Showing posts with label Kamala Harris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kamala Harris. Show all posts

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.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Internet Nukes Democrat Senator (Kamala Harris Corruptofornia) For Claiming 8 'Immigrants' Signed Declaration

You expected something cogent from this former SF City Attorney?

dailycaller
benny johnson 7/5/18


Even though the Fourth of July is seen as a holiday of unity for all Americans, there were still some in the political world who chose to use the holiday to send a partisan message.
In particular, Democratic Senator and potential 2020 candidate Kamala Harris tweeted odd political commentary on Wednesday’s holiday, erroneously claiming that “eight immigrants” signed the Declaration of Independence.
It is a historical fact that of the 56 people signed the document, the vast majority of which were American-born. The point is also strange because America was not an independent nation at the time and therefore had no immigration laws of its own yet. It is safe to say the internet reacted badly to the Democrat Senator’s tweet.

Thank You Mr Johnson and the DC.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Sen Kamala Harris (D-Ca.) Upset Homeland Security Enforces US Immigration Law



dailycaller
Derek Hunter Contributor
8:37 AM 05/16/2018 


Future Democrat votes at risk.


California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris attempted to grill Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen over the policy of separating illegal aliens from their children when they are caught entering the country together.

Harris opposes the policy, in which illegal alien adults are detained and children are placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services while the adult’s case is adjudicated.

“I’m extremely concerned about the administration’s repeated attacks on some of the most vulnerable communities, and in particular, children and pregnant women as it relates to the world of DHS,” Harris said of illegal aliens at the start of her opening statement during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Tuesday.

Nielsen denied that she had been asked to separate illegal alien parents from their children as a method of deterrence.

“My decision has been that anyone who breaks the law will be prosecuted,” she said. “If you’re a parent or you’re a single person or you happen to have a family, if you cross between the ports of entry, we will refer you for prosecution. You’ve broken U.S. law.”

Harris was very concerned with the policy of detaining parents, causing separation from their children. Nielsen then reminded her that U.S. citizen parents are separated every day in the United States when those parents are arrested or sentenced to prison.

When an illegal alien is arrested crossing the border with a child, Harris said she worries “they will be separated from their parent.”

Nielsen responded, “Just as we do in the United States every day.”




Thank You Mr Hunter and the DC.

Because Democrats are doing such a great job taking control over American children already.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

The (Kamala) Harris Poll

frontpagemag

Kamala Harris is a shoo-in for Dems in 2020, but what about her controversial past? 


April 24, 2018
Lloyd Billingsley

 

“Kamala Harris Emerges as Voice of Immigrant Advocates in Senate,” headlined the Sacramento Bee, a reliable Democratic Party newsletter. Still, Harris should avoid backroom deals on border security because “such provisions could alienate the activist base the senator is wooing, with an eye toward the 2020 presidential race.”

Last August, Brides magazine cited “7 Reasons Sen. Kamala Harris’s Husband Douglas Emhoff Would Make a Great First Man.” He’s willing to compromise and cares about children, but most important he’s married to Kamala Harris, so “If he’s First Whatever, this means in 2020, we’d elect our first female president. This reason’s a no-brainer, right?” So like Bill and Hillary it’s a two-for-one deal, though POTUS 44 appears to favor the bride.

“She is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” he said in 2013. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.” The president apologized for that remark but Harris had other issues to walk back.

In the 2010 race for attorney general, the Sacramento Bee endorsed Republican Steve Cooley over Harris. She won by less than one percentage point, but as the Bee saw it, “she could be more aggressive on public corruption cases, though her handlers might worry that would cause friction with fellow Democratic politicians.” They had always shown her special kindness.

California’s powerful Assembly Speaker Willie Brown also thought the UC Berkeley law grad, a full 30 years his junior, was good looking. Brown began dating Harris and the hook-up paid off big. Willie Brown duly appointed Harris to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and California Medical Assistance Commission, boosting her prosecutor’s pay by nearly $100,000. The patronage came up in 2003, when Harris unseated San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan.

The next year, gang member David Hill used an AK-47 to gun down San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris quickly announced she would not seek the death penalty, which drew fire from Senator Dianne Feinstein and police across the state.

In her 2009 Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make us Safer, Harris decried the “truly staggering” number of nonviolent offenders. “It’s time to rock the crime pyramid,” she wrote, and that set the tone for her tenure as attorney general.

