Tuesday, February 12, 2019

The Hidden State of Illegalia

American Thinker
Gary Gindler Feb 11, 2019
All of us have to thank Nancy Pelosi. She turned out to be not only the speaker of the House of Representatives, but also an excellent salesperson. Thanks to her ill conceived tricks, the advertisement of the annual presidential State of the Union (SOTU) address to the Congress reached unprecedented heights.

If earlier such traditional performances were simply routine, and only a few people outside Washington were interested, then this year, the situation (thanks to Pelosi) was significantly different. She invited Trump to speak on January 3, 2019, then "canceled" her invitation on January 16. Then the partial government shutdown ended, and the SOTU was rescheduled to February 5.

Pelosi's request for a cancelation of this traditional presidential address was an unprecedented and unheard of scandal, which ignores a hundred-year-old tradition. She was successful in postponing the presidential address, but that was a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory (hat tip: Ronald Cherry). Trump could have used this opportunity for his advantage. He talked about the economy, record low unemployment numbers, legal immigration, and foreign policy. What he spent less time on than he should have is the State of Illegalia.

Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of such a state. No, it is not the 51st state in the Union; instead, it is a satellite substate within every legitimate state of the Union.

For example, in the state of California alone, there are about 1.2 million children born out of "tourism" of pregnant illegal aliens. These are official hospital data. For comparison, the population of the legitimate state of Wyoming is about 600,000 people.

That is, inside the state of California, there is a substate — the State of Illegalia — whose population is twice the state of Wyoming.

California's State of Illegalia is not alone. All states of the Union contain within them, hidden from prying eyes, substates of Illegalia. In Illinois, there are 174,000 illegal children. For comparison, the popular among legal immigrants Chicago North Shore area contains just half of Illegalia's population — 86,000. In the state of New York, there are 224,000 such children. For comparison, only 36,000 people live in the popular among legal immigrants Brighton Beach area of New York City.

This confrontation is obviously a losing matter for the Democrats. They openly position themselves as a party that protects illegal aliens and distance themselves from the protection of American citizens. Pelosi did not want to give Trump the podium, which he could and did use to once again turn to the common sense of the American people. Whenever Trump speaks, he speaks directly to American citizens, and not through the filter of mass disinformation media.

After the Democrats attempted to destroy a hundred-year-old tradition, Trump could have made some unconventional moves, too. In order to emphasize this talk about the States of Illegalia, he could have invited some non-traditional guests to the SOTU address.

The composition of these guests would be the main headache of the Democrats.

Imagine guest seats filled with parents of those American children who were killed by the citizens of the State of Illegalia — by illegal aliens. Some of them were murdered directly, and some indirectly — with the help of drugs transported across the border with Mexico in tons.

Also, several crying 15-year-old girls from South America could be invited, who were secretly brought by human-traffickers across the southern border for underground brothels in the State of Illegalia. Moreover, President Trump could end the tradition of the one-man-show and give the floor to them all in turn.

Trump could also give the floor to American doctors, who will tell the public what diseases they face in the states of Illegalia. Many of these diseases were practically eliminated in America soon after the Second World War — measles, scarlet fever, lice, tuberculosis, syphilis. However, these diseases are returning to America, and they are penetrating — initially through the open border with Mexico, and then through the States of Illegalia. Also, there are numerous cases of AIDS and hepatitis, plus widespread rape of women of all ages.

The U.S. Border Patrol guards would then be invited to the podium. They would bring with them a few rugs — the rugs Muslims use to pray. Recently, border guards have been finding more and more such rugs in the border zones of Arizona and Texas. Why should representatives of the "peaceful religion" get into America through the State of Illegalia? Why resort to such infiltration? What is the level of cooperation between sharia states and the State of Illegalia?

Trump could also go to extremes and order a baker's dozen handcuffed MS-13 gang members, with the most evil faces, entirely covered with scary tattoos, to be seated right next to Democrats' guests for the SOTU. These bandits — citizens of the State of Illegalia — could play an excellent backdrop to Trump's pitch for the country's sovereignty.

According to various estimates, American taxpayers spend from 110 to 260 billion dollars a year to support illegal aliens. This large discrepancy is due to exactly how to count, and who exactly counts. However, regardless of who makes the estimates and how, all calculations are one in one: the balance is negative. That is, illegal aliens receive more from American society than they give, at least 100 billion dollars a year. This number is the budget of the State of Illegalia.

The Democrats have long represented the interests of the states of Illegalia, and not the citizens of the states of the Union. We must hope that Pelosi will play her role to the end.

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles. Follow him on Twitter.

Pelosi and House Democratic Leaders Condemn 'Anti-Semitic Comments' by Rep. Ilhan Omar

CNSNews
Craig Bannister | February 11, 2019 | 2:26 PM EST 

House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined other Democrat leaders Monday in signing and publishing a statement condemning controversial tweets posted Sunday by fellow Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

As CNSNews.com reported, Rep. Omar had posted a pair of tweets insinuating that the pro-Israel lobby pays members of Congress to support Israel, upsetting critics ranging from the American Jewish Committee to Chelsea Clinton.

