He once was Amash, now he is awash

Justin the “Pious”

A Blast From The Past!

From the archives of the widely respected Veritaspac blog, “return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear… (as an announcer would introduce the “Lone Ranger” radio show) “from out of the west with the speed of light and a hearty ‘Hi-yo Silver’…” comes Justin Amash, current US congressman (I,MI) and future presidential candidate.

It was ‘way back’ in 2017, we found congressman Amash lurking in the Republican caucus, disguised as a conservative and member of the Freedom Caucus.

He was then celebrated as one of the first GOP members of congress to talk openly about the possible impeachment of President Trump.

Our comment accompanying the story from The Hill ( https://thehill.com/homenews/house/333803-first-republicans-talk-impeachment-for-trump) urged the voters in Amash’s district to send him to the ranks of the unemployed in the 2018 mid-terms.

It was obvious to us that whoever won the election in that Michigan congressional district could not be worse for the party, President Trump, and America, than “Justin the Pious”.

As we know, the voters did not take our advice; they returned Amash to Congress as a “Republican”!

And, now, as of last week, their district is represented by an “Independent” ; and which Party caucus would you guess the saintly Amash will align with? (our contemporaneous comment below this more recent video)      DLH

Amash roasted by a constituent

Here is our commentary from May, 2017:

UNjustin Amash opines

Posted on May 18, 2017

Amash apparently has little regard for the image of the FBI

“Asked by another reporter whether he trusted Comey’s word or Trump’s, Amash said: “I think it’s pretty clear I have more confidence in Director Comey.”


After all, Mr. Comey is a big expert on “intent”. Can he say unequivocally that it was President trump’s “intent” to force him to halt the investigation of Michael Flynn?

Based on Comey’s alleged meticulous notes, would any “reasonable prosecutor” bring such a case?

I fervently hope that Justin Amash will have to find work somewhere else after 2018, regardless of this event’s outcome.

Maybe he and John McCain, between them, would have the expertise to run a taco stand…well, maybe not!

What a turkey!                   DLH

First Republicans talk possibility of impeachment for Trump

Republicans are beginning to talk of the possibility that President Trump could face impeachment after reports that he pressed ousted FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. 

While Republicans are choosing their words carefully, the fact that impeachment is even being mentioned is notable in Washington’s polarized political environment.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Wednesday said if the reports about Trump’s pressure on Comey are true, it would merit impeachment.

Amash spoke a day after The New York Times on Tuesday reported that Trump tried to pressure Comey to stop investigating Flynn.

According to a memo written by Comey after the February meeting, the president told Comey “I hope you can let this go.”

Asked by The Hill if the details in the memo would merit impeachment if they’re true, Amash replied: “Yes.”

“But everybody gets a fair trial in this country,” Amash added as he left a House GOP conference meeting. 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Disgraceful display anyway you look at it

What kind of orangutan bs is this?

We do not know Ms O’Hara’s politics but we appreciate her appreciation of the flag















Oh, and about the matter of pay disparity between men and women’s soccer.  Women  should be paid less, but they are not by a key entertainment business metric (less viewership, less pay).

From The Federalist: (full story at link)

Yes, There Is A Soccer Pay Gap: The Women Make More Than The Men Do
Last year, the men’s World Cup generated $6 billion, and gave about 7 percent to the teams. The 2019 Women’s World Cup made $131 million, and gave out more than 20 percent to the teams.

It is an interesting article, we also note this “metric” described by the author from none other than Serena Williams:

. . .  Whether it happens to be men’s soccer or basketball, when compared with the female equivalent, the skill levels on show are incomparable.

In a 2015 article for The Atlantic, Field Zhukov wrote: “Women’s sports that are identical to men’s sports—soccer and basketball, for example—will never be popular, because men are faster, stronger and more athletic. On the other hand, sports that highlight the different strengths of female athletes—tennis, gymnastics, ice skating—are popular. None of those are team sports, so there may be something there.”

There is something there, most definitely. When you sit down and watch the intricate movement and passing of teams like Liverpool or Manchester City, you quickly realize that nothing like this exists within women’s soccer. This is not to say that supreme female athletes do not exist. Of course, someone like Serena Williams is clearly a fantastic athlete. Powerful and highly skilled, she is a genuinely gifted athlete.

However, even Serena realizes the fact that men, in general, are better athletes, and certainly more compelling to watch. Despite having won 23 Grand Slam titles, Williams, in a 2013 appearance on “Late Night With David Letterman,” said, “For me, men’s’ tennis and women’s’ tennis are completely, almost, two separate sports. If I was to play Andy Murray (then one of the best players in the world), I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes.”    . . .

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Will the Democrat Presidential nominee be Michelle Obama?

