Ben Domenech's Crusade & My Cowardice

I’m a bit of a coward. I remember a scuffle, not really a full brawl, breaking out in the stairwell as me and 2 or 3 friends sat upstairs in an establishment. I felt trapped because the staircase was the only way out. The fight was quickly broken up, however, and when we hurriedly and discretely left, at least one of the battlers was outside in the alleyway, handing his wallet to his partner as she yelled at him to just leave it be. But he seemed ready for round 2 so to speak.

We were leaving through the side door and I just caught a glimpse of the scenario. I believe his opponent was actually patiently waiting a few feet away while he handed his belongings to his girlfriend.

I was relieved to walk briskly away from that bar. Just like I was always relieved that I wasn't in some club or pub when a brawl spilled out it's entranceway onto the sidewalk. Not that I lived walking past bars with brawls. Rather, the few violent incidents I witnessed always made me want to retreat and to hopefully avoid any such situation.

But sometimes you have no choice to confront and fight.

Ben Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist and in a recent issue of The Transom - his newsletter - he has a depressing and determined piece on the cultural wars in America (and much of the world nowadays). It's a call for a crusade, or rather, it's a blatant declaration that we are in an ugly, angry, and nasty cultural war in which conservatives - especially people of faith - have no choice but to fight with all the venom that Saul Alinsky laid out in his handbook for radicals.

His piece centers on a debate between National Review's David French and the New York Post's Sohrab Ahmari on whether conservatives can and should be polite with people who would like to dismantle their belief systems and force them to abide by radical progressive rules. Here's Ahmari writing at First Things:

French prefers a different Christian strategy, and his guileless public mien and strategic preferences bespeak a particular political theology (though he would never use that term), one with which I take issue. Thus, my complaint about his politeness wasn't a wanton attack; it implicated deeper matters.

Such talk--of politics as war and enmity--is thoroughly alien to French, I think, because he believes that the institutions of a technocratic market society are neutral zones that should, in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side. Even if the latter--that is, the libertine and the pagan--predominate in elite institutions, French figures, then at least the former, traditional Christians, should be granted spaces in which to practice and preach what they sincerely believe.

Well, it doesn't work out that way, and it hasn't been working out that way for a long time--as French well knows, since he has spent a considerable part of his career admirably and passionately advocating for Christians coercively squeezed out of the public square. In that time, he--we--have won discrete victories, but the overall balance of forces has tilted inexorably away from us, and I think that French-ian model bears some of the blame.

The danger of course is that the means corrupt the ends. But Ahmari's point is that the means will never get to the ends a conservative wishes for - a place in the public square for people of faith to live and abide by their beliefs without being hounded into submission. Domenech in The Transom goes a step further:


Social conservatives should be most concerned that both French and Ahmari are wrong about what the enemies of freedom believe possible, that the harshest voices in the American left won't be satisfied just driving traditional American values from the oped pages or the universities or the local boards. Instead, the left may be turning into the culture war white walkers, bent on utter and total destruction of everything American Christians hold dear - including the liberty to hold beliefs at odds with the consensus of the elite - and that they will root for that belief, even when it is hidden in their hearts.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's grilling of Judicial nominee Amy Barrett a couple of years ago is evidence enough of Domenech's warning:

Dogma and law are two different things. I think, whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different; in your case, Professor [Barrett], when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years, in this country.

In other words, my view on abortion rights as a liberal senator and the laws that support that view are the only dogma that matter. You as a pro-life Catholic woman must submit to Roe v Wade in everything you do and your faith cannot inform your rulings as a judge. Because if they did, you might end up at the Supreme Court someday and help overturn Roe v. Wade. Or at least leave it up to the states to limit and even overturn the law. We will therefore reach into your mind and heart and neutralize you by banishment.

Is Domenech right about his crusade?

I fear we will lose something precious if we brawl and only brawl in as ugly and nasty and fight as there has been for perhaps generations. But then again, I'm the guy walking quickly away outside on the sidewalk. While people like Domenech and Ben Shapiro are inside in the middle of the fight covered in blood and spit.

Posted by Keeley at June 3, 2019 1:49 PM
Comments
Comment #444359
While people like Domenech and Ben Shapiro are inside in the middle of the fight covered in blood and spit.
Perhaps that is what is needed when the left, some Democrats, and similar ilk are engaging in mob-like behavior against anyone who disagrees with them (i.e. using forcible and violent suppression of the opposition, which is an element of fascism).

And now, it is looking more and more like Democrats and the deep-state attempted a coup on a sitting president, by weaponizing the FBI, DOJ, IRS, etc.?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 4, 2019 9:18 AM
Comment #444364

Now that leftists have taken over the democratic party, they are using their fascist/socialist tactics to:
- Demand the removal of a duly elected President simply because he isn’t PC enough, dismisses their social so-called justice nonsense, and refuses to bow down to their political ideology.
- Intimidate, threaten and physically attack normal Americans who disagree with them.
- Destroy public and private property.
- Harass and threaten private businesses who do not support leftist views.
- Threaten our national security.
- Use their identity politics to divide Americans.

