You are currently browsing the archives for the Hispanics category.


Archive for the ‘Hispanics’ Category

Michael Starr-Hopkins is an attorney. He’s also a world-class Democratic spinmeister and a frequent contributor to the Hill magazine. In this op-ed, Starr-Hopkins verifies as fact that he’s a world-class Democratic spinmeister, saying “What happened to any semblance of political consistency? Republicans shouldn’t have to add falsities into their arguments, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t have to play to insecurities and fears to drive their party’s agenda, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t be willing to trick and misinform voters to win a political battle, but they choose to. Republicans are making a choice.”

Hopkins’ op-ed opens by talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s pardon. Hopkins’ opening paragraph says “Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans continue to perpetuate the racially-tinged myths that have gridlocked our government. Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans choose to pontificate about the illegality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), while simultaneously defending the unconstitutional racial profiling by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the unconstitutional Muslim ban by President Trump.”

First, let’s introduce some facts into this dispute. The Supreme Court has halted all other courts from issuing an injunction on President Trump’s travel ban because they’ll hear arguments on whether it’s constitutional when their term opens in a couple of weeks. Until then, it isn’t proper to say that President Trump’s travel ban is unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has rightfully deferred to the President on issues of national security. It isn’t a stretch to think that’s what they’ll do this time. Next, racial profiling isn’t unconstitutional. Depending on the state, it might be illegal but it isn’t unconstitutional. (Shouldn’t an attorney know the difference between statutes and constitutional principles?)

Check out this paragraph:

Rewriting our political and racial history using identity politics isn’t just immoral and dangerous, it’s a desperate choice. Identity politics are destroying our ability to have honest conversations. Identity politics are destroying our ability to govern. Identity politics are a tool for distracting away from actual policy debates.

That’s pretty stunning. Democrats, not Republicans, have used identity politics for at least the last dozen years. When Mark Udall ran for re-election to the US Senate against Cory Gardner, Udall talked about getting out the women vote so often that the Denver Post nicknamed him Mark Uterus. Then there’s Hillary Clinton surrogate Madeleine Albright, who famously told female voters that “There’s a special place in hell for women don’t help each other”:

But I digress. During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Starr-Hopkins was asked why Nancy Pelosi said that people that had broken the law (DACA-protected illegal immigrants) had done a great thing for this nation. Starr-Hopkins said that that wasn’t what Ms. Pelosi said. Starr-Hopkins insisted that Ms. Pelosi said that these illegal immigrants had done a great thing for their families. The tape verifies that Starr-Hopkins didn’t get it right:

Approximately 3:25 into the video, Ms. Pelosi said “Their families did a great thing for our country, bringing these kids here, who are working…” Ms. Pelosi wasn’t praising the parents for their heroism towards their families. She spoke specifically about how illegal immigrants had helped the United States.

My exhortation is to question everything that Starr-Hopkins says. I’d start with a disposition of distrust because he’s given me tons of reason for not trusting him. That’s just the truth.

When Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration was ending DACA, Planned Parenthood threw a world-class hissy fit. Cecille Richards said “here at Planned Parenthood, we firmly believe that every person has the right to live, work, and raise a family freely and without the threat of deportation or separation.” Within minutes, the Twitterverse reacted. Erielle Davidson replied “Irony is dead.” Cameron Gray tweeted “And PETA just endorsed bacon.” Steve Ahlers replied, saying “Sounds like PP is making a strong case against PP.”

The point is that Planned Parenthood, or more precisely, Cecille Richards, is a Democratic operative more than she’s an pro-abortion zealot. That isn’t to say Ms. Richards is a disinterested bystander on abortions. She isn’t. The point is that she’s a willing ‘soldier’ for the progressive cause. I suspect that she’s a climate change believer. Further, I suspect that she’s an anti-war activist that would fit perfectly with CODEPINK.

This isn’t uncommon with progressives. Groupthink isn’t just a byword with them. It’s who they are.