She targeted for-profit colleges, supported gun control and in 2013 refused to appeal the court decision overturning the 2008 Proposition 8, which sought to ban same-sex marriage. She let stand California’s fathomless public corruption.

The new span of the Bay Bridge, $5 billion over budget and riddled with safety issues, had whistleblowers calling for a criminal investigation. Harris failed to launch any criminal probe and with voter fraud and violent crime she looked the other way.

California’s attorney general stayed quiet in 2014 when Mexican national Luis Bracamontes gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis. Senator Kamala Harris made no statement when the racist murderer shouted “black lives don’t matter” in court.

In 2015 repeatedly deported Mexican felon Jose Inez Garcia Zarate shot and killed Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Attorney general Harris defended the city’s sanctuary policy and failed even to decry “gun violence” in the case.

That same year Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 unarmed innocents and wounded 22 at an office party in San Bernardino. A year later Harris issued a statement on the “devastating and tragic terrorist attack,” but failed to name the Islamic terrorists and their motive.

For his first address to Congress in 2017, President Trump invited Danny Oliver’s wife Susan, an African American, and the wife of slain deputy Michael Davis. Kamala Harris brought along DACA “dreamer” Yuriana Aguilar, a Salvadoran national. Senator Harris was the first Democrat to announce that she would vote against any deal that did not include a fix for the DACA illegals.

On a recent trip to Sacramento, Harris told her activist base the Stephon Clark shooting was due to the “implicit bias” of the police, failing to mention that one of the police officers, Terence Mercadal, was black, and that Sacramento police chief Daniel Hahn is also black. The shooting occurred at night during police response to a 911 call, and Clark had a criminal record for robbery, pimping and domestic abuse.

On the same trip, Harris proclaimed “There’s literally no doubt,” that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and “It’s not a debatable point.” Any move by Trump to fire Robert Mueller would be an “impeachable offence.” So like other Democrats, Harris is pretty sure there will be a vacancy.

Meanwhile, Brides may not be right that high-profile attorney Douglas Emhoff would make a great “First Man.” On the other hand, it is probably a no-brainer that in 2020 “smart on crime” Kamala Harris will be seeking a promotion, perhaps with the full support of her party. 


Thank You Mr Billingsley and FPM.


Well, if Harris is a Shoe In for the 2020 nomination it's good news, . . . for President Trump. 



Running her will give him more time to invest getting his Agenda through since he'll have to spend less of it pointing out what an incompetent hack she is. 

Monday, September 11, 2017

Kamala Harris DACA Question Is Making Us Question Her Credentials As AG Again




Cortney O'Brien
Sept 8th, 2017


Kamala Harris, The Missing Millions

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the former attorney general of California, has a knack for causing us to question her credentials. Last month, shetold President Trump he should not have pardoned Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he had committed a crime. The thing is, people are only eligible for pardons if they've committed a crime or been convicted of one in the first place. It is Pardon 101.

Well, Harris is at it again with her questionable knowledge of the law - this time on the topic of illegal immigration.


Follow

Kamala Harris
✔@KamalaHarris



For Attorney General Jeff Sessions to suggest that Dreamers are anything other than lawful is irresponsible. @TheLastWord



The youth who benefit from DACA came here with their parents, and as such many would agree that they shouldn't be punished for their parent's crimes. However, they are still here illegally. Key word illegally. That is, by definition, breaking the law.

Nevertheless, Harris pledged to defend DACA during a meeting with young undocumented immigrants.

“If the vast majority of people who are expressing opinions about this issue had the opportunity to meet our Dreamers, they would understand it’s just the right thing to do,” she said.

How many more gaffes will we hear from her on her way to 2020? Since she's hintedonce or twice she's ready to take the torch for the Democrats.

Democratic attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia have suedthe Trump administration for its plans to rescind DACA. The White House gave Congress a six-month window for a chance to make DACA constitutional.


Thank You Ms O'Brien and Townhall.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Kamala Harris Silenced, AGAIN, During Sessions Meeting


dailycaller
Amber Athey
5:12 PM 06/13/2017

video @ the link





Funny how she didn't have any trouble keeping her mouth shut - as the San Francisco City and County Attorney - when This was going on right under her nose: SFMHB 06/13/07



 

Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris was silenced during the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions when she refused to let him fully answer her questions.

The California senator tried to lock Sessions in a rapid fire question-and-answer style that didn’t allow Sessions to give full answers to her line of questioning.