Being content with the ‘blood and spit’ of debate is no longer an option. It is way past time for Americans to cover themselves in the ‘blood and spit’ of these violent unhinged radical leftists.

Posted by: kctim at June 4, 2019 10:09 AM
Comment #444366
kctim wrote: Being content with the ‘blood and spit’ of debate is no longer an option.
Agreed. The perpetrators of the following violations need to be held accountable for weaponizing the FBI, DOJ, IRS, and other departments, and for abusing their power in numerous ways:
  • DEEP STATE WEAPONIZED FBI, DOJ, IRS, etc.: Members in the deep-state conspired to ignore the 110 classified emails found on Hillary Clinton’s ameteur email server. James Comey, Loretta Lynch, and others in the DOJ and FBI protected Hillary from being indicted for those crimes;
  • CONSPIRING TO EXONERATE HILLARY CLINTON: In Obama’s administration, Hillary Clinton broke the law (by sending classified information through personal email, and for destroying emails), and James Comey and Loretta Lynch (and others in the FBI and DOJ) protected Hillary from being prosecuted. Other people have spent time in prison for far less. Loretta Lynch subsequently met secretly in a private meeting with Bill Clinton in Phoenix (29-JUN-2016) to signal Hillary’s exoneration decision by Comey. Hillary Clinton claimed that the private meeting happened by mere “chance”. It was later proven on 5-AUG-2017 that the meeting was “planned”. Lorreta Lynch used an alias email name of “Elizabeth Carlisle” in the letter to Bill Clinton about the meeting in Phoenix on 29-JUN-2016. The public exoneration statements for Hillary were created before the meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton. Peter Strzok was involved in editing and softening the Comey exoneration draft statement, and texts between Strzok and Lisa Page indicate that Loretta Lynch knew in advance that Hillary would be exonerated by James Comey.
  • FISA ABUSES: And there may very well be an FBI email chain that provides evidence of FISA abuses, and members of the deep state (i.e. James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissmann, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, John McCain(deceased), and quite possibly, Barrack Obama too), who were behind the 2+ year hoax to unseat a sitting President Of The United States of America ?
  • More …
Posted by: d.a.n at June 4, 2019 10:38 AM
Comment #444367

We are way beyond that as well, d.a.n

Posted by: kctim at June 4, 2019 11:10 AM
Comment #444371

Well, I certainly hope the deep-state perpetrators who weaponized the FBI, DOJ, IRS, and other departments are held accountable.
Otherwise, it will happen again and again.
I do not recall any time in my lifetime when the government was weaponized to try to defeat a political opponent running for president, and then abused the power of those departments to also attempt a coup to unseat a president.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 4, 2019 1:09 PM
Comment #444473

And just like that, Biden goes from far-left liberal democrat to leftist radical:

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-now-says-opposes-ban-041758905.html;_ylt=A0PDsBqfXvpc8KsADyxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMHVzM20zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw—

Anti Second Amendment, dividing Americans with racist social justice identity politics, and now forcing American taxpayers to pay for any and all abortions.

Brilliant campaign strategy, Joe. What’s next? Joining the leftist extremists in hating America, our culture, our form of government and our Constitution?

Posted by: kctim at June 7, 2019 8:08 AM
Comment #444475
kctim wrote: Anti Second Amendment, dividing Americans with racist social justice identity politics, and now forcing American taxpayers to pay for any and all abortions.
Abortions should NOT be funded by tax payers.
That’s another (of MANY) despicable thing in the Democrats’ despicable platform.
There’s no low that Democrats won’t stoop to for more votes, money, and power, regardless of how obviously hypocritical they are.
For example, many Democrats want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but many Democrats (and similar ilk on the left) call for restricting or eliminating 2nd Amendment rights, and say it is worth it “even if it saves only ONE life”, but hypocritically ignore about 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens (sources: www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf ; site2data.com/homicides1.html ; www.KlowdTV.com);
Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2019 9:09 AM
Comment #444477

What percentage of Democrat voters realize that their party has shifted to the far, far radical left, and that MANY (including many running for president) now support all of THIS ?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2019 1:53 PM
Comment #444668

And today’s radical leftists continue to incite violence, divide the country, and weaken America.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/447977-lawmakers-clash-after-dem-reads-letter-on-house-floor-calling-trump-supporters

Posted by: kctim at June 11, 2019 3:27 PM
Comment #444673

“Stupid is as stupid does.” - Forrest Gump

But, there’s supposedly nothing radical about this (i.e. the Democrats platform)?

Not to mention that many (if not all) Democrats claim there is no immigration crisis, despite 2,000 homicides per year by non-citizens.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 11, 2019 7:15 PM
Comment #444819

The Democrat party has taken many HUGE steps backwards.