In a Monday tweet, Pelosi posted the joint statement and said that she had spoken with Rep. Omar and that the two had agreed to “move forward as we reject anti-Semitism in all its forms”:

“In our conversation today, Congresswoman Omar and I agreed that we must use this moment to move forward as we reject anti-Semitism in all forms. https://goo.gl/isKX97
The full text of the joint statement by Democrat House leadership condemning Rep. Omar’s comments, as posted on Speaker Pelosi’s website, is presented below:

Democratic Leadership Statement on Anti-Semitic Comments of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar
February 11, 2019
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján, Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries and Caucus Vice Chair Katherine Clark issued this joint statement condemning anti-Semitic comments made over Twitter by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar:
“Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.
“We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests. Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.
“As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered.”



Thank You Mr Bannister and CNS. 

Related Interest;


Calls For Democratic Leadership to Remove Rep. Ilhan Omar From House Foreign Affairs Committee

Toons for Feb 12, 2019














Sunday, February 10, 2019

Stop Medieval Diseases With a Medieval Wall

frontpagemag
February 8, 2019
Daniel Greenfield

How the legalization of illegal migration and homelessness is leading to a new wave of disease outbreaks.



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The media recently reported that Los Angeles County’s ongoing typhus epidemic had infected Deputy City Attorney Liz Greenwood.

"Who gets typhus? It's a medieval disease that's caused by trash,” she wondered.

Greenwood is partially correct. The typhus outbreak, like the hepatitis outbreak, was directly caused by social justice policies that legalized public vagrancy, and leaving trash and human waste on sidewalks. The piles of trash, human waste and people combine to create horrifying diseased conditions. Before Greenwood, many Los Angeles patients who had been diagnosed with typhus were indeed homeless.

"There are rats in City Hall and City Hall East," she complained. "There are enormous rats and their tails are as long as their bodies."

The rats are a problem, but the fleas that carry the virus that Greenwood has can live on a variety of animals, including stray cats and possums. That’s why the typhus outbreak isn’t just happening in Skid Row, but has spread to Long Beach and Pasadena. And while the homeless encampments act as incubators for the disease, it’s not the only social justice policy spreading disease across America.

Or at least in California and Texas.

“It’s never been considered a very common disease,” Peter Hotez, the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, noted, “but we seem to see it more frequently. And it seems to be extending across from Southern California all along the Mexican border into southeastern Texas and then into the Gulf Coast in Florida.”

America never had much of a history of typhus, but Mexico did. And our brief episodes of typhus invariably involved immigrants and migrants carrying the disease from Europe or Mexico.

The first outbreak of the disease in this hemisphere occurred in Mexico back in the 17th century and there have been 22 major outbreaks since then, caused in part by refugees and crowded conditions. Typhus was so associated with Mexico that it was even known as Tabardillo or Mexican typhus fever. There was extensive debate as to whether Mexican typhus was different than European typhus.

The first case of typhus in southern California was linked to Mexican refugees.

Dr. L.M. Powers, a Los Angeles physician, was the first to spot it. "The first recognized and recorded cases of typhus fever in southern California occurred in the summer of 1916, when many Mexicans came to this section during a civil war in their own country," he wrote in a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The first victim of typhus had visited El Paso. Dr. Powers linked many other typhus cases in Los Angeles to Mexico. Historical records show that these cases involved migrants and Mexican railway workers.

In saner times, American authorities understood the problem and took common sense measures to fight the spread of the disease. The rise of typhus cases in California a century ago led to a campaign that included the delousing of anyone coming into the United States from certain parts of Mexico. Leftists have revisited this history in recent years to make obscene analogies to Holocaust gas chambers.

But despite the insistence that disinfection stations were motivated by racism, rather than real fear of the disease, the 67 typhus cases in El Paso make it very clear that there was a real problem.

El Paso’s efforts to keep out typhus were touched off by the death of Dr. W. C. Kluttz, who spotted the disease in the Mexican refugees that he was treating, before becoming infected and dying of it.

Dr. Kluttz was far from the only medical professional who lost his life to the disease. Dr. Howard Taylor Ricketts, the brilliant pathologist after whom Rickettsia, the genome that causes typhus is named, died while trying to isolate typhus in Mexico City at the request of the Mexican government.

At Dr. Kluttz's funeral, El Paso's Mayor Lea called for "a strong federally enforced quarantine here that would effectively stop the entrance into this country of disease-bearing persons from south of the Rio Grande."

The ambitious 2,000 mile quarantine ultimately proved to be a success, preventing Mexico’s typhus outbreaks from spreading into the United States. But it also claimed a toll with at least one inspector, David M. White, conducting disinfection procedures, contracting typhus and dying of the disease.

Illegal migrants seeking to bypass the quarantine however spread the disease in unlikely places.

A 1921 outbreak of typhus on a Navajo reservation was attributed to it being on a “pathway for itinerant laborers.” That particular outbreak appears to have killed 27 Navajo Indians.

The quarantine is history and typhus cases continue to rise in border states.

Texas saw a surge of typhus cases between 2008 and 2016. And the cases have been heavily concentrated in counties with high illegal populations. But officials insist on blaming ‘global warming’.

The number of typhus cases rose from 30 in 2003 to 519 in 2017. Hidalgo County had the highest incidence with 99 cases. Hidalgo County contains 6% of the state’s illegal alien population. Harris County has the second highest rate with 71 typhus cases and contains 24% of the state’s illegal alien population. Hidalgo has some of the youngest and newest illegal alien arrivals which may account for its high typhus infection rates.

