
How do Democrats feel about illegal immigrants voting in local elections? Even members of the party that would love to see the country have open borders wouldn’t advocate illegal immigrants voting, would they? Apparently, they would.
Around 140 Democratic members of the United States House voted “present” or against a resolution last week condemning localities across the country for allowing illegal immigrants and noncitizens to vote in local elections.
At this point, several cities, including San Francisco, Chicago and several Boston suburbs, including Cambridge, have given illegal immigrants and noncitizens the right to vote in local elections.
The resolution notes that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”
While 230 House Republicans and 49 Democrats voted in favor of the measure, 71 Democrats and one Republican voted against it. In addition, another 69 House Democrats voted “present,” meaning they didn’t vote for or against it.
Already, illegal immigrants are counted in congressional apportionment, potentially giving blue states with high illegal immigrant populations – like California and New York – additional congressional seats after the next Census, while states with low illegal populations – like Alabama and West Virginia – could lose congressional representation.
Biased? Why yes she is
Such activity ought to be illegal, but Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California, who sat before a Senate Judiciary Committee last week to question Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, paid for more than 3,600 ads on Facebook urging viewers to sign petitions or support Democrats to help them stop the D.C. jurist’s nomination to the court.
Of course, the far left Harris, before the nominee’s original hearing, already had said she wouldn’t vote for Kavanaugh, but to pay for advertising against him while still purporting to be a fair-minded committee member is outrageous.
Her opposition, according to the ads, says he poses a threat to abortion and “women’s rights.” One of them adds, “That was made clear in his hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate.” But no such thing was clear since the nominee said he considered Roe v. Wade as settled law.
Evidently, the California senator, who was previously attorney general of that state, learned little about fairness, justice and due process in her days in law school.
All-knowing sheet of paper
Talk about class warfare. One Ivy League school has jumped in with both feet.
Orientation packs given to freshmen at Cornell University include a sheet of categories labeling specific groups as having “privilege” or being “oppressed.”
For instance, anyone who speaks “accented English” is labeled marginalized or oppressed while those who speak “‘proper’ English” are privileged. If the freshman’s parents are married or “in a heterosexual relationship,” the freshman is privileged, but “divorced, LGBTQ parent, domestic partnership” and “single parent” individuals are oppressed.
The all-knowing sheet goes on: male – privileged, female, transgender or intersex – oppressed; white – privileged, black – oppressed; Christian, Protestant or Catholic – privileged, anything else – oppressed; 30s to early 50s – privileged, younger and older – oppressed; slender, perceived as attractive, handsome, beautiful – privileged; particularly tall or short or perceived as unattractive – oppressed.
How can a sheet of paper judge a freshman? Cornell isn’t saying, but it finally answered repeated queries from Campus Reform by saying it “will not be participating” in an answer.