The Democrat party is out-of-control, and there is no low that they will not sink to in order to acquire more votes, money, and power.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 14, 2019 9:08 PM
Comment #445805

Just heard this today.

Congress-person, Veronica Escobar, is secretly sending her tax-payer-funded staff to mexico to teach immigrants how to abuse the defective U.S. asylum laws, and telling immigrants to pretend that they do not speak or understand Spanish. That is fraud!

True asylum seekers in Mexico have already escaped danger in the countries they claim to be fleeing. Buy they don’t want to stay in Mexico, despite Mexico offering the immigrants the right to stay in Mexico.

We’ll add that to the list of despicable things that Democrats will do for more votes, money, and power.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 6, 2019 7:41 AM
Comment #445821

Many of the Democrats running for POTUS are trying to portray the economy as horrible, and promising everything they can think of to buy votes.

Also, did you know there was a [x] Citizenship check-box on the decennial CENSUS, until Obama removed it in year 2010 ?
QUESTION#1: Why did Obama do that?
QUESTION#2: Why are Democrats fighting against adding back the [x] Citizenship check-box on the decennial CENSUS ?
QUESTION#3: Why are Democrats running for POTUS promising all sorts of free stuff, when they know there’s no way the majority of voters are going to want the 70% (or higher) taxces to afford all of it?
QUESTION#4: What’s Justice Robert’s major malfunction, when the decennial CENSUS ALREADY had a citizenship question on it before 2010 when Obama removed it?
QUESTION#5: Why are Democrats doing ALL of this ?
ANSWER: Because, there is no low that Democrats will not stoop to for more votes, money, and power.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 6, 2019 2:53 PM
Comment #445859

“Also, did you know there was a [x] Citizenship check-box on the decennial CENSUS, until Obama removed it in year 2010 ?”

From Politifact

“That’s factually inaccurate. A citizenship question has not been asked of all U.S. households since 1950, when it was a follow-up for foreign-born respondents. In 2010, the Census Bureau sent a citizenship question to approximately 3.5 million households through the ACS.”

https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2019/apr/04/mark-meadows/meadows-wrongly-claims-obama-removed-census-citize/

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 7, 2019 4:32 PM
Comment #445862

Nice try.
Trying to conflate the CENSUS forms and the ACS forms as the same is a nice attempt at obfuscation.
However, the CENSUS forms and the ACS forms are not the same thing:

  • the main function of the U.S. decennial CENSUS is to provide counts of people for the purpose of Congressional electoral apportionment.
  • But the purpose of the ACS is to measure the changing social and economic characteristics, and the ACS does not provide official counts of the population in between censuses. Also, as indicated HERE (see “NO” for year 2010), the citizenship question WAS removed in year 2010 from the CENSUS forms, and the citizenship question was moved to an ACS questionnaire (in year 2010) that is only sent to a measely 3% of U.S. households (a vast decrease from the 16.7%-to-100% of previous years on the actual CENSUS forms), and 97.4% of illegal immigrants reside in only 10 states (40% in only two states).
But the real question is:
    QUESTION: What is the Democrats’ real motive for wanting to prohibit the citizenship question from the CENSUS ?
    ANSWER: Simple. It’s the same movtive as to why Democrats do these 15+ despicable things, which is all about votes, electoral votes, money, and power.

Here are the facts from the same Politifact article provided by Rocky Marks (which also makes the TITLE (i.e. “Meadows wrongly claims Obama removed census citizenship question in 2010”) of the Politifact article looked biased too).

d.a.n wrote: Also, did you know there was a [x] Citizenship check-box on the decennial CENSUS, until Obama removed it in year 2010 ?
Therefore, my original statement is true, because the citizenship question was removed from the CENSUS forms and moved to the ACS questionnaires, which are not for official CENSUS counts, and the ACS form was sent to only 3% of ALL U.S. households in year 2010 (i.e. a ACS citizenship questionnaire only went to a measely 3.5 million of 118 million households), which is totally worthless, because the ACS forms are not for official counts, and because only a few border states and sanctuary states (e.g. New York, Illinois, etc.) have far, far greater numbers of illegal immigrants.
    Illegal Aliens by state (2015):
  • California: 2,880,000
  • Texas: 1,940,000
  • Florida: 810,000
  • New York: 590,000
  • Illinois: 450,000
  • New Jersey: 440,000
  • Georgia: 390,000
  • North Carolina: 390,000
  • Arizona: 380,000
  • Virginia: 310,000
  • Other states: 310,000 (2.6% of all illegal immigrants)
  • Total: 11,960,000
  • That is, only 20% (i.e. 10) of the states have 97.4% of all illegal immigrants.
While a citizenship question has not been asked of ALL (i.e. 100%) of the U.S. households since 1950, it has been (see table below) on the long form from 1970 to 2000 (until 2010). There were NO citizenship questions on the CENSUS forms in 2010. There were citizenship questions on some ACS forms, which went to only a measely 3% of all households in the U.S. and the ACS forms are not for official CENSUS counts.
Again, what is the Democrats’ ulterior motive for trying to eliminate the citizenship question from the decennial CENSUS?