Bexar County, with 59 typhus cases, the fourth highest rate of infections, hosts 4% of Texas illegals.

Typhus had fallen off the radar in the United States. It had been delisted by the CDC in 1994. And then it made a comeback in the middle nineties. Los Angeles saw a rise in the number of typhus cases in 1996 around the same time as futile efforts were being launched to fight the plague of illegal migration.

Now the situation has worsened. And it will only keep getting worse.

Like superstitious dark age types, leftists insist on blaming the typhus outbreaks on global warming, caused by an angry ‘Mother Earth’ rather than on the very real spread of disease by people. Instead of preventing the spread of disease, they insist that we must repent for our crimes against the environment, and recycle more, and then the earth will cool and the typhus outbreak will stop.

This denial of basic scientific facts is at the root of the typhus outbreak. Raising taxes in a bizarre scheme to change the weather is a bizarre folly that will do absolutely nothing to stop the spread of typhus.

The legalization of illegal migration and homelessness, is leading to a new wave of disease outbreaks.

Epidemiology shows us that typhus flares up in border counties and areas with large illegal alien populations. From there, it takes root in poor areas with bad hygiene. Fleas carried by rats, possums and cats can then pass on the disease to people who would have never expected to come down with it.

We know how to stop typhus. It begins with ending public vagrancy and illegal migration.

The Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney called typhus a “medieval disease”. Senator Kamala Harris of California ridiculed President Trump’s proposal for a border wall as “medieval”. California Rep. Harley Rouda urged Trump to “give up on the outdated notion of building a wall from medieval times.”

Rouda represents parts of Orange County. The O.C. had 15 typhus cases last year.

If you want to stop a medieval disease, you might want to start with a medieval wall. 



Thank You Mr Greenfield and FPM.

ERICKSON: The Green Raw Deal

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her ilk are a gift to our Constitutional Republic. Anyone who can lead with a foot This big proudly on display in her mouth, will only hobble the rest of her Party's Collectivizing Agenda.

dailywire
Erick Erickson
February 9, 2019


Democrats in the House of Representatives have rolled out what they are calling a "Green New Deal." It is the most serious public policy offering from Generation Tide Pod Eater to ever be unveiled. It is exactly what you would expect.

In the rollout of their deal, the Democrats released an outline that summarized their legislation. It included such gems as, "When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible." You might think I left out the word "moon" and a few other choice words. You would be wrong. The Democrats left those out. There is also this one: "We aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows."

This is not the product of serious people. This is the product of zealots who are under the impression they have more power than they actually do. The Democrats' plan calls for the elimination of fossil fuels and the embrace of 100 percent renewable energy, but would not invest in new nuclear power. Were this successful, the nation would be wholly dependent on the sun and on wind for energy. No nation has been so wholly dependent on the sun and on wind for energy since the period known as the Dark Ages.

The plan would also eliminate or retrofit every building in the United States to comply with increased efficiency standards. Concurrently, the plan wants to "massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing." The Tide Pod eaters who conjured this may not be aware that the creation of solar panels is seriously environmentally unfriendly.




The Democrats even claim they want to build massive high-speed rail systems to eliminate air travel so that one might be able to cross the country in three days instead of four hours. They would also apparently use the power of government to force everyone into a vegetarian lifestyle so they could eliminate the "farting cows" problem.

In the polite language of the Democrats, they would "work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures universal access to healthy food and expands independent family farming." A greenhouse gas-free food system would, definitionally, not contain carbon dioxide-emitting animals.

How would the Democrats pay for this? The policy outline provided says we shouldn't worry about it. "If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we'd pay for it." They asked then, too. More specifically, this is the actual language in the outline answering the question of "How will you pay for it?":

"The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."

During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt added about $240 billion to the national debt. Ronald Reagan added about $1.8 trillion. George W. Bush added over $5 trillion, with Barack Obama adding about $8 trillion. The national debt will top $25 trillion by 2021, with interest payments on that debt exceeding every other expenditure. This green program would double the national debt, making it the single largest expenditure in the history of the United States. It would also bankrupt families, businesses and the nation. This Green New Deal would make the national socialists and their kissing cousins, the Soviets of mid-twentieth century Europe, very proud — if only because it would destroy the American economy. 


Thank You Mr Erickson and the DailyWire.

Donald Trump’s Annihilation of the Democratic Party

American Greatness
| February 6th, 2019

The nadir of the amoral egotism of what might broadly be called “Me-ism” has been reached by the avant garde of the Democratic Party in their race to the bottom of the electoral depths. The renunciation of any notions of sacrifice, patriotic pride, the spirituality of life, or the recognition of anything except the smash-and-grab politics of endless atomized grievances and instant gratification of convenience, has reached what must, in its way, be the end of history.

The governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, led the way downwards with an unctuous statement on the virtues of delivering children, assuring their survival as live babies, and then determining in discussion with the mother (of course) whether they deserved to be allowed to survive.

This was an attitude that appalled a large section of opinion in 5th century B.C. Athens. In espousing it, far more than the utter moral vacuity of the cutting edge of the Democratic Party has been exposed. When running for governor, Northam called his opponent a racist and President Trump a “narcissistic maniac.”

The Bigger Fight


The informal, spontaneous, emergent strategy of the Democrats is finally erupting and foaming from the mouths and nostrils of their legislators and candidates in a mighty outburst of opportunistic consciousness. This is a delayed reaction to the destruction of their monopoly on political power by the Trump phenomenon, compounded by the recognition that Trump can’t be impeached and will do everything he promised if he can get a firm enough grip on the apparatus of political power.