“Did you consult [Department of Justice policy] before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about it?” Harris asked of Sessions’ assertion that he wouldn’t discuss private conversations with the president.

Sessions tried to answer before Harris cut him off, asking, “Did you ask that it would be shown to you?”


Sessions was clearly becoming frustrated with her inability to let him finish his thoughts, but Harris kept going.

“Did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that would be the basis for your refusing to answer the majority of questions that have been asked of you?”

“Chairman, the witness should be allowed to answer the question,” one senator can be heard in the background.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr took the reigns, saying, “Senators will allow the chair to control the hearing. Senator Harris, let him answer.”


Thank You Ms Athey and DC.

Friday, May 26, 2017

The Democrat's Second Secession & America's New Civil War


frontpagemag
How to look at the bizarre turn our political life has taken.
May 26, 2017
David Horowitz


 

Senator Kamala Harris is a rising star in the Democratic Party, frequently mentioned on the short-list of contenders for the next presidential race. In a recent commencement speech at Howard University Harris issued a call to arms, urging her audience to rally behind the Democrats’ resistance to the Trump administration: “Graduates, indeed we have a fight ahead. This is a fight to define what kind of country we are, and it’s a fight to determine what country we will be.”

Ignore for a moment the impropriety of addressing a class of students as though they were Democratic Party operatives. Focus instead on the statement itself. The call “to define what kind of country we are” is an ominous agenda for America. Compared to other nations, America is absolutely unique in one regard: it is a country defined in its creation. Normally, nations have been formed on the basis of common origins, ethnicities, and languages – a modern form of tribalism. In contrast, America was created by peoples of diverse origins and ethnicities and on principles that were universal. The American union was forged in a set of founding documents that insisted on the equality of citizens – regardless of origins. The idea that creates the identity “American” is summarized in America’s official motto: e pluribus unum – out of many, one.

It took a Civil War and two hundred years of sacrifice and struggle to achieve a polity that approached this ideal. If one political faction is now able to redefine the ideal to conform to its own sectarian beliefs, the country we have known will cease to exist. But that is just what the current creed of the Democratic Party - “identity politics” - entails, and is why the current divisions in our political life seem so intractable. Identity politics is, in fact, the antithesis of the American idea. It is a reversion to tribal loyalties. It regards diverse origins – colors, ethnicities, genders and classes - as primary, and proposes a hierarchy of privilege based on them, which it justifies as a reversal of past oppressions.

It is not the proper role of an opposition party in a democracy to mount a “resistance” to a duly elected government and press for its overthrow at the very outset of its tenure. But that is precisely what the Democrats have done in the first months of the Trump administration. For the second time in its history, the Democratic Party has opted to secede from the Union and its social contract. This time there is not going to be an actual civil war because the federal government is now so powerful that whoever controls it will decide the outcome. The passions of an irreconcilable conflict are still present but they are channeled into a political confrontation over the executive power.

In launching their resistance, Democrats rejected the honeymoon normally afforded to incoming presidents. Until now this tradition has functioned as something of a sacred political rite. Campaigns are by their nature divisive, and they inevitably exaggerate the differences between factions of the electorate. The presidential honeymoon is designed to reunite the contending factions as constituents of a shared constitutional republic. It allows an incoming president to take his place as the chief executive of all the people, to have his cabinet confirmed, and to launch his agendas before the normal contentions of a democracy resume. It ratifies the peaceful transition of power and reasserts the principle that as Americans we are one.

According to the Gallup organization, the normal duration of a presidential honeymoon in recent times has been seven months. The Democrats didn’t give Trump seven seconds. While he was president-elect, they were already attacking him as a racist, a “white nationalist,” anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim; also an anti-democratic “fascist”- a would-be dictator. His election was called illegitimate, the alleged agent of a Russian conspiracy. This meme swiftly metastasized into one of the most bizarre witch-hunts in our political history, a “red scare” without actual reds, in which Democrat after Democrat stepped forward to allege that Trump had colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the election.

Trump did not get confirmation hearings for the team he was hoping to put in place. He got a witch-hunt instead - a series of attempted character assassinations directed at his nominees. Most outrageously, his candidate for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, was smeared as a “racist” by one Democratic senator after another beginning with Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer. Yet, Sessions’ public career reflected values that were quite the opposite. It included service as the attorney general of a deep south state, in which capacity he had prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and desegregated the public schools. These acts reflected his actual commitment to civil rights. Schumer and his colleagues had served alongside Sessions for ten and twenty years, and knew very well that their accusations were defamatory and false. But they persisted in them anyway.