Politifact also states that in year 1970, the Census Bureau began sending around two questionnaires:

  • a short-form questionnaire to gather basic population information,
  • and a long form that asked detailed questions, and a question about citizenship.

Starting in year 1970, questions about citizenship were included on the long-form questionnaire, but not the short form.

In year 2000, those who received the long form were asked, “Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?”

And, in year 2010 (during Obama’s administration) most people were not asked about citizenship, since only 3.5 million (less than 3% of the 118 Million) households in the U.S. were sent a citizenship question through ACS (and ACS counts do not apply to the official CENSUS counts).

Questions Included on Decennial Census for 1790-2020 (or ACS form):

  • Year | Birthplace? | Citizenship?
  • 1790 | No | No
  • 1800 | No | No
  • 1810 | No | No
  • 1820 | No | Yes
  • 1830 | No | Yes
  • 1840 | No | No
  • 1850 | Yes| No
  • 1860 | Yes| No
  • 1870 | Yes| Yes
  • 1880 | Yes| No
  • 1890 | Yes| Yes
  • 1900 | Yes| Yes
  • 1910 | Yes| Yes
  • 1920 | Yes| Yes
  • 1930 | Yes| Yes
  • 1940 | Yes| Yes
  • 1950 | Yes| Yes
  • 1960 | Yes| No
  • 1970 | Yes| Yes but only 5%
  • 1980 | Yes| Yes but only 16.7%
  • 1990 | Yes| Yes but only 16.7%
  • 2000 | Yes| Yes but only 16.7%
  • 2010 | No | No (less than 3% questioned via ACS only)
  • 2020 | No | ? (undecided)
    ————————————————————-
    ACS: American Community Survey
    140 years: Yes
    90 years: No

Posted by: d.a.n at July 7, 2019 10:28 PM
Comment #445900

Now who’s splitting hairs?

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 8, 2019 8:30 AM
Comment #445901

You are, and so is Politifact, because:

  • The CENSUS forms and the ACS forms are not the same thing.
    The main function of the U.S. decennial CENSUS is to provide counts of people for the purpose of Congressional electoral apportionment.
    But the purpose of the ACS is to measure the changing social and economic characteristics, and the ACS does not provide official counts of the population in between censuses.
    As indicated HERE (see “NO” for year 2010), the citizenship question WAS removed from the CENSUS forms, and the citizenship question appears only on some ACS questionnaires (in year 2010)
  • and, sending only ACS questionnaires to only 3% of all 118 Miilion U.S. households is worthless, and reduced drastically the percentage of households receiving the citizenship question on ACS forms (reduced by 16.7%-to-100%) from previous years (see above).
Why not simply answer the real question?
QUESTION: What is the Democrats’ real motive for wanting to prohibit the citizenship question from the CENSUS ?
ANSWER: Simple. It is the same motive as to why Democrats do these 15+ despicable things, which is all about votes, electoral votes, money, and power.

Many Democrats despicably pit U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for votes, by pandering to illegal immigrants for 30+ years for more votes, via more representation in the House, via more U.S. House representatives, via re-apportionment of representatives (i.e. more electoral votes, and more federal funding), based on population, which is based on the decennial CENSUS, which does not verify U.S. citizenship; therefore, districts, counties, and states with higher decennial CENSUS numbers (since citizenship is not verified), receive more electoral votes, and more federal funding, based on population (of which many tens of millions are non-citizens), and it is also a way to turn RED states to BLUE states.

Many Democrats are also fighting against a [x]check-box on the decennial CENSUS, despite the check-box being totally inadequate to prove citizenship. Democrats disguise their desire for power (for THEIR party) as compassion for illegal immigrants, while despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for more votes, money, and power.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 8, 2019 8:42 AM
Comment #445902

Dan,

As you are wont to do, you made an absolute statement, and now, as always, you are trying to weasel out of it.

Admit you’re wrong, and get over it.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 8, 2019 9:33 AM
Comment #445903

Nonsense. As indicated HERE (see “NO” for year 2010), the citizenship question WAS removed from the CENSUS forms, and the citizenship question was moved to an ACS questionnaire that is only sent to a measely 3% of U.S. households (a vast decrease from the 16.7%-to-100% of previous years), and 97.4% of illegal immigrants reside in only 10 states (40% in only two states).
You can try to portray that as weaseling-out if you want, but it is you and Politifact that are wrong, and more importantly, you repeatedly refuse to answer the real question, which is the real issue behind the Democrats’ obvious motives to eliminate the citizenship question from the decennial CENSUS.

