Immigration and Voting

It appears from the various bills and campaigns that the Democrats are pushing that their goal is to bring millions of Central American immigrants to the US and have them vote for Democrats.  The Democratic effort to bring more immigrants into the US has been going on for years.

It is likely that the Democratic drive to bring Latino immigrants into the US was one of the main reasons that Donald Trump was elected President.  His first campaign speech, when he rode down the escalator at Trump Tower, was about immigration.  Trump is white trash and he knows how white trash thinks.  He knows the Democrats despise white trash and believe that destroying its political power is their road to political victory.  That’s one reason they applaud and encourage the destruction of Confederate statues.  Not all Southerners are white trash, but Democrats think they are. 

By vilifying white trash and stuffing the country with immigrant blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats elected Donald Trump.  To offset the Republican votes for Trump that they are creating, the Democrats are working overtime to get the vote for the new immigrants they have brought into the country.  The latest effort is in New York, where they have said that you do not have to be an American citizen to vote in New York elections.  They are also working to speed up naturalization requirements, working to remove any residency time or knowledge of American history requirements, especially for preferred categories, such as DACA applicants.  It’s all part of a Democratic effort to make America less white, less European, more African, more Latino, and more Democratic (the party, not the political system). 

Voting Rights

The Democratic Party and the talking heads are consumed with voting rights.  They want to write a new law that will make it easier to vote, because they claim that Republicans will write new local laws and elect local officials who will make it more difficult to vote, especially for non-whites.  I believe on the contrary that voting laws should be make stricter.  They should require in-person voting, and a government picture ID should be presented in order to vote.  Absentee ballots should be issued only for special cases when they are applied for ahead of time because of travel, sickness, or some other specific problem on election day. 

The supporters of universal, mail-in voting, which we have here in Colorado, claim that no fraud.  In a CNN special that Fareed Zakaria did on the issue, one spokesman said that one study had found only 31 illegal votes in one billion.  This claim seems ludicrous on its face; nothing in nature is that exact.  Is it absolutely impossible that a husband would accidentally fill out his wife’s ballot while she filled out his, forgetting to check the name on the ballot?  Is it impossible that a neighbor or friend would drop in on an elderly voter with a ballot and say, “Let me fill that out for you.”  Fareed says this sort of thing happened only 31 times out of one billion.  I think it is more likely to happen 31 times out of 1,000 or maybe 10,000.  If everybody is so honest, why do we monitor examinations?  Do teachers just like watching students take tests?  The odds of being struck by lightning are about 1 in 500,000.  This would be about 2,000 in 1 billion; so, it’s about 65 times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than that someone would vote illegally. 

How can Fareed Zakaria and his voting rights supporters make such a ridiculous argument?  Because there is no data to check on the validity of the votes.  They do check signatures, but with millions of ballots, how accurate can that check be, especially if the check is against the signatures on drivers licenses, which may be years out of date.  They can claim that cheating is impossible, but I don’t believe them.  I think there is no proof of cheating because there is no trustworthy evidence trail to test for cheating.   

The Democrats rail at people who say vote by mail is untrustworthy, but I don’t trust it.  If you want me to trust election results, you had better vote in person showing picture ID. 

On the other hand, I think voting is an inexact science, even when voting in person, People spoil ballots, put their X in the wrong place, get the candidates’ names mixed up, etc.  So, I think the results of the 2020 election are close enough that we should accept them and move on.  Joe Biden is President. 

I think there is actually a better argument that Al Gore was elected President in 2000, but as a patriot, he refused to drag the country through months of uncertainly, and conceded.  The Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore basically told Florida to stop counting the ballots, just declare a winner based on the results we have right now, regardless of what the actual count might be.  The Supreme Court said an exact count of ballots is not necessary; just give it your best effort.  The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute said: “The larger impact of this case was an increased distrust in the voting processes.  Some scholars say that the decision affected the Supreme Court’s image as an independent judicial body and exposed it to accusations of partisanship.”  The chickens came home to roost in 2020. 