So that no one would mistake their hostile intent, the Democrats’ attacks were accompanied by calls for Trump’s impeachment, despite the fact that he had hardly been in office. These were echoed in massive street demonstrations, organized and funded by core Democratic groups, which featured chants of “Not My President,” claims by celebrity speakers that Trump’s election was “worse than being raped,” and addled wishes to “blow up the White House.” Each protest – no matter its official organizing premise - was orchestrated to underscore the identity-driven accusations that the Trump regime was anti-woman, anti-black, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant. Trump and his supporters were in turn anathemized as members of a hostile tribe – “white nationalists.”

Behind this Democratic rage is the conviction that the Trump administration represents a reactionary throwback to the status quo ante before Obama began “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as he promised on the eve of his election. The new order towards which progressives think they are marching is called “social justice.” To Democrats the hierarchy of privileges they offer groups on the basis of ethnicity, skin color, and gender is “social justice.” It defines the society they intend to create, which in their eyes is mortally threatened by the Trump regime and its conservative supporters.

During the second presidential debate, there was a seminal moment illuminating this conflict. It occurred when Trump turned to the fifty million viewers in the television audience, and said, “You have to understand, Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” He was referring to Clinton’s campaign remark that her opponents belonged in “a basket of deplorables – irredeemables,” whom she went on to name: “Racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes…” Trump, she said, had “raised them up,” and that made him “unfit” to be America’s president.

The condemnation of her political opponents is not unique to Clinton but is shared by Democrats generally. There is hardly a conservative in the country who has been in an argument with a so-called liberal who has not also been called a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. - terms designed to drum them out of decent society. They are expressions of the hatred progressives feel towards anyone who opposes their crusade to re-define America’s identity in the interests of “social justice.”

The theory behind “identity politics” is an ideology the political left refers to as “cultural Marxism.” This is a perspective that takes Marx’s view that society is divided into warring classes, and extends it to encompass races, genders, and ethnicities. It is a vision that regards one group’s success as another group’s oppression. “Social justice” - the proposed remedy for inequality and division - punishes oppressor groups by redistributing their incomes and privileges to the “under-represented,” “marginalized” and otherwise oppressed. It is a vision that disregards the accountability of individuals and ascribes to group identities the inequalities that are allegedly unjust.

The left has created a term of art – “people of color” – to promote its collectivist views on ethnicity and race. “People of color” is not grammatical English - we do not refer to “crayons of color” or “televisions of color.” It is a French construction, reflecting the way French people speak (personnes de couleur). “People of color” is an invention of ideologues to serve an ideological purpose, which is to organize the world into the categories of cultural Marxism - into oppressors and oppressed. To understand its usage one has only to look to Mexico, a country whose illegal migrants have been one of the flashpoints of the war against the Trump administration, as Democrats have rallied to their defense.

Mexico is composed of two main ethnic groups: the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors who enslaved and slaughtered the indigenous Indians, and the descendants of the Indians. In other words, actual oppressors and actual oppressed. When members of these two groups cross into the United States, however, they both become “people of color,” therefore oppressed; therefore, deserving of special sensitivities, special allowances, special privileges – all without regard to their individual histories and merits. That is why criminal migrants from Mexico, who are here illegally, can commit felonies against Americans, including rape and murder, and become a cause for progressives and Democrats, who create “sanctuary cities” and policies to protect them. Because they are people of color and allegedly oppressed.

Maharajahs in India are also “people of color.” Islamic beheaders and crucifiers in Syria are “people of color” too. The whole world is people of color except … white people – the designated oppressors. Identity politics is both racist and totalitarian. It obliterates the individual in favor of the group. It removes the agency of individuals as subjects and turns them into objects. After this is understood, there is no longer any mystery as to why advocates of identity politics should come into existential collision with the American framework and its defenders, personified by President Trump.

The 2016 platform of the Democratic Party vows “a societal transformation” that will “end institutional and systemic racism in our society.” This is the ideology of cultural Marxism. “Institutional racism” as a systemic American problem is a political fiction. Americans outlawed “institutional racism” half a century ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Any incidence of institutional racism today is actionable in the courts – the utra-liberal courts that threw out Trump’s executive orders on extra-legal grounds because of off-the-cuff remarks he made on the campaign trail.