The supreme struggle for the commanding heights of American politics, the battle of Verdun or of Stalingrad, has come over immigration. The decades-old understanding between machine Democrats vacuuming up easy Latino votes and largely Republican employers exploiting the cheap labor of illegal Latino immigrants enabled Donald Trump to forge a new coalition of the threatened working class, the middle class exhausted by more than a decade of flat-lined purchasing power, the silent majority of disinterested patriotic Americans, and the legitimate immigrants who do not want their ability to climb the socio-economic ladder as American immigrants have done for 240 years to be undercut by swarms of illegal migrants with no sense of choosing a new country and determining to accept that country’s values and work within them.

Democrats rejoice in proclaiming that Trump didn’t drain much of the swamp when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. They know perfectly well that the Republicans in the Congress were NeverTrumpers. The only senator Trump had at the outset was the subsequently hopeless attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who could not have done more to assist the cover-up of Democratic skullduggery if he had co-authored the Steele dossier.

Now Trump has banished the worst of the NeverTrumpers from the congressional Republican delegation, and won the rest over by friendly persuasion—except for Mitt Romney, who virtually terminated his useful career as a senator two days before he was sworn in with an article on the president’s character. The piece confirmed about Romney what his predecessor from Utah, Orrin Hatch, had called him: “a well-oiled weather vane.” It showed, too, that he was a treacherous one. Despite Romney and the chronically bumptious Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Trump’s allies are now in control of the Senate and its committees and the unearthing of the misconduct of the Obama Justice Department, intelligence services, and the Clinton campaign—as the attorney general-designate has pledged—are about to begin.

Democrats Backed Into a Corner


The Democratic House of Representatives has taken its stand on immigration. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), they claim to favor border security but are reluctant to do anything to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. The entire Democratic media echo chamber has gone to maximum decibel levels denouncing the time-honored solution of an “immoral” wall, and claiming the problem is wildly exaggerated and chiefly occurs at airports. They are backing themselves into the corner of “sanctuary cities” where police are instructed to ignore federal immigration laws and census-takers are enjoined from asking the citizenship of the country’s residents, as the Constitution requires.

This is insurrection and the pervasion of the immigration question, around 20 million people who entered the United States illegally, has corrupted the Democratic Party as its leaders balk at rational solutions. These include the establishment of a border, the deportation of serious law-breakers illegally present in the United States, a generous treatment for the people who entered blamelessly as children, and an expedited path to citizenship for the great majority of illegal entrants who have been constructive and law-abiding residents.

With battle joined on immigration, the Democrats have lashed out at the rich, including the close pals of the Clintons and Obamas in Wall Street and Hollywood, and are calling for a return to pre-LBJ, almost World War II-level tax rates, (of the confiscatory levels that drove Ronald Reagan into the Republican Party). La Pasionaria of the movement, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and the modern Herbert Marcuse, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are both calling for top tax rates in the neighborhood of 70 percent. Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, junior U.S. senator from California, surged to the fore by calling for the nationalization of the entire health insurance industry, and, effectively of the entire gigantic field of health care. Never mind single-payer healthcare, this is no-payer health care. Doctors of America would become de facto federal employees.

Exalting Atrocities


The Democratic train is now roaring off the tracks and down the third rail which politicians used not to touch, out of a lingering sense of self-preservation. The logical coruscation of this dispersal—this flight from the political center to the left, to stage a goal-line stand of the die-hards against the Trump ogre, grinding relentlessly forward, heedless of the semi-daily announcements by most of the national media of his imminent collapse in legal shambles, is to repurpose abortion as the end of the policy rainbow.

Abortion is too intrusive, too inconvenient; let the children be born and then the mother can decide whether she wants to be a mother after all, or kill the child, or give it up for adoption.

This was the logical end of the nonsensical Roe v. Wade decision that childbirth is exclusively a matter of a woman’s control over her body: it decided correctly that the state does not have the power and should not seek the power to inflict childbirth on a woman who does not want to have a child. But it ignored the real question of when the unborn attain to the rights of a person. That is why the decision is vulnerable and the Democrats, in cold terror that it could be overturned, are in panic and are moving the battle-lines forward to the position of Ralph Northam, far from a natural oracle of moral opinion this past week.

To hell with control over their own bodies! Women will decide in post-natal calm whether to kill the child. It is to this unspeakable assault on every principle and value that has guided, inspired, and undergirded American civilization, where the Democrats are arriving at their last post.

#MeToo was justice by denunciation. Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had to be believed over Judge Brett Kavanaugh because she was a woman. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) saved the balance of evidence and of probabilities, and rebutted justice by mere unsubstantiated denunciation. The Democrats are moving on: women will not only cause the rejection of male candidates for high positions, but have them prosecuted, which in the corrupt American justice system in 95 percent of cases means imprisoned. For good measure, the warrior-queen sisterhood will also decide, after birth, whether their children will be allowed to survive. Life is not remotely sacred, it is to be encouraged if convenient and snuffed out if not.

A Frenzy of Extremism


Donald Trump’s greatest achievement may be the total annihilation of the Democratic Party in its present mutated and degraded form. The Democrats have been allowed to slither to their present state of moral degradation with the witless and spineless collaboration of look-alike Republicans who are easy to defeat, like McCain and Romney, or can be survived, like Reagan and the Bushes, or destroyed, like Nixon.