Therefore, why not simply answer the real question?
QUESTION: What is the Democrats’ real motive for wanting to prohibit the citizenship question from the CENSUS ?
ANSWER: Simple. It is the same motive as to why Democrats do these 15+ despicable things, which is all about votes, electoral votes, money, and power.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 8, 2019 10:05 AM
Comment #445904
Rocky Marks wrote: As you are wont to do, you made an absolute statement, and now, as always, you are trying to weasel out of it. Admit you’re wrong, and get over it.
Nonsense. You and Politifact N.C are both wrong, because the CENSUS forms and the ACS forms are not the same thing:
  • The main function of the U.S. decennial CENSUS is to provide counts of people for the purpose of Congressional apportionment.
  • But the purpose of the ACS is to measure the changing social and economic characteristics, and the ACS does not provide official counts of the population in between censuses. Also, as indicated HERE (see “NO” for year 2010), the citizenship question WAS removed in year 2010 from the CENSUS forms, and the citizenship question was moved to an ACS questionnaire (in year 2010) that is only sent to a measely 3% of U.S. households (a vast decrease from the 16.7%-to-100% of previous years on the actual CENSUS forms), and 97.4% of illegal immigrants reside in only 10 states (40% in only two states).
Therefore, Rocky Marks and Politifact are both wrong (But can they admiti it?).
More importantly, why does Rocky Marks repeatedly refuse to answer the real question, which is the real issue behind the Democrats’ obvious motives to eliminate the citizenship question from the decennial CENSUS?

Therefore, why not simply answer the real question?
QUESTION: What is the Democrats’ real motive for wanting to prohibit the citizenship question from the CENSUS ?
ANSWER: Simple. It is the same motive as to why Democrats do these 15+ despicable things, which is all about votes, electoral votes, money, and power.

But many thanks to Rocky Marks and Politifact of N.C. for being the gifts that keep on giving.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 8, 2019 10:05 AM
Comment #445906


“…the CENSUS forms and the ACS forms are not the same thing…”

So Dan uses a definition culled from a think tank and calls it Christmas.
If ya’all are wondering where all of the discussions went, the above is your answer in a nutshell.
Watchblog, like the now totally conservative “Republican” party has been purged of everyone except the “true believers”. What once was a thriving community of posters with varying opinions has become a sad circle of what, 10 people?

I don’t need a reply Dan, you’re right not because your information is fact, but merely because you’re always right.

I’m pretty much done.

Have a life.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 8, 2019 12:00 PM
Comment #445907

LOL !
Yeah, of course your “pretty much done”.
OK. Take your marbles and go home mad because your comments have no credibility.

  • You refused to admit you’re wrong (after accusing me of being wrong),
  • and you have ZERO proof that the ACS questions count toward the official CENSUS counts (so you conveniently disregard the two sources provided, which prove that the ACS questionnaires about citizenship are not part of the CENSUS counts; and since when was the PRB.org a conservative news source?).
    Perhaps you would prefer to read what the CENSUS Bureau states, which is as follows:
      While the main function of the U.S. decennial CENSUS is to provide counts of people for the purpose of congressional apportionment, the primary purpose of the American Community Survey (ACS) is to measure the changing social and economic characteristics of the U.S. population [not official CENSUS counts, since it only samples 3% of all 118 Million U.S. households]
  • IF you had proof that ACS applies to official CENSUS counts, you would have immediately provided it.
  • and you’re now accusing Republicans of taking over Watchblog?
  • and you still refused to answer a simple question (see below).
I’ve been wrong many times, and have admitted to it. Obviously, you cannot (despite ample proof of it).
At any rate, many thanks to Rocky Marks for being the gift that keeps on giving!
Keep up the great work, and whatever you do, don’t answer this simple question:
QUESTION: What is the Democrats’ real motive for wanting to prohibit the citizenship question from the CENSUS ?
ANSWER: Simple. It is the same motive as to why Democrats do these 15+ despicable things, which is all about votes, electoral votes, money, and power.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 8, 2019 12:33 PM
Comment #445908

Rocky Marks makes a conscious decision to say he’s leaving WatchBlog. I’m sorry to see him go, but hey! It’s his choice.

However, in his latest comment he claims:

WatchBlog, like the now totally conservative “Republican” party has been purged of everyone except the “true believers”.