“Systemic racism” and “institutional racism” are anti-American mythologies that drive the Democratic Party’s political agendas. The Democratic platform and Democrats generally, regard every social disparity as prima facie evidence of racial or gender oppression, and attribute such disparities not to individual decisions and performances but to un-named “policies,” which if they actually existed would be illegal. Consider this plank in the 2016 Democratic Party platform:
Closing the Racial Wealth Gap

America’s economic inequality problem is even more pronounced when it comes to racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and income. It is unacceptable that the median wealth for African Americans and Latino Americans is roughly one-tenth that of white Americans. These disparities are also stark for American Indians and certain Asian American subgroups, and may become even more significant when considering other characteristics such as age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The platform then explains: “The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans.” But if such policies existed they would be illegal under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. The disparities, on the other hand, are realistically explained by individual details, for example the presence (or lack) of two-parent families, the degree of education, or whether (in the case of Latino Americans), English is spoken in the home. More generally, the ability to accumulate wealth is determined in large part by genes and by cultural attitudes that guide the choices families and individuals make. Otherwise Japanese Americans, who are people of color, would not be among America’s richest (and therefore most privileged) economic groups.

The same mythology characterizes the Democrats’ claims about gender disparities. The Clinton campaign presented itself as a quest for equality for women. According to candidate Clinton, women across America were being paid only 76 cents on the dollar for the same skills, job experience and work as men. But if this were so, it would also be illegal under the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act passed as long ago as 1963 by a Congress dominated by men. After the election, the New York Times published a column inspired by studies that ratified what conservatives had been saying for a generation: “The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood.” The disparity exists because child-rearing takes women out of the work force for extended periods, and also causes them to seek flex-time occupations that pay less.[1]

Similarly, the animus behind Democratic assaults on Republicans and their support for law and order as “racist” is the direct consequence of viewing all social disparities through the distorted lens of oppression politics. Thus, the “over-representation” of African-Americans in the prison system is not because of systemic racism. Police forces have been integrated for decades, along with the entire criminal justice system. African-Americans are “over-represented” in the prison population because they are “over-represented” in the commission of actual crimes. Democrats’ embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement and its efforts to cast career criminals as civil rights victims and law enforcement officials as villains is an inevitable consequence of ignoring the specific circumstances of the incidents under review, and forcing them into the melodramatic framework of “racism” and “oppression.”[2] The “social justice” future to which these attitudes lead can be seen on college campuses, the experimental laboratories of the left, which are now characterized by privileged admissions and tuition scholarships distributed on a racial basis, “safe spaces” for people of color only, and, at Harvard, segregated graduations for blacks.

Trump and his followers not only understand the fateful nature of the conflict triggered by decades of these assaults. Their campaign to “Make America Great Again” is inspired by them. In his inaugural address Trump opposed to the progressive vision and its divisive consequences the American idea – e pluribus unum. Referring to those Americans who had been economically left behind, Trump said, “We are one nation and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny. The oath of office, I take today, is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.” Trump then elaborated on the idea that Americans are united as equal citizens: “Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” And finally: “It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black, or brown, or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same, great American flag. And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.”

In spirit, this echoed the address by the last man to have war declared on his presidency by an opposition party even as entered the office. “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war,” Lincoln said in his first inaugural. “You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ it…. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Notes:

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html?_r=0

[2] For ample statistical support for this, see Heather MacDonald, Are Cops Racist? 2016.


Thank You Mr Horowitz and FPM.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Ca. Senator Kamala Harris: "Outrageous" That Administration Says People Who Commit Crimes Qualify For Deportation

weaselzippers

Former attorney general of California too and would like higher national office.

Hopefully, such attitudes would finish her…


So far as we've heard, this deportation for crimes only applies to illegal or sanctuary immigrants. There Was that quip about Flag Burners, but that has been deemed a Constitutionally Protected 1st Amendment Right, so, . . .


Thank You Dapandico.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Democrats Grill Trump Nominees On Gay Marriage Again and Again and Again

Go get 'em Kamala. That's the way to put 96 Million out of work Americans back to work.

washington examiner

By Philip Wegmann • 1/12/17 5:54 PM

Senate Democrats are obsessed with sex. Each of Trump's nominees to the departments of defense, housing, and the Central Intelligence Agency endured a steady bombardment of questions about gay marriage. It was a needless LGBT hat-trick.

At all three hearings, Democrats demonstrated how their fascination with gay marriage eclipses their interest in military preparedness, urban development, and cybersecurity. Even more telling, they completely disregarded the president-elect's position on social issues.