Richards continued, saying “I’m infuriated. I’m heartbroken. But I’m sure about one thing: Planned Parenthood stands with DREAMers, the young people in this community who are the future of this country, then adding that DACA has “helped so many young DREAMers access health care, get driver’s licenses, receive an education, and work to provide for their families — and without DACA, their fate and ability to remain in this country is unknown.”

Thanks to the flood of illegal immigrants into the US during the Obama administration, wages dropped in factories. The white working class got the message. The Democratic Party that fought for them had disappeared. The DNCC was mostly interested in attracting Hispanics, the newest growing demographic group. Democrats got so infatuated with Hispanics that they forgot (ignored?) the white working class.

Ben Shapiro criticized and mocked Richards’ statements in this interview:

Suffice it to say that Shapiro ripped Richards’ statement to shreds.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Saying that Ana Navarro is an angry woman is understatement. Unhinged is another word that fits. After President Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Ms. Navarro went off. She started by saying “what message that he’s sending through this Joe Arpaio thing is a message to his base, is a message to anyone who is anti-Hispanic, to anyone who is…(inaudible) No, sweetheart, I’m America first and you don’t get to tell me I’m not. But I’m also not anti-Hispanic. I’m not anti-immigrant. I’m not anti-black. I’m not (inaudible). I’m not anti-gay. So you don’t get to tell me that I’m not America first because I’m an immigrant and I’m Hispanic. You’re inferring that I’m a little bit older. So let me tell you something. He’s sending a message by pardoning Joe Arpaio. Try to control yourself from interrupting me because you’re a little too close and you’re getting into my danger zone. Don’t interrupt. Let me just tell you, the message that he’s sending is ‘I’m ok with profiling Latinos in Arizona. I’m ok with attacking immigrants. I’m ok with attacking Hispanics. I’m ok with mistreating prisoners. I’m ok with everything that Joe Arpaio represents.’ And that’s the message that he’s sending to his base and to those of us who are not his base.”

Words alone don’t do Ms. Navarro’s diatribe justice. Watch how irate and unhinged she is:

That’s breathtaking. Ms. Navarro has gone off at least twice this week. Put differently, she’s lost it on national TV. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that she needs anger management training.

For all of Don Lemon’s and Jim Clapper’s pontificating about how President Trump isn’t fit for office, the only proof that anyone isn’t mentally fit for their job is watching Ms. Navarro’s multiple meltdowns. When Ms. Navarro’s fellow panelist started laughing at her, she said that he was “getting into my danger zone.” That’s something that a person that’s lost it does. That isn’t how a rational person reacts.

CNN bears responsibility for their anchors’ and pundits’ behavior. This week, they’ve been out of control and disrespectful in the extreme. They obviously think that this plays well with their audience. That’s probably true but it’s also why their ratings rarely improve for more than a blip at a time. People who have just finished a long work week don’t want to turn on the TV and watch that type of stuff. In 10 seconds or less, they’re flipping to another channel.

Last week, Gov. Dayton recommended that a fund be started to instruct police officers. At Gov. Dayton’s announcement, unfortunately, the most well-received speaker was Valerie Castile, Philando Castile’s mother.

That’s mostly because Gov. Dayton proposed that the training fund be named after Philando Castile. That didn’t sit well with the police. Their response was that “Still, the topic of naming the fund came up. Dennis Flaherty, a former executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association who was at the meeting, said it was ‘fair to say there was disagreement’ in the law enforcement community over naming the fund.”

Castile’s mother was well-received because she said “At the end of the day, everyone wants to go home. The police wants to go home and the civilian wants to go home. And if we can combine and work together as human beings that will happen. We got to learn how to communicate better with each other. We’re supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet, but look (at) what we do to one another. We’re worse off than some animals, that just go around and prey on people.”

A loyal reader of LFR told me that Philando Castile’s uncle has participated in some meetings designed to work on police training issues. I was told that Castile’s uncle, for whatever it’s worth, is fairly level-headed. That’s believable in light of this paragraph:

Of police, she said, “We need them because the world would be chaotic if we didn’t have the police. Don’t get me wrong: I love having the police to protect and serve us. But when it comes to the point where there’s miscommunication and it turns out the way it turned out for my son, it’s unacceptable.”

This is a tragedy. This is the dashcam video of the shooting:

Gov. Dayton, unfortunately, spoke before he had the facts in the shooting. When he spoke, Gov. Dayton said that Castile probably wouldn’t have gotten shot if he was white. Gov. Dayton said that not knowing that Officer Yanez is Hispanic. Gov. Dayton said that without seeing the video of the shooting.
Technorati: , , , ,

There’s no question whether we’re seeing a tightening of the presidential race. When it comes to figuring out why the polls are tightening, it’s difficult to dispute with Michael Barone, of the most respected number crunchers in American political history. Michael Barone’s latest column is filled with explanations of why the presidential race is tightening.

Turnout is everything to Hillary’s campaign. If she doesn’t win that fight, she’ll lose. It’s that simple. That’s why it’s difficult to think that it’s good news for HRC when Mr. Barone wrote “There are plenty of signs Clinton is poorly positioned to do that. Black turnout and Democratic percentage is likely to be down, at least slightly, from when the first black president was seeking re-election. Polls have shown Hispanics are less interested and motivated by this campaign than just about any other demographic group.”

Simply put, HRC simply doesn’t excite people. Even the people who will vote for her and who support her do so more out of obligation or loyalty than rallying around their rock star. This isn’t good news for the Clinton campaign, either:

Young voters, while repelled by Trump, are not attracted by Clinton. She ran way behind Bernie Sanders among young women as well as young men in primaries and caucuses. Four-candidate polls typically show Clinton running far behind the 60 percent Obama won among under-30s in 2012, with as many as 20 percent preferring Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green candidate Jill Stein.

These demographic groups don’t paint a great picture for HRC. Still, it’s foolish to think that Trump doesn’t have difficulties of his own. Still, it’s difficult to picture someone with a more daunting task than Hillary has.

Think of it this way. People think that she isn’t honest or trustworthy. They don’t think she’s terribly competent, either. They’re certain that she’s gotten preferential treatment with the email scandal. (They’re right about that, BTW.) Finally, there’s this:

The kid gloves treatment she got from the FBI — no recordings, allowing aide and co-conspirator Cheryl Mills in the interview — confirm the impression, created by the intended-to-be-secret meeting of Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch days before, that the fix was in. So does the fact that Clinton and her aides in court-ordered interviews claimed loss of memory 378 times.

The alphabet media will do their best to prop HRC up from now until Election Day. I just don’t know that that’s enough for her to win. This answer won’t help Hillary:

Hillary was asked by a military veteran about her mishandling of classified and top-secret information. Her story changed another time. This won’t help Trump as much as it’ll hurt Hillary. At this point, all that Mr. Trump has to do is look like a legitimate alternative to Hillary. If he pulls that off, then Hillary’s fighting an uphill fight.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Simply put, Kevin Sorbo is my new hero. He’s my hero for writing this post that questions why Michael Brown’s mother was invited to Hillary’s convention and that ridicules the entire Black Lives Matter movement and the hand-up-don’t-shoot myth. Considering the fact that he’s a Hollywood actor, that took courage.

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop. But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.”

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.) And it would be a lot easier without a group, officially supported by the Democrats, leading marches down city streets, chanting, ‘What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!’ Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention?”

That’s a great question, Mr. Sorbo. Why was Mike Brown’s mother invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention? What did she contribute to the convention other than to gin up the African-American vote? This is an even better question:

However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

It’s obvious that Hillary isn’t pro-cop. If she were, she would’ve told Al Sharpton off for perpetuating the myth of hands-up-don’t-shoot. The Democratic Party isn’t pro-cop. Gov. Dayton accused a Hispanic police officer of being racist while insisting that Philando Castile would likely still be alive if he was white. Sorbo wasn’t done:

Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots. But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.

Sorbo closed by sticking in the dagger, figuratively speaking:

Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention.

But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?

In terms of rhetorical questions, that’s one of the smartest I’ve ever heard. The answer, of course, is that Hillary won’t get questioned about inviting the mother of a thug to speak at her convention, much less be asked to disavow that decision.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday night, I watched David Wohl debate Guy Benson about Donald Trump’s bigoted statements about Judge Curiel. I watched in amazement because Trish Regan, who was guest-hosting for Megyn Kelly, brought up the question that Trump had attacked Judge Curiel to take attention away from his Trump University lawsuits.

Wohl seemed to think that was possible. If that was Trump’s strategy, it was an exceptionally foolish strategy. The Trump University lawsuits essentially accuse Trump of being a crook, promising people a path to riches if they just followed the Trump blueprint for success.

Trump’s statement that Judge Curiel hated Trump because Trump is promising to build a wall on the US-Mexican border is outright bigotry. It isn’t brilliant to call attention to your bigotry rather than your dishonesty. Trump is hoping that he can increase turnout of lower-income white people. It’s as if Trump thinks he can win by winning the bigot vote. The thing is that there aren’t enough bigots in enough states for Trump to win.

Had Trump been smart, he would’ve accused the judge of being appointed by President Obama. Had he done that, he would’ve taken attention away from being accused of being a crook and put the spotlight on Obama’s judges

Steve Kornacki did his best to (somewhat) subtly accuse Republican presidential candidates as hating Hispanics in this interview:

The big takeaway from this interview is Kellyanne Conway’s statement that “Republicans aren’t afraid of running against Bill and Hillary.” Simply put, there’s more fear amongst Beltway Republicans and GOP consultants than there is with heartland governors.

At this point, Hillary will have a difficult time running as an agent of change or as the candidate of youthful vigor. Hillary has been a fixture in DC for a quarter century. She might’ve been young when she arrived but she isn’t anymore. Fair or unfair, the reality is that she can’t play the agent-of-change-card at this point. She’s reached her sell-by date.

Of course, that’s irrelevant to MSNBC. They’re fixating on Rep. Steve King and Hispanic voters. It’s predictable but it’s a fool’s errand. When the Republican National Convention is held in July, 2016, there’s a distinct possibility that the ticket will be Scott Walker as the nominee and either Marco Rubio or Susana Martinez is his running mate. It’s virtually guaranteed that Martinez, Rubio, Brian Sandoval, Mia Love and Tim Scott will deliver primetime speeches at the convention.

People won’t think “Ohmigod. Republicans are the party of Steve King. I can’t vote for Scott Walker.” Democrats will do everything to paint Republicans as the party that hates Hispanics. That’ll be a difficult task when each night, Republicans will feature a Susana Martinez or a Marco Rubio or a Brian Sandoval, who will likely be in the middle of a fight to unseat Harry Reid at that point.

The excitement in that building will be the buzz. The applause will be frequent, the emotions will be high.

If you want to know what the Republican National Convention will look like, just watch the speeches delivered by Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker. The enthusiasm during those speeches was noticeable and raucous.

Meanwhile, at the Democrats’ convention, the atmosphere won’t be electric. People will be able to contain their energy. The contrast between the two conventions will be stark. That contrast won’t put the Democrats in a positive light.

In the movie Rocky 3, Apollo Creed told Rocky that “When we fought, I trained hard but I didn’t have that look in my eyes. You had it and you won.”

I didn’t say that because I love the movie. I mention it because it’s a lesson between complacency and enthusiasm. There’s no question that, in 2016, the Democrats will work hard. There’s little question that Democrats will be a little complacent, too. If Republicans nominate one of their rising star governors, there’s no question that the 2016 Republican National Convention will be a great launching pad to a GOP victory.

There are few political analysts I trust more than Michael Barone. I trust Mr. Barone because, in addition to being one of the best number crunchers in the business, he’s a superb researcher. That’s why I took note of what he wrote in this article:

A new Washington Post story quotes Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke as favoring “greater emphasis on the interests of these children who are refugees from extreme violence” instead of “an acceleration of the deportation process at the expense of these children.” But the Post reporters note that “O’Rourke added that he has been surprised by the anger he has heard toward the immigrants of many of his El Paso constituents, who ?feel like we can’t take care of everyone, and these children and their families are gaming the system.’” O’Rourke’s district, which includes most of El Paso County, is 79 percent Hispanic.

That’s stunning. When Hispanics are upset with the flood of illegal immigrants, that’s a sign that this issue isn’t hurting Republicans or helping Democrats. Here’s Mr. Barone’s observation on that:

Democrats are trying to blame the situation on House Republicans’ refusal to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. That seems pretty lame: There’s nothing in the bill the Senate passed in June 2013 that addressed this particular situation. As this article in the Hill makes plain, perhaps despite the writer’s intention, this is a troublesome situation for Democrats whose names are on the ballot this fall.

In past elections, Democrats did a good job convincing Hispanics that Republicans were anti-immigration. That led to Democrats winning the Hispanic vote by a wide margin. The border crisis exposed Democrats as not caring about securing the border. That’s hurt Democrats with independent and Hispanic voters.

While the American people generally favor immigration reform in the abstract, they demand fairness and the rule of law. In this influx of illegal immigrants, they’re seeing neither fairness or the rule of law. It’ more than that, though.

As these illegal immigrants get sent to cities across the country, a nasty case of NIMBYism is settling in:

In the other, Lovelace quotes the chief of staff of the mayor of Lynn, Mass., about how many Guatemalan “children” were sent there and placed in public schools. “Some of them have had gray hair and they’re telling you that they’re 17 years old and they have no documentation,” the official is quoted as saying.

Part of this is due to these illegal border crossers not being children. Another part of this is that cities are getting stuck with the bill from an unexpected influx of people. Mostly, though, they juts don’t want to have to deal with the problem. It’s one thing when they’re someone else’s problem. It’s another when they’re your problem.

If Democrats, including President Obama, don’t work towards fixing this crisis, it’ll be high profile proof that they’re incapable of governing. That’s the worst accusation to hit an incumbent with during election season. If people think that politicians aren’t interested in or are incapable of governing, the other things don’t matter.

This is a tipping point moment for Democrats, especially if they’re on the ballot this fall. If they don’t provide real leadership on this issue, they’ll be hurt this fall.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

There’s no questioning President Obama’s campaigning skills. He definitely knows how to hold a crowd’ attention. What’s at question is whether he can govern. At this late point in his administration, it’s difficult to point to an instance where he intervened and solved a problem..

Most people paying attention to what’s happening on the Mexican border call it a humanitarian crisis. While there’s no denying the fact that real people are suffering, what’s really happening is President Obama’s moment of truth. This is his last opportunity to tell activists in his party that the good of the nation is more important than their campaign contributions.

This video bears that opinion out:

It’s mild news when Joe Scarborough criticizes President Obama. It’s definitely news when Mika Brzezinski joins Scarborough in criticizing President Obama. When Mark Halperin joins in by saying that President Obama’s schedule will change while he’s headlining a pair of Democratic fundraiserss, that’s a shot across President Obama’s bow.

What got this started was Gov. Perry’s refusal to meet President Obama on the tarmac for the obligatory photo op. Rather than getting caught up in that gamesmanship, Gov. Perry sent this letter to President Obama:

“I appreciate the offer to greet you at Austin-Bergstrom Airport, but a quick handshake on the tarmac will not allow for a thoughtful discussion regarding the humanitarian and national security crises enveloping the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to the president Monday. “I would instead offer to meet with you at any time during your visit to Texas for a substantive meeting to discuss this critical issue.”

Gov. Perry was respectful, which is important. What he didn’t do was roll over. Instead, he essentially told President Obama that photo ops weren’t important, that solving problems is what executives like governors and presidents are expected to do.

If President Obama just attends the fundraisers, people will see that he isn’t interested in governing. People will knkow that he isn’t capable of rising above petty partisan politics.

If President Obama doesn’t produce a truly bipartisan solution to this crisis, he’ll be exposed as a politician who isn’t interested in solving problems. That would dry up what’s left of President Obama’s political capital.

At this point, Rick Perry looks like the solutions-oriented statesman. President Obama looks like another Washington politician. That’s why this really is President Obama’s moment of truth.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,