You’re making stuff up, Rocky Marks. I’d be more inclined to say people haven’t left. They certainly haven’t been “purged”. They left of their own accord, just like you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 8, 2019 1:50 PM
Comment #445910

Yeah, it sort of sounds that way (i.e. like Rocky Marks is “pretty much done”, and leaving WatchBlog).
I’m not even a Republican, although I do not know of any Democrats I’d vote for any time soon (because their platform is socialist and despicable).
Funny how so many Democrats and similar ilk can dish it out, but can’t take it.
And why does Rocky Marks take his frustration out on Republicans, by writing the following?!?:

“Watchblog, like the now totally conservative “Republican” party has been purged of everyone except the “true believers.”
Many Democrats and similar ilk like to go around accusing others of lying, when (such in this case) Rocky Marks and Politifact are simply wrong, because there was NO citizenship question on the CENSUS count forms in 2010 (i.e. the forms that go to the official CENSUS count). Rocky Marks should be angry at Politifact N.C. for lying to him.
By the way, I’ve been noticing a liberal/Democrat bias in Politifact lately, and this is not the only time they have got it wrong.
Therefore, when Representative Mark Meadows stated that the citizenship question was removed from the CENSUS forms in 2010, he is 100% correct. ACS forms that contain citizenship questions, were only sent to a measely 3% of all 118 Million U.S. households in 2010, and the ACS counts do not count toward the CENSUS counts.
Think about it. How would you merge the results of the ACS data with the CENSUS data, when the ACS data is only from 3% of the 118 Million U.S. Households? How would you even extrapolate, when 40% of all illegal immigrants live in only 2 states, and 97.4% of all illegal immigrants live in only 10 of 50 states?
But, again, the real question is: Why are Democrats fighting against a citizenship [x]checkbox on the decennial CENSUS?

Just heard that “Bold without the Bold” Eric Swalwell is dropping out of the 2020 election for POTUS.
Darn, I was hoping he would continue to be one of the gifts that keeps on giving.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 8, 2019 4:12 PM
Comment #445911


Here’s a reason for ya Dan;

Apparently Thomas Hofeller, a GOP operative, left all the evidence anyone should need on the hard drive of his computer prior to going to that great data mine in the sky.

From The New York Times:

“Files on those drives showed that he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.”

Thanks Charles P. Pierce for the heads up.

BTW, guys, I love what you’ve done to the place. Is that echo fake or is it just because the isn’t anybody posting here anymore. I haven’t been here for months but every time I come back there are fewer and fewer posters here.

Toodles

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 8, 2019 5:27 PM
Comment #445914

Rocky Marks, I’m glad you stopped by again. I was hoping you could have enjoyed your experience more. Have you considered applying for an editor’s position and posting an occasional article of your own? I wish you would.

I’d like to see other opinions expressed. WatchBlog isn’t like the major social media sights where your contributions disappear in a avalanche of anonymous comments, never to be seen again. WatchBlog is a close knit group that can respect each other’s opinions and debate them from all angles. I do truly wish you would stick around and share your opinion with those who read behind the scenes as well as us diehard WatchBlog contributors who believe it’s the best blog since sliced bread.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 8, 2019 6:57 PM
Comment #445915

Back again already?!?
Despite writing you were “pretty much done” here ?
Like Weary Willie wrote, “I’m glad you stopped by again”.
IF you want to debate, then there are plenty of people here to do that.

Rocky Marks wrote: Here’s a reason for ya Dan; …
Is that the best you have?
That’s not a significant reason, and proves nothing at all, because BOTH Democrats and Republicans Gerrymander all the time.
However, IF you want to talk about cheating and criminal behavior, vastly more Democrats (i.e. 81%) have been convicted of voter fraud, compared to Republicans (19%).
And 60% of U.S. federal officials convicted of corruption are Democrats (compared to 40% for Republicans).

There has been a citizenship question on the CENSUS for 130+ of the last 220+ years, and also from 1970 to 2010 (until it was removed during the Obama administration), so where were all of these conspiracy theories about an evil citizenship question on the CENSUS prior to now?
Many Democrats don’t like the citizenship question, because it may disincentivize some illegal immigrants from completing the CENSUS, and Democrats may then lose some electoral votes.
Duh! Yet, you didn’t mention that at all, eh?

And why should illegal immigrants be added to the CENSUS totals, when that gives those states and districts (with more illegal immigrants) more electoral votes?
How is that fair to U.S. citizens of other states (i.e. non-sanctuary states)?
For example, California (a sanctuary state) has the most illegal immigrants (about 3 million), and California thumbs their nose at federal immigration laws, and protects criminal non-citizens (such as mayors like Libby Schaaf (Oakland, CA), who warns illegal immigrants (including criminal illegal immigrants) before an ICE raid to arrest criminal illegal immigrants.
Why is that?
Answer: Because California wants the electoral votes.
Why should California receive more electoral votes for 3 million illegal immigrants?
That’s fraud, and that is a good reason why there should be a citizenship question on the decennial CENSUS.

Rocky Marks wrote: I haven’t been here for months but every time I come back there are fewer and fewer posters here.
Yeah … fewer Democrats, mostly.
I wonder why?
You can berate Watchblog all you want, because I couldn’t care less, and because you are simply demonstrating that you are upset when you’re proven wrong (after accusing me of being wrong), and so you then change the subject from a citizenship question on the CENSUS, and resort to statements about Republicans, such as:
“Watchblog, like the now totally conservative “Republican” party has been purged of everyone except the “true believers.”
Again, I couldn’t care less about that either, because I am not a Republican, but I will say that I can’t think of any Democrats I’d vote for any time soon, because most Democrats seem to have gone socialist, communist, despicable (based on Democrats’ own actions and words), and out-of-control.