And would GW risk it all for Moochelle?

Readers poll.  Readers may include why they might think Michele will or will not be the Dem Party’s choice. We will tally results as No; Not likely; She could be talked into it; Likely; and She is already in just waiting to play savior. Vote in comments section, we will only report percentages. Comments will be posted if you desire.

Here are your illustrious editors views at this day in time (so much depends on what side of the bed you get up on in the morning) —

DLH view:

Introducing the Democrat Party’s nomination for president in 2020!
As Norman Podhoretz, one of the “founders of neoconservatism” told the editor of the Claremont review of Books, “(I predict)…the Democratic candidate in 2020 is going to be Michele Obama, and all these people knocking themselves out are wasting their time and money.The minute she announces, that will be it.”

I share that prediction, with great alarm and fear for the future of America if I am correct. If you thought Barack was a near fatal blow to America, wait’ll you see the utter destruction Michele will bring to this great nation…its culture, its values, its proud history, the freedom its citizens will have once enjoyed.

God help America! DLH

R Mall View:

(and house guest)

Not likely – although BO was no Energizer bunny at the job, lots of vacations and all, Michelle likes the lifestyle of no responsibility (the media would of course cover for her and give her undeserved credit at every turn but she would still have to get up in the morning).

The radical left would accede and she may even be their best chance but she would lose and it would be humiliating. She knows it and does not want that.  I do think the innate bitterness she exudes would be fun to watch.

In DLH corner —

Michelle Obama won’t comment on Biden apology, holds off on endorsement at Essence Festival

Six Democratic presidential candidates took the stage at the Essence Festival on Saturday, but it was a former inhabitant of the White House who got a rock star’s welcome — regardless of her tendency to deflect questions on the 2020 election.

Former first lady Michelle Obama refused to comment on the Kamala Harris-Joe Biden “dust up,” as moderator Gayle King called it, Saturday night, but Obama did reiterate a lot of her opinions surrounding the current political climate with a lot of color and to a lot of applause.

Biden, President Barack Obama’s vice president, apologized for the first time Saturday for comments he made weeks ago about working with segregationists in Congress during the 1970s.

Sen. Harris, the only black woman in the Senate, took special exception to Biden’s comments during the first Democratic debate two weeks ago.

“I’ve been doing this rodeo far too long,” Obama responded to King’s question about the tiff. “And no comment.”

The former first lady also said her and her husband would not be endorsing any candidate from the crowded field, saying they would support whomever wins the primary.

“Barack and I are going to support whoever wins the primary, so … our primary focus is letting the primary process play out, because it’s very early,” she said. “I mean, that’s one of the things that we learned in the campaign. It is early; it’s like trying to figure out who’s winning the World Series on the first seven games. I mean that’s where we are right now, it is so early.”

(MORE: Michelle Obama’s ‘Becoming’ could be ‘most successful memoir in history,’ publisher says)

Barack Obama had previously said he did not intend to endorse his former vice president early. And Biden said he asked the former president not to.

“I didn’t want it to look like he was putting his thumb on the scale,” the former vice president told “The View” in April.

While staying mostly out of current politics, Michelle Obama did manage to take a not-so-subtle jab at the man now in the White House.

“The leader of the free world, with a tweet, can start a war, can crush an economy, can change the future of our children,” she said. “It is a real job which requires deep seriousness and focus.”

She has criticized President Donald Trump before and said in her recent memoir, “Becoming,” she will never forgive him for the birther controversy he helped to perpetuate in the years prior to his campaign.

But Michelle Obama spent much of her time on stage at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome discussing voting rates among African Americans and urging those in attendance to get to the polls next year.

“I fear that sometimes people might have thought that Barack made it look easy, so it must be easy, It’s kind of like, I guess, if the black guy can do it, anybody can do it. And that’s not true,” she said to laughs from the mostly African American crowd.
She closed with a message of motivation for the crowd.

“I feel the power in the Superdome right here,” she said. “I feel it. I feel it right now. If each of us does our part and we go out there and we get educated and we register and we get people registered to vote. We can change things.”