Faced with a Trump they could not defeat and cannot destroy, Democrats appear to be entering a frenzy of primal extremism. If the Democrats go to the voters next year as the party of infanticide, open borders, a 70 percent top personal income tax rate, and the practical abolition of private health care, they will vanish more quickly, and with less distinction, than the Whigs, who at least had serious leaders like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln before their party imploded. This thronging riff-raff of Democratic presidential aspirants couldn’t lead the country across Washington’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, and won’t get an invitation to try.


Thank You Mr Black and American Greatness.

Virginia: When Identity Groups Collide

American Thinker


For decades, lacking a coherent and acceptable broad-based platform, the Democrats have cobbled together their victories by playing the identity politics game. Reaching out to different groups, playing on their sense of victimization and oppression, dissolving the very bonds of civic cohesion, and pretending to a savior role for each group. Of course, if people thought about it, no one is less oppressed than a modern-day American, and the special interests and pleadings of these disparate groups often collide and conflict, but that seemingly passes beyond their ken or notice. This week, in contrast to the unifying State of the Union address by the President which was coherent, consistent, and uplifting, the three top officials in Virginia -- all Democrats -- are engaged in a bloody battle which looks to disunite the Democratic women from the black voters of the state. It’s not helping the media either, especially not the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos himself, embroiled in a marital scandal and fight with David Pecker, the owner of the National Enquirer. (Who can beat the NY Post’s front page on Friday “Bezos Exposes Pecker”?)

The imbroglio in Virginia has inspired lots of humorous digs on the right, not the least of which is the rewriting of the motto “Virginia is for Lovers” into “Virginia is for Losers” as indeed the party is now a laughingstock with no good way out of the dilemma.

A Little Background
(1) Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford

Events pass so quickly, pardon me for a quick review of recent history. 

Christine Blasey-Ford accused then-nominee for the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh of sexual harassment, which, she said, had occurred years before when they were both in high school. She was vague as to the date and place, and persons she identified as being in the house when the offensive behavior occurred did not confirm that he was even there when the claimed abuse occurred nor was there a shred of evidence that the two had ever even met. Yet for days, the Washington Post headlined her story. And Democrats, especially women Democrats, insisted that women accusers of sexual malfeasance must be believed. 

Hillary Clinton (oddly enough) was typical:
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.  
Additionally, that paper then reported on a number of preposterous, unverified, and even more outlandish allegations against the nominee, later withdrawn.

(2) Governor Ralph Northam, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, and Attorney General Mark Herring

The fiasco in Virginia began when a medical school yearbook in which on Northam’s page was a picture of a man in blackface standing next to a man in a KKK outfit surfaced. Northam first apologized, later denied he was in that picture but did admit he’d appeared in blackface at a dance while in college. His denials seemed unpersuasive, suggesting someone mixed up pictures and placed this one on his page without his knowledge.

Next up Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring admitted he, too, had had worn blackface in college. (This seems to be a peculiar Virginia tradition. No one in other states seems to remember this happening at that time.)

The blackface furor began with demands for Northam’s resignation, and then Herrings’.

Among those calling for Northam’s immediate resignation were the editors of the Washington Post, which cited “his shifting and credulity-shredding explanations for the racist photograph.”
Professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) was having none of this:
Hey, WaPo editorial board -- remember how you pushed Northam as some sort of racial healer, while gleefully spreading the bullshit claims that longtime milquetoast GOP pol Ed Gillespie was some sort of Stormfront stalking horse? Maybe you should resign, too, hacks. Don’t try to pretend this is just about the rottenness of Virginia’s Democratic Party. You’re part of the rot yourselves.
It would, indeed, be hard to argue with a straight face that Virginia Democrats got into this box on their own. The Washington Post deserves a great deal of credit.

In any event, an online friend, Lynn Chu, probably best explains the hoopla about blackface and Northam:
All this weird, exaggerated shrieking about blackface etc. (and so many other leftist fetish behaviors) is some kind of psychological displacement behavior. With pathetic desperation they seem to seek to cover up for, or find scapegoats or substitutes for, what ought to be profound guilt and shame over all their other immoral behaviors.
This the Left adamantly ignores except for its symbolic expiations in overkill involving boorish male sex predators, the worst being those who abuse power. Northam's bland assertion of a right to infanticide, and that jerk Cuomo's actual jubilant celebration of it (excommunicate him please, Pope, alas, a useless one) is a prime example. But there are more.
The calls for Northam’s resignation, which had to include Herrings’ for consistency’s sake, might have gotten somewhere but for two allegations involving Justin Fairfax. For then it occurred to not a few people that all three might have to resign leaving a Republican in the Governorship according to Virginia’s succession law.

(a) The Fairfax Allegations.

A Scripps College professor, Dr. Vanessa Tyson, asserts that at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston, Fairfax forced her to perform fellatio on him.  Friday Meredith Wilson who has corroborating contemporaneous corroborating emails, Facebook messages and statements from friends, accuses Fairfax of raping her when they were both students at Duke University.

Tyson’s allegations were made public sooner and we have more details about how they were handled than we do of Wilson’s. 