And, I could not help but notice that you still refuse to answer a simple question:

  • QUESTION: What is the Democrats’ real motive for wanting to prohibit the citizenship question from the CENSUS ?
Perhaps because you don’t agree with the overwhelming evidence for the answer (i.e. for more votes, money, and power via massive illegal immigration) ?
Do you like all parts of the Democrat platform of today?
Which of those policies do you not agree with?
So far, the 20+ Democrats running for POTUS are promising all sorts of crazy and free stuff:
  • a free income;
  • promises of free college tuition;
  • promises of free college for non-citizens also; already, some sanctuary states give free tuition or in-state college tuition to non-citizens, but charge higher college tuition rates for out-of-state citizens.
  • promises to eliminate all college loan debt;
  • promises of free healthcare (including free healthcare for non-citizens);
  • promises to allow non-citizens to vote;
  • promises to allow people to vote at age 16;
  • promises to allow non-citizens to be counted in decennial CENSUS (which can increase the number of electoral votes for states with large numbers of non-citizens, since the decennial CENSUS does not verify citizenship);
  • promises to allow convicted and incarcerated felons to vote (including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.);
  • promises of reparations for black people (punishing others that had nothing to do with it);
  • promises to promote sanctuary cities and states;
  • promises of another amnesty like the shamnesty of 1986;
  • promises of open-borders, while conveniently ignore 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens (source: site2data.com/homicides1.html);
  • promises to abolish I.C.E. and BCP (Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection);
  • promises to refuse any legislation to (a)require employers to use eVerify (to verify eligibility for employment); (b)to stop the abuse of asylum laws; and (c)stop the abuse of birth-right citizenship (women from all over the world are booking vacations to the U.S. to give birth, so that their child will have U.S. citizenship);
  • promises to give illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses, and also automatically register them to vote; illegal voting by non-citizens is widespread in all states (source: site2data.com/voting1.html );
  • promises of statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.;
  • promises to change the number of Supreme Court justices with hopes of packing the court with more extremists like themselves;
  • promises to abolish the 2nd amendment, but call for restricting or eliminating 2nd Amendment rights, and say it is worth it “even if it saves only ONE life”, but hypocritically ignore about 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens (source: www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf ; site2data.com/homicides1.html );
And, HOW and WHO will pay for all of this when the U.S. already has a $22.4 Trillion national debt?
It all sounds a lot like an “Instuction Manual” on How a Nation Can Commit Suicide.
QUESTION: Why would Democrats do all of this?
ANSWER: for the votes, money, and power (as explained here; notice the common-thread?).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 8, 2019 8:08 PM
Comment #445916

Probably more indies on WB. As an indie I don’t support dims nor globalist/open bordeers, free trader, GOP’ers. I do support tea party repubs and those that are truly supporting the President, maybe a third of GOP Senate/House.

Rocky Marks, stick around and give us some debate on such issues as: Clinton’s use of an unauthorized server, compromise of classified information, sale of nuclear material to Russia, xfer of some $175B to Iran, and so on …

Like, do you believe that ex-president Obama had knowledge of the FISA warrants used to initiate investigations of Carter Page, Manaport, and candidate/president Trump?

Also, what are your thoughts on Article V Part II?

I often skirt the factoids by stating ‘IMO’ or ‘IMHO’. But, if you make a ‘factual’ statement don’t cherry pick words or take a para out of context. Include a path to one or more complete articles you are referencing, and so on …

… the truth shall set you free … IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 8, 2019 9:22 PM
Comment #445918

Any discussion topic can be opened. I’d like to hear a defense of some of the proposals the Democratic Candidates presented to the nation. I’d also like to hear who the favorite is. If the Left on WatchBlog could present logic and facts concerning their positions they would be considered fairly. Simply being negative about everything doesn’t make a great conversation, as we have seen in the past.

Before you abandon the greatest blog on the internet, consider adding to it with constructive proposals presented by the Left. If they are reasonable they might be a mind changer. You don’t know until you try.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 8, 2019 9:39 PM
Comment #445953

“Watchblog, like the now totally conservative “Republican” party has been purged of everyone except the “true believers”. What once was a thriving community of posters with varying opinions has become a sad circle of what, 10 people?”

PURGED? Really Rocky? Please name the person(s) who did the dirty deed and how it was accomplished.

Those who have left the Watchblog “playing field” have retreated in defeat. They are no longer able to mount a defense of their political positions against those who write truth. It is not unusual for Liberals/Progressives/Socialist to slink away from open debate where everyone has a voice.

We who remain on Watchblog are not the silent, and easily cowed type, that they usually attempt to bully on our city streets and college campuses.

