Brexit, snowflakes, and younger generations

cartoon by Ramirez via jewishworldreview.com

Glenn Reynolds, Mr. Instapundit, is one of my daily stops online for news and links. He ran a quote about British students (a/k/a snowflakes) complaining about the Brexit vote. And he posted Richard Fernandez’s (Mr. Belmont Club’s) response.

UK STUDENTS COMPLAIN ABOUT BREXIT: “A really important decision was made for us by the older generation” . . . “Essentially people much, much older than us — and who won’t be around for the consequences — are giving us a future we don’t want.”

On Facebook, Richard Fernandez’s response is brutal:

Essentially people much older than you gave you what you now take for granted. They won World War 2, fueled the great boom, walked through the valley of the shadow of nuclear death — and had you.

You didn’t make the present, nor as you now complain, are you making the future. No children, no national defense, no love of God or country.

But that’s just it. You’ve brainwashed yourselves into thinking someone else: the old, the older, the government, the dead would always do things for you.

If you learn anything from Brexit, learn that nobody got anywhere expecting someone to do things for him.

I wish I had thought to make such points when I was discussing the Brexit vote with one of my liberal friends (who was shocked when I said that my husband and I were planning to pop a special cork that evening to celebrate the vote).

# # #

Disenfranchising the voters

photo credit:mishtalk.com

Both the Democrat and Republican parties have been actively trying to disenfranchise voters, especially primary voters. Their methods are different, but both parties (or perhaps more accurately, the so-called "Uniparty") can achieve the same result. That result is stripping the power of the vote away from the registered voter and shifting that power to the party committee and establishment elites. 

Politico reports on this issue within the Democratic party: 

A growing number of Democratic senators support reforming the party’s superdelegate system — a move that would dilute their own power in the presidential nominating process but satisfy Bernie Sanders and his millions of supporters as Democrats move to unify for the general election.

Politico interviewed nearly 20 of Sanders’ colleagues over the past week and found a surprisingly strong appetite for change, including among influential members of the party establishment such as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a top prospect for vice president. More than half the senators surveyed support at least lowering the number of superdelegates, and all but two said the party should take up the matter at next month’s convention in Philadelphia, despite the potential for a high-profile intraparty feud at a critical moment in the campaign.

The findings point to growing momentum among Democrats for changing a system that’s been criticized for giving party bigwigs undue sway over the nominee at the expense of the grass roots. But powerful Democratic Party constituencies, including the Congressional Black Caucus, are firmly opposed. And lawmakers who are open to reform disagree over how far-reaching it should be.

. . .

Senator Sherrod Brown is on record on the subject of superdelegates. He just doesn’t care about the electorate:

“I want Bernie in the fold, I want him enthusiastic,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another potential VP choice. “I’m fine with whatever they negotiate, I just don’t care about superdelegates. I don’t care about the whole thing.”

Then there is the GOP strategy. In this election cycle, it included rewriting the GOP primary rules, state by state, to implement what Sundance dubbed The Splitter Strategy, a plan that would ensure that no GOP candidate crossed the finish line before the July convention, so the selection process could go instead to a contested floor vote, and the GOP elite could anoint Jeb!, as in Jeb’ll Fix It. When Trump upset that apple cart, the GOP fractured further, with the emergence of the Never Trump bloc that still hopes to deprive Trump of the nomination in July. All this talk, especially from Speaker Ryan about letting Republicans vote their conscience, is intended to undermine the primary results that gave Trump more votes than any other Republican candidate in history. Haugland has been outspoken on his contempt for the grassroots voter (via another politico report):

North Dakota’s Curly Haugland, who is on the convention rules committee, has long argued that no rules change is necessary for delegates to vote their conscience. He contends that party rules require delegates to vote freely and that they can ignore any state laws and rules that purport to bind delegates to the results of primaries and caucuses. Haugland insists his effort is not meant to oppose Trump – he’s pushed it for years – but rather is about empowering the party’s elected delegates to choose the GOP nominee. [emphasis added]

What is the purpose of primary elections, if the party “leadership” and rules committees can disregard the voters and decide who the nominees are themselves?  