Trump might have campaigned against political correctness. But he didn't run to resurrect the religious right's crusade for traditional marriage. On social issues, he's less Pat Buchanan and more Mitch Daniels. Anyone who doubts that should revisit Trump's 60 Minutes interview and Vice President-elect Mike Pence's Focus on the Family roundtable.

One more time, the president-elect accepts gay marriage as "the law of the land." And his vice-president advocated an era of gay federalism. But even those facts still couldn't stop the repetitive questions.

As the Islamic State endures and Al-Qaeda metastasizes, Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand opted to ask secretary of defense nominee James Mattis about gays and women in the military. While the Marine commander has been critical of the Obama administration's social engineering in the ranks, the nominee said he's primarily focused on military readiness.

Continually pressed about the sexual preferences of his enlisted men and women, Mattis echoed the party line. "Frankly, senator," he said, "I've never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with."

Things weren't much different for Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan. Russia might have undermined an election recently, but Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., grilled the aspiring CIA chief about employee benefits for gay public servants. She spent most of her allotted time on questions that, frankly, were better suited for Langley's HR department.

Harris wanted assurances that the top spy would "not put in place any policies that would discriminate against any members because of their sexual orientation." Without hesitation, just like his bosses promised to leave the LGBT issue be, Pompeo gave it.

Even evangelical favorite Ben Carson didn't bite at the question when pressed by Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. Asked about protections for same-sex marriages, the HUD nominee replied that he'd "enforce all the laws of the land." Though a vocal opponent of gay marriage, the neurosurgeon and aspiring bureaucrat held his tongue.


Thank You Mr Wegemann and Wash Ex.

CIA Director Nominee: 'I Prefer Not To Get Into The Details of Climate Debate And Science'

What does Climate Change have to do with being CIA Director?

Ed; Video at link.

CNSNews

By Melanie Hunter | January 12, 2017 | 2:43 PM EST 

 (CNSNews.com) – CIA director nominee Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said Thursday that he would rather not wade into the climate change debate during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

“I frankly as a director of CIA would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It seems my role is gonna be so different and unique from that. It is gonna be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe, and so I stand by the things that I’ve said previously with respect to that issue,” Pompeo said.


 Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked Pompeo, “CIA Director Brennan, who spent a 25-year career at the CIA as an analyst, a senior manager, and station chief in the field, has said that when ‘CIA analysts look for deeper causes of rising instability in the world, one of the causes those CIA analysts see is the impact of climate change.’ Do you have any reason to doubt the assessment of these CIA analysts?”

“Senator, I haven’t had a chance to read those materials with respect to climate change. I do know the agency’s role there,” said Pompeo.

“Its role is to collect foreign intelligence, to understand threats to the world. That would certainly include threats from poor governance, regional instability, threats from all sources and deliver that information to policymakers, and to the extent the changes in climactic activity are part of that foreign intelligence collection task, we will deliver that information to you all and to the president,” he added.

Harris asked a follow-up question about whether Pompeo doubted NASA’s findings on the issue of climate change.

“In the past, you have questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. Nevertheless, according to NASA, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively published climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities,” she said.

“In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Do you have any reason to doubt NASA’s findings?” Harris asked.

“Senator, I’ve actually spoken to this in my political life some. My commentary most all has been directed to ensuring that the policies that America has put in place actually achieve the objective of ensuring that we didn’t have catastrophic harm that resulted from change in climate,” Pompeo said. “I continue to hold that view.
 



Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) (AP Photo)
“I frankly as a director of CIA would prefer today not to get into the details of climate debate and science. It seems my role is gonna be so different and unique from that. It is gonna be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe, and so I stand by the things that I’ve said previously with respect to that issue,” he said.

“So I’m not clear. Do you believe that NASA’s findings are debatable?” Harris asked.

“Senator, actually I haven’t spent enough time to tell you that I’ve looked at NASA’s findings, and just, I can’t give you any judgment about that today,” Pompeo replied.

“Can you guarantee me that you will and we’ll have a follow-up conversation on this?” Harris asked.

“I’m happy to continue to talk about it. Yes, ma’am, of course,” Pompeo responded.



Thank You Ms Hunter and CNS.

California Democrats: only the best. 


Hey, Rep. Pompeo, ask her how she can find a rationale for Climate Changing the Central Intelligence Agency's mission when she couldn't (or wouldn't) find this, when she was the City Attorney of San Francisco.