We come armed with truth, and a love for our Constitution, all our citizens, and our nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2019 3:51 PM
Comment #445961

Well said ! Thank you!

Posted by: d.a.n at July 9, 2019 10:29 PM
Comment #445994

Well said, Royal Flush. WatchBlog used to be a place where Democratics would ban anyone they disagreed with. That ended and it signaled the end of their tyranny. Once they realized they couldn’t silence conservatives they left, off to more blue choirs they could preach to.

You would think they would adapt and attempt to formulate positions that conservatives would consider, but that’s not their style. Their idea of bi-partisanship is to have a token Republican vote for the issues they railroad through. The ACA is a perfect example of that. The incredible irony to that is they are all running against it in this election!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2019 10:38 AM
Comment #445995

I got banned several times for posting lists (or links to lists) of some persons’ own comments.
Funny how what bothers some people most is seeing a list of their very own comments!?!

Watchblog is better today in one respect, because the only way to get banned (or have your comments deleted) is to post obvious SPAM.
Other than SPAM, people can write whatever they want (even if it contains profanity), but they should be aware that anything they write is fair game, and a track-record (i.e. a list of their comments over time) can also be used to reveal a pattern, that reveals attitude, bias, prejudice, inconsistencies, lies, racism, and hypocrisy.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 10, 2019 11:53 AM
Comment #446000

Thanks to Weary and d.a.n. for their comments.

I view Watchblog as an open community which welcomes all views and prohibits none.

Bullies are tolerated because their weapon is limited to words and thoughts, not physical actions. Here; bullies have no advantage or protection.

We participants on Watchblog come here with the full realization that our words and opinions will be scrutinized by opponents. That’s Great. That is what a debate is all about.

I value both those with whom I agree, and those with whom I disagree. I value most highly those who make me think, those who cause me to research and examine my own positions.

It is interesting to note that most Liberals and Progressives loudly proclaim their love of diversity, yet deny that very ideal in politics. Does anyone smell a hint of mendacity or hypocrisy?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2019 1:22 PM
Comment #446421
Royal Flush wrote: It is interesting to note that most Liberals and Progressives loudly proclaim their love of diversity, yet deny that very ideal in politics. Does anyone smell a hint of mendacity or hypocrisy?
Yes. For example, many Democrats will deny that this is the Democrats’ platform.
Their words and their actions are two different things.
In one of the Democrats’ first debates for POTUS for 2020, they all raised their hand that they would give healthcare to illegal immigrants.
Already, 70% of all babies born at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, TX are by illegal immigrants.
The costs and net losses to U.S. citizens are huge ($0.75+ Billion per day), despite the lies by Democrats to the contrary.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 22, 2019 8:01 AM
Comment #446455

d.a.n., the catalogue of Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Socialists hypocrisy and outright lies would fill the Bill Clinton presidential library.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 23, 2019 2:19 PM
Comment #446459

LOL. And the Obama Library too.
I never thought I’d ever see a party unravel like the Democrats have.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 23, 2019 8:18 PM
Comment #446485

You have that right d.a.n., the Democrat Party is slowly disappearing and being replaced by the Socialist Party. Soon, the donkey party symbol will be replaced with an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 24, 2019 2:04 PM
Comment #446516

I’ve been looking forward to this for decades.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 25, 2019 7:18 AM
Comment #446548

What’s happened to the Democrat Party?
The name (Democrat/Democratic) of their party has become a contradiction in terms.
There has not been such a HUGE unraveling of a party like this since Democrats fought, killed, and died to continue slavery.
I don’t hear or see but only a few Democrats denouncing violence by Antifa, and some Democrats are actually defending Antifa.
For example (see video), and then watch CNN’s Chris Quomo and Don Lemon defend Antifa.
IF the majority of voters think that the Democrat party’s values (and actions) are best for the U.S.A., then the U.S.A. is in big trouble.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 26, 2019 9:56 AM
Comment #446555

The Democrat political pendulum has swung so far Left that it cracked the clock case.

I find it difficult to believe that AOC has attained nearly as much approval, among Demos, as long time House member and Leader; Nancy Pelosi. It shows just how much trouble the Party faces. There will be a huge fight among Demos to fashion a Party Platform to run on in 2020.

We know that the Party has already voted God out from their platform. What will be changed next; the Constitution, Capitalism and revisions of American history?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 26, 2019 3:56 PM
Comment #448153
Royal Flush wrote: I find it difficult to believe that AOC has attained nearly as much approval, among Demos [Democrats], …
IF there ever was a person who could be another Hitler, it is Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, who thinks shes “The Boss”. Fortunately, it appears enough voters are smart enough not to follow her, and that’s probably because her goals, timelines, and methods are so ridiculous.
That is, either AOC is not as smart as Hitler, or the U.S. voters are smarter than the Germans of Hitler’s day, or some of both.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 7, 2019 1:02 PM
Post a comment