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Brit Ambassador to US writes for snob appeal

  • Weenies / courtiers on assignment like “Sir Kim” write these brilliant objective analyses after living exclusively (and lavishly) in the Beltway – listening largely to Trump opposition elements.
  • Has this guy been recalled yet for embarrassing the other weenies?
  • Revealing article below our little historical reminder

The whole story could appropriately be headlined “With Friends Like This…”

The Daily Mail report was written in four parts.  The combination is a long one…so many devastating quotes. Read it and raise your blood pressure.  The excerpts set forth give you the gist of what the ambassador to the US wrote and a little of his background to give you the aha about where he gets this stuff — turns out it is cocktail parties he throws and invites DC swamp rats to.    DLH

Britain’s man in the US says Trump is ‘inept’: Leaked secret cables from ambassador say the President is ‘uniquely dysfunctional and his career could end in disgrace’  

EXCLUSIVE: Sir Kim Darroch used secret cables to impugn Trump’s character
Top diplomat warned London President Trump’s career could end in ‘disgrace’
Bombshell comments risk angering the notoriously thin-skinned US President
He describes bitter conflicts in White House as ‘knife fights’, sources confirmed
And claims President’s economic policies could wreck the world trade system
Says Presidency could ‘crash and burn’, ‘we could be at start of downward spiral’

PUBLISHED: 6 July 2019  UPDATED:  7 July 2019

Britain’s Ambassador to Washington has described Donald Trump as ‘inept’, ‘insecure’ and ‘incompetent’ in a series of explosive memos to Downing Street.
Sir Kim Darroch, one of Britain’s top diplomats, used secret cables and briefing notes to impugn Trump’s character, warning London that the White House was ‘uniquely dysfunctional’ and that the President’s career could end in ‘disgrace’.
His bombshell comments risk angering the notoriously thin-skinned President and undermining the UK’s ‘special relationship’ with America.

Describes bitter conflicts within Trump’s White House – verified by his own sources – as ‘knife fights’;

Warns that Trump could have been indebted to ‘dodgy Russians’;

Claims the President’s economic policies could wreck the world trade system;

Says the scandal-hit Presidency could ‘crash and burn’ and that ‘we could be at the beginning of a downward spiral… that leads to disgrace and downfall’;

Voices fears that Trump could still attack Iran.

In one of the most sensitive documents, Sir Kim writes: ‘We don’t really believe this Administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept.’
He also says that he doesn’t think Trump’s White House will ‘ever look competent’.
In reference to Trump’s ability to shrug off controversies in a life which has been ‘mired in scandal’, he says that the President may nonetheless ’emerge from the flames, battered but intact, like [Arnold] Schwarzenegger in the final scenes of The Terminator’.

He warns senior politicians in London: ‘Do not write him off.’
The leak is embarrassingly timed for the British Government, coming just weeks after the Queen welcomed Trump and his family with a 41-gun salute and a State banquet at Buckingham Palace as part of a diplomatic drive to secure a post-Brexit free-trade deal.

In a memo sent after the visit, Sir Kim warned that while Trump and his team had been ‘dazzled’ by the visit, and the UK might be ‘flavour of the month’, Trump’s White House remained self-interested: ‘This is still the land of America First’.
The Washington Files span the period from 2017 to the present, covering everything from Trump’s policy in the Middle East to his 2020 re-election plans.
One account of a Trump rally says that there is a ‘credible path’ for Trump to win a second term in the White House – but describes the crowd as ‘almost exclusively white’.

In what is likely to be regarded as a patronising passage in the cache, officials in London are told that in order to deal with Trump effectively ‘you need to make your points simple, even blunt’.

The most incendiary paper is a letter to National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill sent on June 22, 2017 – 150 days into the Trump administration – and copied to what Sir Kim describes as a ‘strictly limited’ number of senior figures in Downing Street and the Foreign Office.

The document, sent ahead of a National Security Council discussion on the UK-US relationship, paints a damning picture of the President’s personality and leadership style.

It says media reports of ‘vicious infighting and chaos’ inside the White House – dismissed by Trump as ‘fake news’ – are ‘mostly true’.

And referring to allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia – since largely disproved – the memo says: ‘The worst cannot be ruled out.’
One memo, sent by Sir Kim on June 22, refers to ‘incoherent, chaotic’ US-Iran policy, adding: ‘Its unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon. This is a divided Administration’

One memo, sent by Sir Kim on June 22, refers to ‘incoherent, chaotic’ US-Iran policy, adding: ‘Its unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon. This is a divided Administration’

The cache also includes diplomatic telegrams – known as ‘DipTel’ in Foreign Office jargon – updating Downing Street on political events in the US and providing commentary on Trump’s foreign policy decisions.

They reveal details of highly sensitive negotiations over efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, as well as the disarray surrounding the President’s handling of recent attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

One memo, sent by Sir Kim on June 22, refers to ‘incoherent, chaotic’ US-Iran policy, adding: ‘Its unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon. This is a divided Administration’.

He questioned Trump’s recent claim that he aborted a missile strike on Iran because it would have caused a predicted 150 casualties, saying it ‘doesn’t stand up’.

‘It’s more likely that he was never fully on board and that he was worried about how this apparent reversal of his 2016 campaign promises would look come 2020’ – at the next Presidential election.