Tyson, a friend of Virginia democratic Congressman Bobby Scott, says she told him about the incident a year ago. His aides said that Tyson first reached out to Scott on October 20, 2017 indicating she was not “a fan” of Fairfax and that she followed up a month later indicating she wanted to explain to Scott why that was so, In December she texted him her issue with Fairfax was because of a “MeToo allegation” and about January of this year she disclosed that it was, she who had been Fairfax’s victim. 

The Washington Post received the information from Tyson over a year ago (prior to the Virginia election) and decided not to publish her allegations.  

As Becket Adams notes:
What’s the paper’s excuse for running multiple stories repeating totally uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse aimed at Kavanaugh? When the Post got Ford on the record amid the fight over Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, the paper didn’t seem to be so concerned by the fact that she couldn't provide a single piece of evidence to verify her claim that the judge tried to rape her when they were both in high school -- or even that they'd ever met. 
Note that, absent the leaks, her allegation could have been properly investigated by senators from both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee without the resulting damage to privacy and reputation. But the Post, less worried in that case about the lack of evidence behind the allegation, plowed ahead. 
In fact, as the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Ted Frank noted Monday, there are fewer red flags in the Fairfax accuser's story then there were in Ford's. Unlike Ford, Fairfax’s accuser identifies the exact year and location of the alleged assault. Unlike Ford, Fairfax’s accuser belongs to the same political tribe, and therefore speaks against interest in at least one sense. 
There are other things that bother me about the Post’s uneven treatment of the Fairfax and Kavanaugh accusers. For example, the paper’s first original coverage of the allegation against the lieutenant governor came only after Fairfax had issued a statement defending himself. Kavanaugh was afforded no similar benefit. 
“Virginia Democrats haven’t had this hard of a time since the third day at Gettysburg” says my online friend “Captain Hate’ and with good reason.

Northam can’t be forced to resign even if black voters are furious. Neither can Herring. And it seems inconsistent to not treat both men equally for essentially the same offense. But if they resign for blackface pictures in college, how can Fairfax stay in office facing charges now from two women for far more egregious conduct? And if all three resign the Democratic Party in Virginia will be decimated. But if they don’t it will infuriate women voters or black voters, or both.

Thank You Ms Feldman and AT.

The Ku Klux Krats

American Thinker
By Bruce Walker

Feb 10, 2019 

The racist antics of Virginia governor Ralph Northam ought not to surprise anyone. The Democratic Party has long been marinated in racist thinking. Today, most of that racism is irrational hatred of white people and the denial of white people through such policies that the Nazis practiced — racial quotas — in the name of that moronic and repulsive goal "social justice," which is to say injustice; all justice is individual.

The Democratic Party was even more deeply committed to racism against blacks, and the Ku Klux Klan was simply the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, which drove Republicans out of the South and compelled blacks to join the Democratic Party, where they were denied the right to vote in primaries or participate in caucuses to choose the Democrat nominee for offices.

Blacks who gave in to this terrorism and became Democrats were said by disgusted black women to be "crossing the Jordan" and were referred to as "Uncle Tom," which is how that derogatory name from Uncle Tom's Cabin entered the American political lexicon.

The Ku Klux Klan did more than just terrorize Republicans. The Klan was a strong supporter of public schools and a passionate advocate of creating a federal department of education with Cabinet-level status. The Ku Klux Klan also touted itself in many parts of the nation as "progressive" and opposed big business.

The infestation of Klan members in the Democratic Party — an utterly forgotten story — includes not just nebbishes like Northam, but Democrat icons. Woodrow Wilson, though not a Klan member himself, re-segregated the federal civil service. He showed the Klan celebratory film, The Birth of a Nation, in the White House and commented that so much of what was in the film was so true.

FDR won the Democrat presidential nomination in 1932 when, in the later rounds of voting, all the "Solid South" swung to him. FDR never desegregated the military or tried to end the disenfranchisement of blacks in the South or supported the civil rights bills that conservative Republicans repeatedly introduced in Congress. Truman himself applied to join the Ku Klan Klan.

Democrat presidents put several Klansmen on the Supreme Court. Justice Edward White, who had been a Klansman, was put on the Supreme Court by Grover Cleveland. FDR put Hugo Black, a leftist icon and also a Klansman, on the Supreme Court. Harry Truman put Tom Clark, father of the odious radical leftist Ramsay Clark, on the Supreme Court.

Is all this ancient political history? Recall that the presidency of George W. Bush included West Virginia senator Robert Byrd, who had been a high official in the Ku Klux Klan and used the term "white nigger" in a television interview. Byrd was repeatedly chosen as the Democrat leader in the Senate.

The contrast with the Republican Party is stark. Every single Republican presidential candidate since the Civil War supported equality before the law for blacks and invited blacks to join and to participate in the Republican Party at the local and national levels. Even after serving terms as president, men like Rutherford B. Hayes devoted the rest of their lives to working to educate blacks in the South.

Thaddeus Stevens, who is attacked in most history books for supporting the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, refused to acknowledge Pennsylvania state law changes that, before the Civil War, denied blacks the vote. In his will, Stevens asked to be buried in a black-only cemetery.

Republican national conventions long before there was any political gain to be had often had the invocation by black clergymen. The platforms of these conventions almost invariably called for granting blacks genuine political and civil rights. Virtually all the black leaders, up to W.E.B. Du Bois, were Republicans (and even the Marxist Du Bois, after supporting Wilson in 1912, declined to do so in 1916).