# # #

Britain’s Independence Day

art credit: neogaf.com

From Breitbart: 

British voters chose to “leave” the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.

Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.

Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.

. . .

Hillary Clinton also backed a “remain” vote in April, with a senior policy adviser issuing a statement on her behalf:

Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.

But my favorite headline is from one of my favorite columnists, James Delingpole, at Breitbart London:

We Did It! Britain’s Independence Day Is Here!

My take-away from his column: “The British people sensed the momentousness of the occasion — a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a real difference and shake the status quo by depriving the anti-democratic elite of their ill-gotten gains — and seized their chance.”

Read the rest of his column here.

If Great Britain can reclaim its sovereignty, so can America.

# # #

NBA Champions Cleveland Cavaliers parade tomorrow

Photo art credit: nba.com

Something to celebrate!

From Cleveland.com: 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The parade celebrating the Cleveland Cavaliers' NBA Championship title and historic victory over the Golden State Warriors will begin Wednesday at 11 a.m. outside Quicken Loans Arena, a city spokesman has confirmed. 

According to a news release Tuesday, the parade will begin on East 6th Street, head north to Huron Road, west to Ontario Street, south to Carnegie Avenue, then over to East 9th Street -- circling The Q and Progressive Field. The parade then will travel north to Lakeside Avenue and west to conclude on East 6th Street.  A special program honoring the Cavs will take place on St. Clair Avenue, between Malls A and B. (See the route in the viewer below.) 

The parade will feature more than 60 units, including floats, specialty vehicles and The Ohio State University Marching Band, the news release states.

Click here and scroll down for the map of the parade route. For ESPN's close look at LeBron's incredible block in the 4th quarter, click here. 

# # #

For or against gun control?

art credit: riversong.wordpress.com

Gun control is not one of the primary planks in the Tea Party platforms (those planks are limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets). However, Tea Party patriots may be interested in the gun control bills defeated yesterday in Congress. CNN reports:

Senators couldn't muster enough bipartisan support to pass a series of gun control measures Monday [yesterday], the latest in a long string of failed attempts at enacting tighter curbs on firearms in the United States.

Spurred by the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, senators from each party introduced the measures they said would have strengthened background checks and prevented suspected terrorists from obtaining weapons.

But tough election year politics, paired with disputes over the effectiveness of each party's ideas, proved too powerful to break the longstanding partisan gridlock that's surrounded gun issues for years.

The result was expected. A fifth option, set to be introduced and voted upon as early as Tuesday by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has generated more optimism, but still faces long odds at passage.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sponsored one of the failed measures expanding background checks, reacted angrily after his provision was defeated.

"I'm mortified by today's vote but I'm not surprised by it," Murphy said Monday evening. "The NRA has a vice-like grip on this place."

More of the report is here.

According to Sen. Murphy, the National Rifle Assoc. is once again the villain in the piece. Thomas Sowell published an excellent opinion piece at RealClearPolitics:

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws -- and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's empirical study, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.

Professor Malcolm's book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.

The rest of Sowell's article is here.

# # #

Cavs won the championship!!!!!!

CAVS WON!!!!!!!

WOW!

Primary upset in Virginia

art credit: centinel2012

In case you missed it, here’s good news from last week’s primary in Virginia, from the Culpepper Star*Exponent (h/t lucianne.com)

Forbes, like Cantor, caught up in anti-establishment wave

Del. Scott W. Taylor’s upset of Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-4th, in Tuesday’s 2nd District Republican primary is another anti-establishment thunderclap in Virginia politics, two years after Dave Brat ousted U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 7th District GOP primary.

“Ultimately, what it shows is the voters’ overall disgust with Congress,” said Robert D. Holsworth, a veteran political commentator, formerly at Virginia Commonwealth University.

“It shows that the traditional value of seniority means very little to the Republican base right now.”

Taylor will compete against Democratic activist Shaun D. Brown in the Republican-leaning district in November.

The full report is here.

Wonder if this will have any effect on the upcoming primary in Wisconsin, with Paul Nehlen challenging Speaker Paul “Omnibus” Ryan? Recent polls don’t look good for Nehlen, whose #DumpRyan Facebook page is here.

# # #