Another memo, sent on June 10, warns of tensions ahead over Brexit: ‘As we advance our agenda of deepening and strengthening trading arrangements, divergences of approach on climate change, media freedoms and the death penalty may come to the fore.’

The leak of diplomatic cables is extremely unusual and will raise new questions about morale in the Civil Service.

When dealing with Trump you need to make your points simple, even blunt
There is mounting evidence that Brexit has politicised many mandarins, with officials who privately support Brexit accusing the Civil Service of trying to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Darroch, who became British Ambassador to Washington in January 2016, is a former UK Permanent Representative to the EU and widely regarded as a europhile.

The Foreign Office last night said that the British public ‘would expect our Ambassadors to provide Ministers with an honest, unvarnished assessment of the politics in their countries’.

A spokesman added: ‘Their views are not necessarily the views of Ministers or indeed the Government. But we pay them to be candid, just as the US Ambassador here will send back his reading of Westminster politics and personalities.

‘Of course we would expect such advice to be handled by Ministers and civil servants in the right way and it’s important that our Ambassadors can offer their advice and for it remain confidential.

‘Our team in Washington have strong relations with the White House and no doubt that these will withstand such mischievous behaviour.’


About Sir Kim and how he gets his information (bold our emphasis)

He joined the Foreign Office in 1977 after graduating because ‘they were the first people to offer me a job’ and started his ascent through the ranks at Embassies around the world, including top roles dealing with EU bureaucrats in Brussels.

When he landed the most prestigious diplomatic post in the Foreign Office – British Ambassador to the United States – in 2016, Barack Obama was winding down his presidency. Sir Kim and his wife Vanessa, who he married in 1978, soon settled into the comfortable private apartment in the Embassy, widely regarded as the finest in Washington DC.

It has a ballroom, boutique hotel-style guest rooms, a library and beautiful gardens. It was his reward for 40 years in the Civil Service, and he threw himself into the social whirl. The residence hosts almost 800 breakfasts, lunches, dinners and cocktail parties a year, and Sir Kim reportedly shows up at 90 per cent of them.

His job was relatively straightforward – until Donald Trump arrived.
Days after winning the Presidential election in November 2016, Trump was tweeting that he’d prefer his friend Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, to be Britain’s Ambassador to the US.

No 10 insisted it was for Britain to decide who serves as its Ambassador, while Sir Kim bit his tongue.

Other parts to the Daily Mail report:





Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

The citizenship question so clear Roberts can’t see straight

If chief Justice Roberts was concerned that the Trump administration had some nefarious ‘political’ motive for wanting the citizenship question included on the census form, why didn’t he have also have a concern that those opposing the addition of the question might have a “political” motive for doing so? Hmm?

This Clarice Feldman article at American Thinker, clearly reporting as it does the slam dunk Constitutional arguments, historic, political and logical — should give every confidence to Trump to proceed with insuring that the citizenship question is included on census forms.  We would be disappointed (one of few) if he backs off.  Pictures not in Feldman article (for your edification and analysis set below). Related reading at Gateway Pundit     DLH

2000 Census question


How Many Divisions Does Chief Justice Roberts Have? 
By Clarice Feldman

When Obama didn’t like a court order, he ignored it

In fact , he exceeded the constitutional bounds of his office at least 10 times, notes Ilya Shapiro. He did it in intervening in Libya without even notifying Congress; in subverting creditors’ rights in the Chrysler bailout; in his administration’s implementation of ObamaCare; In the political profiling by the IRS; in illegally appointing three members of the NLRB and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board when Congress was not in recess; in directing “the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits” to the so-called Dreamers (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals); in assaulting free speech and due process on college campuses; in creating and implementing his clean power plan; in his overly expansive clean water plan to cover water which is  not navigable; in adopting a net neutrality rule; in implementing a cap-and-trade rule.

After the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’ rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.

By contrast, although hampered at every turn by Obama-appointed district court judges assuming themselves to be commanders-in-chief and issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions on spurious grounds, this administration has continued to follow the accepted path of appealing those rulings, despite the delays that entails.

Oddly, Chief Justice Roberts took issue with the notion that these usurpers are Obama judges, claiming the federal judiciary is politically neutral. I say oddly, because twice Roberts has not been politically neutral — once in affirming the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s mandatory insurance on grounds not argued by the government and now in deciding that including a question about citizenship while constitutionally permissible and done according to the relevant statutes might have been done for an undeclared motive, partisan advantage. By waiting until the last day of the term to announce his decision, he in effect gave himself a pocket veto. This is so because the time for printing the forms was so close and the census due to begin in October, shortly after the court returns for a new term. Though the case was remanded to take evidence about the purpose of the question it is likely the conclusion of that exercise below which would certainly return to his court could not be resolved in time by the Roberts’ court.