How, then, did the Ku Klux Krats come to be seen as the champions of blacks? Because, as they always do, leftists — the Ku Klux Klan is clearly a spawn of the Left — promised them unearned goodies, unmerited advantages, and the appearance of power. Equality before the law became in fact inequality, forcing colleges and companies to hire relatively unqualified blacks, which both destroyed the value of those institutions in many ways and also insured that interracial hostility continued and worsened.

Can anything be done? Possibly, but probably not. All those who crossed the Jordan to become Democrats are too addicted to those destructive narcotics that are the tools of enslavement used by the Left. That is just what the left and its political vehicle, the Democratic Party, want.



Thank You Mr Walker and American Thinker. 


Related Interest

DEMSKKK.CON

The 10 Most Destructive Americans of My 8 Decades

Democrat Socialists of America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Ocasio-Cortez Doubles Down On 'Free-Money For Lazy People' FAQ Debacle

zerohedge
Tyler Durden

Feb 9, 2019


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has inserted her foot squarely in her mouth as her "Green New Deal" PR nightmare continues. 

After removing an embarrassing FAQ from her website which failed to match the environmental legislation package she introduced on Thursday, one of her advisers went on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight and lied about it.

The now-deleted version of the FAQ originally uploaded by AOC's office contained an absurd provision for "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," a phrase which AOC adviser Robert Hockett - a Cornell law professor, claimed came from a "doctored document."
"I think you’re referring to some sort of document that some, I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating," said Hockett in response to Carlson's question about the "unwilling to work" statement. 

"Oh, I thought that came right from her, that was in the backgrounder from her office, is my understanding," Carlson replied. 

"No, no. She’s actually tweeted it out to laugh at it. If you look at her latest tweets, it seems that apparently, some Republicans have put it out there."

Making it worse, AOC and her Chief of Staff are now continuing to bullshit people about it over Twitter!


And as if the Green New Deal hadn't generated enough negative attention this week, President Trump chimed in with a tweet mocking the plan that is almost guaranteed to draw a response from AOC herself.



Thank You Mr Durden, Zerohedge, and President Trump for rubbing it in.

Saturday, February 9, 2019

Green New Deal Will Stifle Green Energy Innovation, Expert Says

freebeacon
Elizabeth Harrington
February 7, 2019 2:30 pm

'Socialist manifesto' could increase electric bills by $3,800 per year

The "Green New Deal" will produce the opposite of its intended goal of reducing carbon emissions by stifling energy innovation, according to an expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released her proposal Thursday. The 10-year plan calls for the "economic transformation" of the United States, the elimination of air travel, replacement or upgrade of every building, and a guaranteed federal job with paid vacation for every person in America even if they are "unwilling to work."

Ocasio-Cortez is light on the details of how to finance the deal, estimated at anywhere between $2 trillion and $5.7 trillion, "or more."

"At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation," Ocasio-Cortez said. "So the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."

AEI resident fellow Alex Brill explained last week that regardless of cost, the unintended consequences of the Green New Deal are "the worst imaginable."

Brill writes that the Green New Deal's financing through bureaucratic funding schemes could "inhibit clean technology and energy efficiency innovation," because grants will "inevitably be earmarked for investments that can be defined using only tools and technologies already at hand."

Energy innovation in the private sector would also be inhibited as private companies would seek federal financing instead of private investment for green energy projects. Brill cites transportation spending data that show highway spending in President Barack Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill in 2009 actually "reduced state spending on highway projects by 81 cents."

Brill also notes the funding process would be political by nature, as inevitably Green New Deal projects would go to those that are preferred by powerful liberal lawmakers in Congress.

"Some lawmakers will insist on a certain level of investment in solar projects, while others will demand more money for wind turbines or geothermal power," Brill writes. "The final allocation will depend on the relative clout of the lawmakers and will inefficiently differ from the allocations that consumers and producers would demand."

"In short, the Green New Deal would be a deficit financed expansion of federal bureaucratic power to dictate investment decisions in one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy," Brill concludes.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) called the Green New Deal a "raw deal for the taxpayer" that would increase electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.

"It's a socialist manifesto that lays out a laundry list of government giveaways, including guaranteed food, housing, college, and economic security even for those who refuse to work," Barrasso said. "As Democrats take a hard left turn, this radical proposal would take our growing economy off the cliff and our nation into bankruptcy. It's the first step down a dark path to socialism."

Barrasso said the solution to lower emissions is through private innovation.

"I want to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs for consumers," he said. "We can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by supporting new innovative technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization. Innovation, not regulation, will lead to lower emissions and a stronger economy."

Thank You Ms Harrington and Free Beacon.

WSJ Columnist Takes Little 'Socialist That Could' Ocasio-Cortez To The Woodshed Over Her Moronic New Green Deal

townhall

|
|
Posted: Feb 08, 2019 2:05 PM
WSJ Columnist Takes Little 'Socialist That Could' Ocasio-Cortez To The Woodshed Over Her Moronic New Green Deal

It’s a fine line. I’m not one to attack Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on everything because that is what the Left does with Trump, but when it comes to policy that could destroy the country, curb freedom, and relegate this nation to something out of a socialist hellhole, then by all means, go at it.

