To quote Churchill, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

All of the candidates were throwing around all sorts of statistics these last two nights, and all sorts of “Plans.”

Does anyone actually believe any of these statistics are objectively gathered and accurate, are really true?

Does anyone actually believe that any of these candidate’s supposed “Plans” will operate as they say they will, and deliver the results they are promising they will deliver, as they massively implement “fundamental transformations” in our government, economy, and society?

You do remember, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your Plan, you can keep your Plan,” and how Obamacare was going to save each family “an average of $2,400 dollars a year,” don’t you?

You do remember the video of Obamacare architect Johnathan Gruber sneering and boasting about how the ignorance and gullibility of the voters, and the deliberately impenetrable and tortured language and interpretations of the Obamacare bill, made it possible for the Obama Administration to get Obamacare made into law?

Together, the Democrat candidates these last two nights just built a huge, steaming, stinking pile of BS, created castles in the air, built for the gullible, delivered, glittering, empty promises-all too soon conveniently forgotten.

You should work for Project Veritas with investigation instincts like that, son.

Bernie was in full angry old crank mode, and I pictured him wearing one of those worker’s flat caps that Lenin used to be pictured in, ranting and flailing his arms around in a smoky union hall somewhere, as he screeched “workers of the world unite.”

But I did notice that miracles had been at work among some of the candidates, Bernie included.

Thus, while spending his time being a red-faced, ranting, full bore Socialist, railing against the “rich,” Bernie has somehow managed to accumulate three houses, his last and most recent acquisition, a “beachfront vacation home.”

Then there is “lunch-box” Joe Biden, who also lives in a very nice multi-million dollar waterfront home, this one in a several acre compound in Delaware. These days, he don’t much like the “rich” either.

Joe’s sons have been extremely lucky, as well, one son–despite having no training or expertise in this area–landing a $50,000 dollar a month gig on the board of a Ukrainian Energy company. Not only that, but, miraculously also receiving a $1.5 Billion dollar investment by the state Bank of China in a stock fund he runs, this just days after an “official” trip by Biden and his son to China.

They musta been praying awful hard.

Then, there is Elizabeth Warren–another ranter against those evil, disgusting, filthy rich–who, to hear her tell it, grew up sorta dirt poor and, yet, she somehow became an American Indian, and as a “woman of color” got better and better faculty positions, University of Texas to University of Pennsylvania, until she ended up in a tenured position at Harvard.

Warren reportedly also lives in a multi-million dollar house, and miracle of miracles, somewhere along the way she somehow lost her Indian blood since now, at Harvard, she is no longer listed or touted–as she was in the past by that august University–as an American Indian.

Being a “public servant” and ranting against the evil rich can, it seems, make you rich!

Whatta country!

On the citizenship question, I am definitely missing something. I thought the census gathered data on the citizenry. I wouldn’t expect any of the questions to apply to, say, guest workers–wouldn’t they be tracked under some separate program, the one that regulates who can be here under the various visas, etc.? Someone said the left doesn’t want us to know how many non-citizens are receiving benefits. Isn’t that data available elsewhere? And why does anyone think the census is the best way to gather data about any of these issues, isn’t it extremely easy to lie on the form? I really don’t get it.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/pennsylvania-supreme-court-pulls-stunning-coup-in-map-drawing-stunt/

It was Kennedy who, while siding with the majority in Vieth in 2004, wrote separately to say that, while there was yet no manageable standard for courts to apply to political gerrymandering cases, there might be such a standard someday and, if it were discovered, he would consider applying it. “I would not,” he wrote, “foreclose all possibility of judicial relief if some limited and precise rationale were found to correct an established violation of the Constitution in some redistricting cases.”

In Gill v. Whitford, now pending before the federal Supreme Court, Democrats think they have found that standard. With some dubious math applied to inconvenient facts, they think they can construct a system by which judges may impartially construct “fair” legislative districts. But as this case shows quite clearly, no system is a philosopher’s stone for transmuting political choices into non-political judgments.

Politics is a part of a democratic republic. It is how we, as political animals, govern ourselves. Even within a system of neutral guidelines, choices must be made, and those choices have political consequences. When a court is compelled to make those choices, they do not magically become apolitical choices. To the contrary, the apolitical courts take on a political sheen. As bad as this decision is for the rule of law in Pennsylvania, one silver lining might be that it shows why it would be an even worse idea for the Supreme Court to apply a similar tactic nationwide.

If this boast is true, I’d think that–their ability to gerrymander now unleashed–the Republicans in control of these statehouses now have a much greater chance of maintaining their control.

On the Census question, asking about your citizenship has been a standard quesition on many decennial censuses.

Moreover, as I understand it, ascertaining just how many actual citizens are in each State is one of the central purposes of the Census.

This, since that total determines the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives–lose citizen population and the number of Representatives your State is entitled to in the House decreases and, thus, your voting power diminishes, gain citizens in your State, and your voting power in the House increases.

As I understand it, that number of total citizens number also performs another key function, because that number is used to calculate just how much Federal aid your State is entitled to receive.

Given just these two critical functions alone, how anyone could argue that this citizenship question should not be included in the Census is beyond me.

One commentary that I’ve read indicated that the justices voted as the did, because they were not sure of the “purity” of the motives of the Trump Administration officials for wanting this question to be included the Census.

If this is, indeed, some Justice’s reasoning, this is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

This sounds much more like a theological debate or a psychological inquiry, rather than an analysis based on the Law.

What the hell are they smoking over there at the Court?