While the government at first seemed to concede defeat, it’s not at all certain that is the case.

Exactly how this will proceed remains up in the air, but in the Wall Street Journal, two distinguished lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Gilson B. Gray,  have offered the president a solution.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment provides that if a state denies the franchise to anyone eligible to vote, its allotment of House seats shall be “reduced in the proportion which the number of such… citizens shall bear to the whole number of… citizens… in such state.” This language is absolute and mandatory. Compliance is impossible without counting how many citizens live in each state. [snip] The president should issue an executive order stating that, to comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, the citizenship question will be added to the 2020 census. In addition, he can order the Commerce Department to undertake, on an emergency basis, a new Census Act rulemaking.

That would trigger another round of litigation. Opponents would choose a federal district court likely to block it again, and the Justice Department would have to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention during its summer recess. While rare, such an emergency review has happened before. With the justification for the citizenship question being clear and compelling, the administration should prevail.

The census has in recent years taken on more than a tinge of partisanship. Soon after taking office, President Obama required the director of the Census to report directly to the White House, rather than as is customary to the Commerce Secretary.

The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn’t be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had “serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count.”

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. “If the original numbers aren’t as hard as possible, the uses they’re put to get fuzzier and fuzzier,” says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.

Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.

In truth, the census fight is about the allocation of political power, as it was when the slave states sought to have slaves counted for the purpose of allocating political districts even though the slaves could not vote. It has been increasingly about money as well with federal allocations depending on number of residents, not residents eligible to vote. There’s every incentive for localities greedy for funds and increased power to welcome illegals into their districts without letting us know how many they harbor.

Jonathan Tobin notes that historically the citizenship question was never absent from the long-form census which some Americans receive and is on other government questionnaires outside the census such as the annual American Community Survey.

What’s also obvious is that knowing the total number of citizens, as opposed to legal or illegal aliens, is useful information. Inquiring about citizenship status when you’re counting people is hardly intrusive or an abuse, let alone illegal, as previous court challenges to various questions have reaffirmed.

Democrats say that illegal aliens, as well as legal immigrants who are not citizens but who may be living with those that are here without permission, may be highly reluctant to answer the census questions. If true, that could have an impact on the numbers and, as Democrats fear, result in an undercounting of population in areas with heavy concentrations of illegal immigrants, making it harder for local governments to plan and get federal aid. Even more important than that, if this assertion were correct, it could result in states with large numbers of illegal immigrants not getting as many congressional districts as they might have if every person — legal and illegal — were included in the count.

But the assumption that illegal and legal aliens were happy to fill out these forms in 2010 but won’t do so again is unfounded. It is highly unlikely that illegal aliens are filling out census questionnaires — or any government survey — even if the word “citizen” is banished from the form. Illegal immigrants and even those with legal resident status tend to be extremely skittish — for understandable reasons — about doing anything that might, even in theory, attract attention from the government. The number of illegal immigrants shunning the census if it includes a question about citizenship isn’t likely to be much greater than the total of those who did so in 2010 when there was no such question.

The second point is just as obvious but is also clearly rejected by liberals. Including illegal immigrants in the count so as to ensure that states with large numbers of them get maximum representation in the House is inherently fraudulent. While the goal of the census is to count every person residing in the country, the notion that its purpose is also to ensure that those who are subject to deportation if caught are as entitled to fair representation in Congress as U.S. citizens is as bizarre as it is untenable.

It appears that a significant majority of Americans agree that the citizenship question should be included in the census:

A majority of voters in a new poll say that a question about U.S. citizenship should be included in the 2020 census, an issue currently before justices on the Supreme Court.

Six in 10 registered voters, 60 percent, in a Hill-HarrisX survey released Tuesday said that the U.S. Census Bureau should ask the citizenship question even if it results in fewer responses. Another 21 percent said the question should not be included, while 19 percent were unsure.

They’d probably agree with Tobin as well that the main aim of those objecting to the question is to blur “the distinction between citizens and non-citizens so as to advance an agenda of amnesty for illegal immigrants.”

Nor is there much factual basis for asserting that a citizenship question will reduce the accuracy of the census.  

“The first time the citizenship question was on the census was 1820,” remarked von Spakovsky. “It was then consistently on the census up through 1950. In 1950, the Census Bureau decided that rather than send out one census form, they would send out two forms: a short-form and what they called a long-form.

Von Spakovsky explained how the Obama administration removed the “citizenship question” from the census in 2010, transferring it a new Census Bureau analysis entitled the American Community Survey.