EU Moving Towards Nuclear Power

The European Union will soon decide whether it will classify nuclear power plants as a clean source of energy, according to Bloomberg.  I think it should.  The New York Times reports from a French town on the border with Germany about the dispute between France and Germany on the future of nuclear energy.  A nuclear plant in the French town of Fessenheim has been decommissioned, pleasing the Germans, but French President Macron has stated that he wants to begin construction of new nuclear power plants in France.  France gets more of its electricity from nuclear power plants than any other country and is behind only the United States in the number of operating nuclear plants. 

In addition, the Netherlands coalition government has said that it wants to make nuclear energy part of its long-term green energy plan. It announced that it will keep its Borselle nuclear plant, built in 1973, open longer and will build two new nuclear plants, according to World Nuclear News

I was pleased to see David Kopel on “Colorado Inside Out”  complement the Netherlands by saying that the Netherlands decision represented “the only realistic way for energy independence and to fight global warming.” 

Facing Up to Putin

Ukraine is not Poland.  Putin’s threat to take back all or part of Ukraine is somewhat different from a threat to take part of Poland or Hungary.  Poland, Hungary and other former members of the Warsaw Pact have a history of being independent countries for centuries.  For a thousand years, Ukraine has been more or less a part of Russia.  Under the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the “Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” while Poland and the other Warsaw Pact nations remained independent countries, even if in name only.   Hung

The Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, were also SSRs which were part of the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, but they all have much longer and clearer histories of independence than Ukraine.  Putin was not pleased when the Baltic states joined NATO in 2004, and that may be one reason he is so determined not to see Ukraine follow in their footsteps.  Other former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO, such as Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania.  The populations of most of the countries of the Russian “near abroad” (countries that used to be part of the old USSR) are happy to be out from under Russia, but there are some individuals who still look to Russia nostalgically.  Russia’s relationship with some of the other “near abroad” countries that have not joined NATO is somewhat murky, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the various “stans,” Kazakhstan being the largest.  Turkmenistan became important during the American evacuation from Afghanistan. 

Ukraine’s independence, although it has been a fact for about twenty years, is somewhat like one of the United States, Texas or California, becoming independent. Of course, the Southern states tried this during the Civil War, and the European powers did not intervene to any great extent. 

The main concern in today’s world is that one country should not take another country’s territory by force.  This is exactly the kind of thing that the United Nations and NATO were designed to prevent.  We have had wars for independence and territory in the former Yugoslavia, in Africa, and in other parts of the world.  Ukraine is a somewhat unusual case, and for that reason it may not be a good place to draw a line in the sand that might lead to war.  Putin as posited several “red lines” that he will not tolerate crossing by the West.  Biden has replied that the US will not accept red lines.  However, it does not appear that Ukraine is an ideal place for the West to go to war with Russia.  Russia would be fighting on its own border; it has cultural ties to Ukraine, even if no legal claims.     

On the other hand, we should not appear to give permission to Putin to take part of Ukraine by force or threat.  To do so would appear like the appeasement that did not work with Hitler before World War II.  It might encourage Putin to assert more authority over other countries in Russia’s “near abroad.”  He is clearly nostalgic for the old Soviet Union and all the satellite states it controlled. 

On balance, it looks as if non-military means, such as sanctions, are the best response to Putin’s threats.  Sanctions of any kind are weak and unlikely to harm Putin personally, but they do show that we do not approve of what he is doing.  They may be enough of a nuisance to dissuade him from trying similar moves with other bordering countries.  If Putin expands his threats, then maybe NATO will have to return to its original role as a united front against Russia as it was against the old Soviet Union. 

We don’t yet know exactly what Biden and Putin said in their conversation.  Perhaps their conversation will help determine what our next steps should be. 

Putin threatened by working democracy in Ukraine

Biden Seeks Nuclear Waste Storage

Reuters reports that President Biden is seeking communities that would voluntarily host nuclear wast storage sites.  It’s unlikely that anyone will volunteer given the widespread opposition to nuclear power, but at least Biden is seeking a way to continue to produce electricity from nuclear reactors.  If America is serious about combatting global warming, nuclear power will be necessary.  This voluntary site would replace the Yucca Mountain site which has failed to get approval.