This week, Ocasio-Cortez, one of the faces of the far left, pitched her New Green Deal, which was rightfully laughed out of the room. It called for a complete transition away from fossil fuels…within a decade, upgrading all buildings in the country, and the slaughter of all cows because their farts produce methane. No, I’m not kidding. Oh, and “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
The Wall Street Journal’sKimberley Strassel read the proposal, had a good laugh, and then proceeded to take the little socialist that could” to the woodshed for having a brain dead agenda that, in keeping with Democratic social policy tradition, leaves out the price tag and the taxes that would need to be applied to pay for all of this. We all saw how the same people reacted to when pressed about Medicare for All. They had no answer, though we all had a ballpark figure: some $30+ trillion in the first ten years.
On Thursday Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her vaunted Green New Deal, complete with the details of how Democrats plan to reach climate nirvana in a mere 10 years. It came in the form of a resolution, sponsored in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Edward Markey, on which AOC is determined to force a full House vote. That means every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.
It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face—as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.
It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.
Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).
This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.
Alas, why I, and I’m sure many others, very much liked President Trump’s declaration that this nation has to remain free, and that “America will never be a socialist country.”


Thank You Mr Vespa and Townhall.

American Suspension Of INF Treaty Is Aimed At China

zerohedge
Authored by Anatoly Karlin via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

So it’s done. The US has suspended its participation in the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and Russia soon followed suit. This almost certainly spells an end to this late Cold War relic, which banned the two superpowers from deploying ground-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km. There have been recriminations all round. But in the end, so far as two of the world’s three most greatest military Powers are concerned, upholding the INF Treaty could never have been done exactly to the letter.



The US has specified Russia’s Novator 9M729 (NATO designation: SSC-8) as the offending missile that finally prompted US action. Russian nuclear weapons analyst Pavel Podvig has noted that it is very similar to the Russian Navy’s Kalibr-NK cruise missile, which has a range well beyond 500 km and has been touted as a potential “carrier killer”. Podvig goes on to speculate that if the US had observed a test of the 9M729 from a land-based Iskander-M launcher – even if on just a single occasion – then all of them “would have to be eliminated” by the formal terms of the treaty. This is obviously not something that Russia could reasonably be expected to carry out.

Moreover, any number of US missile systems can be considered to be in breach of the INF Treaty. For instance, the Russians have argued that America’s AEGIS Ashore program – a ground-based cruise missile, for all intents and purposes – can also be considered to be in systemic breach of the INF Treaty. Incidentally, this system was itself enabled by America’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in 2002, under the George W. Bush administration.

Trump has been taking heat for the INF withdrawal from the usual quarters. For instance, the top comment on this story at r/politics – a bastion of online Trump/Putin Derangement Syndrome – lambasts the US President for spoiling America’s image and letting down its allies instead of sanctioning Russia. (Naturally, no mention of where exactly it says that breaking the Treaty is grounds for such). In reality, dissatisfaction with the INF Treaty had been building up for years within the previous Obama administration, and NATO has released a statement of support for Trump’s decision. There is no significant division on this matter either within US political circles, or its transatlantic allies.

Because at the end of the day, rhetoric to the contrary, nobody really cares about the INF Treaty within Europe. Force levels on both sides of the border between the West and Russia – which has moved 1,000-1,500 km to the east, in large part thanks to NATO’s broken promises not to expand – are at a small fraction of Cold War levels. Few seriously believe that Russia has any territorial designs on the Baltics, and even on the off chance that it does, it’s not like the 9M729 is going to make any cardinal difference.

However, it is with respect to the balance of power in the West Pacific that the restrictions imposed by the INF on the US – but not on China – come into play. While consensus expert opinion holds that the US still retains dominance in the South China Sea vis-à-vis China, its margin of superiority is shrinking year by year. In a 2015 report, the RAND Corporation estimated that the number of US air wings required to defeat a surge of attacking Chinese aircraft over Taiwan increased from just a couple in 1996 to 30 by 2017. In a subsequent report released in the following year, we see the balance of power in potential China-US conflict scenarios shift from a terminal Chinese disadvantage in 1996, to parity over Taiwan by 2017 (though they believe that the US still holds a decisive advantage in a conflict over the Spratly Islands). Even so, it is especially notable that the only two categories in a conflict over Taiwan in which RAND now considers China to hold an advantage – “Chinese attacks on air bases” and “Chinese anti-surface warfare” – are both spheres in which intermediate-range ballistic missiles would play an important role.

This is not just my supposition. In another 2016 RAND report, tellingly titled “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable”, this consideration is stated openly and forthrightly:
“US land-based missiles from 500 km to 5,500 km are prohibited by the INF treaty, whereas the Chinese missiles are not, giving China a significant advantage.”
It has long been obvious that the US (correctly) regards China as the real long-term threat to its global hegemony. Meanwhile, Russia is a mere nuisance, a “dying bear” that is ever approaching collapse, in the wake of which Moscow will have no choice but to sign up to America’s China containment project. (Sure, this sounds like a crazy ideological narrative, and it is – but the US policy of alienating Russia and drawing it into a quasi-alliance with China is even crazier – just ask Kissinger). But like it or not, this really is how the American elites think, and it can’t be denied that there is a certain logic to it.

In this context, withdrawal from the INF Treaty – with Russia’s alleged violations as pretext – is just the logical next step to the military component of Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, one that the US is entirely happy to continue and follow through with. It really is as banal as that.


Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.