“The long-form had more questions on it [and] went out to 1-in-6 households across the country, and it also had a citizenship question on it,” recalled von Spakovsky. “The long-form was used through the 2000 census. The 2000 census — the long-form — was sent out with the citizenship question on it. They then decided during the Obama administration in 2010 not to send out the long-form anymore. Instead, they would only send out the short-form, but they decided to create a second survey form in order to get more current information.”

Von Spakovsky went on, “[The American Community Survey] doesn’t go out every ten years. It goes out every year. … It’s very long. It has a lot of questions on it. it goes out to 1-in-36 households. It has a citizenship question on it. The citizenship question is currently being sent out in a Census Bureau survey. The only thing the Trump administration said was, ‘We’re going to take that citizenship question that is on that current survey sent out by the Census Bureau, and we’re going to move it back to the regular census form.’ And yet that’s portrayed as some sort of nefarious, unprecedented action by the administration.”

I want the President to fight this and think the idea of an executive order along the lines Rivkin and Gray suggest looks like a promising avenue to do so. It also occurs to me that the power of the Supreme Court rests significantly on the public’s acceptance of its neutral application of law and recognition of the limits of its powers. Chief Justice Roberts has now twice done great damage to the public’s belief in the Supreme Court’s authority and the deference owed it.

In a lighter vein, viewing the perfervid yapping on the left about how horrible the USA, Betsy Ross, Thomas Jefferson, the Fourth of July  and the President are, I invite you to this lovely and hilarious piece by an immigrant to the U.S. by Oleg  Atbashian. 

Equating our two cultures [The West’s and the Islamic nations}is not just unnatural — it’s suicidal. We should consider ourselves lucky that a few generations ago Western nations managed to lift themselves out of the sewer in which humanity lived for thousands of years. These nations have mastered science, arts, medicine, increased life expectancy, and developed a legal system that grants more rights and freedoms to individual citizens than any other culture in history. The advancement is reciprocal: the more freedoms the individuals have, the better off the nation is economically. At the head of this upward movement is the United States, the first nation to put individual freedoms above the government’s interests. Placing the government in the service of the people at an age when the rest of the world viewed the people as mere servants to their governments.

The vertical map of the world’s cultures is never a still picture; they are moving along the entire visible length of the stairwell of progress. The invisible flights of stairs are still ahead of us — a terra incognita. How far up does the stairwell go? Is there an end to it? How soon will humanity get there, and how much has already been covered? If we want answers we shouldn’t be stopping the pioneers. We must celebrate them.

As for the poor bastards still down at the bottom, you may empathize with them all you want. But you may also feel a relief that at least some part of the human race has found the ability to clean up their act and show the way to other nations — and a hope that one day, with the right attitude, the others may also climb out of the sewer.

And that is what the Fourth of July means to this author. Fireworks, barbecues, and department store sales are optional.

Laugh at the left — they deserve derision


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

That the Betsy Ross flag, our first US flag, triggers the left

The Democrat left is ruled by, championed by, an elite largely composed of outright Marxists, comm-simps and useful-idiot celebrity America haters (with corporate sponsorship to boot). That is the ilk that runs the Democrat Party, its appendages and string pullers.

“Traditional” Democrats —  either lazy, hide-bound, soft-headed or resentment mongers that they are —  sustain the momentum that those “visionaries” hope will  bring this country over the edge to their dream of one-world government.

The latest outrage they harbor, a frequent regurgitation actually, is resentment over the flying of the original American flag. They say it was conceived in slavery or represents a time of slavery, or something.  That ilk is OK with displaying other flags on this soil, just not one promoting the freedom of sovereign nationhood, as they look to their utopian (however inevitably dystopian) dream of a one-world flag.

Now Betsy Ross may have had slavery on her mind on occasion, anti-slavery Quaker that she was, but her task was simple and elegantly rendered – design a flag representing/fostering the unity of the newly established decision of the thirteen rebellious colonies to unite as a country composed of thirteen politically equal states and free themselves of Great Britain’s tyranny.  A banner representing one cause. The unity was conceived earlier but birthed on July 4th 1776. So displaying it on that anniversary makes sense, doesn’t it?

Not to the Kaepernicks,  the Nike corporate brain trust, the leftist media, etc.  That that flag somehow uniquely represents slavery, or slavery at all, is beyond ignorant, it is pure calumny.

And by the way, what were the flags of the world at the time about? Great Britain, Spain, France, African nations (such as existed), the Muslim world . . .  name the continent — slavery was legal practically everywhere. In Africa Blacks held slaves and sold other Blacks into slavery. American Indians here did the same. How is it that those “flags” did not represent slavery and the United States flag was somehow unique in its encompassing slavery?

The truth about the original stars and bars is that the ideals that would inextricably cause the end of slavery and the mechanism for doing so, were established under that flag.

That “traditional” Democrats do not rise up with righteous anger and throw those flag-haters from their party, or part company, says a lot about them and their party.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment


How come “Spartacus” can break laws he doesn’t agree with with impunity and others would face charges?  And by the way who ever said seeking asylum was not a legal right? Determining the veracity of it is a different question. These individuals were allowed to make the claim and were processed according to regulations pending review and sent to the protection of Mexican authorities, their first “port of entry”. From the Daily Mail:

‘Seeking asylum is a legal right’: Democratic Presidential candidate Cory Booker causes controversy by helping immigrants in Mexico return to the US after they were deported as he is slammed for ‘breaking the law’

Cory Booker crossed the US border at El Paso, Texas into Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
Booker helped asylum-seekers get back to the US after they had been deported
He was joined in Mexico by immigration rights attorneys and other advocates
Senator caused controversy on social media after helping the asylum seekers

They appeared to have been sent back to Mexico under the Trump administration’s ‘Migrant Protection Protocols’.

MPP sends asylum-seekers back to Mexico while their applications for asylum are pending.

It comes after Booker released a new immigration plan on Tuesday that would ‘virtually eliminate immigration detention.’

Seems rather cut and dried actually: (but then the law is considered a flexible thing coming from Newark, New Jersey)

Critics accuse Senator Cory Booker of breaking the law

The Democratic Presidential candidate was accused of breaking a law from 1907 after he escorted migrants overs the border:

1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) OFFENSES

Subsection 1324(a)(1) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts.

Meanwhile, Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Megan Rapinoe Utters A Full Sentence without the Word F–ing !!

Breaking News

  • Announces how much she loves America as despicable as it is (see her quotes below):
  • Hopefully Nike will read Rapinoe in context otherwise it hurts chances for A Nike Contract
  • Meant to say she’s a ‘Kaepernick American’

U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe on Wednesday defended herself against critics accusing her of not being American enough to represent the nation in the Women’s World Cup, Yahoo Sport reported Wednesday.

“I think I am particularly American and very deeply American, if you want to talk about the ideals that we stand for and what we were founded on,” Rapinoe said. “Maybe you don’t agree with every single way that I do it or [what] gets discussed. I know I am not perfect.”

“But I know I stand for honesty and for truth and for wanting to have the conversation,” she continued. “And for looking at the country honestly and saying, ‘Yes, we are a great country and there are so many things that are amazing and I feel very fortunate to be in this country’ … But also that doesn’t mean we can’t get better.”

Rapinoe, who has become a prominent critic of the Trump administration, made headlines last week after a video went viral of her saying she is “not going to the f—ing White House” if the U.S. women’s national team wins the World Cup in the final match on Sunday.

But her happiness with the country is suspect, — how does one one square living in such a country as the US with such damning faults:  Wouldn’t (insert approved pronoun) be happier as a free agent?

May 16, 2019
“The openly gay soccer star told Yahoo Sports that she will no longer participate in patriotic displays as a protest of the Trump administration. Rapinoe added that because she is “as talented as I am” she can use her platform as an “f-you” to those she opposes.” https://iotwreport.com/u-s-womens-soccer-co-captain-megan-rapinoe-says-she-hates-america/

From Sports Yahoo:

“… it’s kind of a good ‘F you’

“…she will still represent that federation – the same one she’s suing for “institutionalized gender discrimination.” She’ll represent a presidential administration that, she believes, doesn’t “value all Americans equally,” and a country plagued by “atrocities … extreme poverty … homelessness … mass incarceration … discrimination against people of color, and police brutality.”

She is at ease, however, in her role as USWNT co-captain. She is “a walking protest when it comes to the Trump administration,” she says, because of “everything I stand for.”

“I feel like it’s kind of defiance in and of itself to just be who I am and wear the jersey, and represent it,” she continues. “Because I’m as talented as I am, I get to be here, you don’t get to tell me if I can be here or not. So it’s kind of a good ‘F you’ to any sort of inequality or bad sentiments that the [Trump] administration might have towards people who don’t look exactly like him…

For more on how ‘courageous’, ‘wonderful’, ‘patriotic’ Ms. Rapinoe is :

And for more on this ‘lovely lady’ and the impact on corporate America she and others like “The Colon” Kaepernick, we recommend this Powerline post:

“Oreo cookies, a division of international foods giant Nabisco, announced yesterday a “special” LGBT edition that includes lectures about how to use transgender pronouns.

“We’re proud to celebrate inclusivity for all gender identities and expressions,” the company wrote in its Facebook post announcing the change. “In partnership with NCTE, we’re giving away special edition Pronoun Packs and encouraging everybody to share their pronouns with Pride today and every day.”



Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment


Hey, no kidding? Any Trump appearance or Trump supported national event is “feared” by Democrats.

And this is one that to suggest that Democrats might “fear” it is a no brainer.

July 4 is a , if not THE, nation’s Patriotic Holiday.

And if you haven’t caught on yet, it is PATRIOTISM that Democrats really “fear”! Show me a Democrat politician, especially all those would-be presidential candidates, who don’t firmly believe that “America Never Was Great”!

Although only the dumbest, like New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo actually say that out loud. Most all the others hide their feelings, identical to those expressed by Cuomo, and say stuff intended to make ordinary Americans think they actually like this nation and are proud to be Americans.

But they can’t hide it when President Donald Trump makes a public display of how much he loves America, an emotion shared by most of his fellow Americans.

So, when the President sets a day for a massive celebration of this nation, its founding, its values, its history, and its many great contributions to the world, Democrats and their media lackeys are naturally going to “fear” it…and for them, yes, it IS ‘political’.

So,on this July 4 take a page from Barack Obama’s book of etiquette. When you see a Democrat trembling at the sight of the American flag or at the sound of the national Anthem being played, “get in his/her face” and say, “God Bless America”!      DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Short takes

  • We guess because AOC said it, there is a crisis at the border after all
  • DLH has a couple of observations on the passing scene

This Madeline Osburn article at The Federalist identifies  8 Times The Media Said There Was No Crisis At The Southern Border We have one caveat  about the lead in: AOC is not media savvy, as if she were intelligently manipulative. She is a child of the media, a predictable automaton manufactured, “parented”  by the leftist media. Like a child she can sometimes expose bad parenting.  Each item in her list is documented in the full article.

Now that media-savvy congressional Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have brought attention to the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border caused by Congress’s refusal to fix our exploited immigration laws, political pundits are having to eat their own words from just a few months ago claiming that the border crisis was manufactured by President Trump as a political stunt.

Last week, before President Trump departed for the G20 Summit in Japan, he told reporters on the White House lawn that his critics are now seeing he was right all along.

“It’s humanitarian aid, it’s very important and I think that a lot of people are starting to realize that I was right when I said we have a crisis at the border,” Trump said. “…A crisis at the border wasn’t a manufactured crisis, which they were saying, it wasn’t manufactured at all. We have a crisis at the border.”

So who are the people he’s referring to? Many of the journalism world’s favorite pundits and media institutions. Here are the receipts.

1. Reporter Jim Acosta’s Self-Own at the Wall

2. ‘Morning Joe’ Described the Crisis as Manufactured

3. CNN Anchor Don Lemon, the ‘Manufactured’ Crisis Broken Record

4. Joe Scarborough: Americans are ‘Stupid’ for Believing There’s a Border Crisis

5. Anderson Cooper: The Number of Migrants Seeking Asylum Has Slowed to a ‘Trickle’

6. The New York Times’ ‘The Daily’ Says None of Trump’s Concerns Are True

7. Univision Journalist Jorge Ramos: Trump Invented the Invasion

8. The New York Times Editorial Board Says Trump Dreamed Up the Crisis

DLH : No slurs no hate crime ?!
Article by  Yaron Steinbuch  N Y Post July 2, 2019     NYPD ramps up patrols at Staten Island Mall in wake of attacks

“The fifth fracas broke out about 9 p.m. June 26, when two 14-year-old white girls were attacked by a group of girls described as black and about 13 or 14.

“Police don’t think race played a role in that attack, either.

“There’s nothing that elevates it to the status of a hate crime right now,” the source told the Advance. “There’s no slurs. There’s nothing to support that.”

Five “incidents”: A “…group of girls described as black and about 13 or 14…”  attacked two 14-year-old “white girls”; in four other “incidents” in the same Staten Island Mall attacks were committed by “… a group of 12- and 13-year-old black and Hispanic girls…”
But, the N Y Post reports, with a straight face apparently, “police don’t think race played a role…” in any of the 5 “fracases”!




Have to keep that in mind the next time there’s a similar “incident”…whether seeming to be based on gender, race, religion, or other ‘differences’ in the attacker/victim profiles.
No ‘slurs’…no “hate crime’!

Once widely respected…now respected only by … whom?

Juan Williams, on Fox’s “The Five”:

“I think AOC deserves a “tip of the hat” for exposing…”(all the bad stuff the Border Patrol and the Trump administration are doing to the children ion the “concentration camps”!).

To be willing to portray himself as an unbelievably ignorant ass on national television (on FOX), Juan Williams must be paid a huge amount of money…or…he IS an unbelievably ignorant ass!    DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment