Archive for the ‘Hispanics’ Category
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: Hillary Clinton, Lezley McSpadden, Michael Brown, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot, BlackLivesMatter, Al Sharpton, Philando Castile, Mark Dayton, Mothers of the Movement, Democratic National Convention, Kevin Sorbo, Law Enforcement, Republicans, Election 2016
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.
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.
If this LTE doesn’t make you see red, then you’re a heartless leftist ideologue that cares more about ideology than people. Here’s what’s got me seeing red:
This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton’s MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father’s employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy sky rocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.
Without the parent’s consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife. Because of the confusion and disarray at MNsure, neither he nor his wife currently has health insurance ID cards for the insurance they have already paid for.
The family and the employer were paying their own way for a good insurance policy that covered all members of the family. Today they are hostage to three different insurance policies. The husband and wife’s deductibles have doubled. The cost of the two adult policies is about equal to the old policy that covered the entire family. Their family dentist does not accept Medicaid, so they are also out dentist shopping for the children. President Obama, Gov. Dayton and the DFL majority in St. Paul decided they knew better what this family needed.
This proud, responsible, self-reliant family has always paid their own way. Their children are now on government insurance that was intended for those individuals that could not afford health insurance. The parents now have two different insurance policies to deal with, plus the Medicaid policies for their children. In addition to hurting this family’s self-esteem by having others pay for their children’s health insurance, the adults’ deductibles and co-pay for prescription drugs have sky rocketed, seriously damaging their overall financial well-being. To add insult to injury, Obama and Dayton have the audacity to count this family as one of the uninsured Minnesota families they have provided health insurance for.
I wrote this post to highlight how the Democrats’ chanting points included the fairy tale that the new policies people were getting forced into were vastly superior to the policies they had. I’d triple-dog dare Rep. Pallone to tell that to this family. If he tried peddling that BS to them, it’s quite possible that Rep. Pallone would wind up with a punctured backside, compliments of this family.
In fact, I’d argue that the only way a family would get shoved into their current policies is if government regulations shoved these policies down the family’s throats. What family would have 3 different insurance policies if they had the option of putting the entire family on a single policy, especially if their first policy came with lower deductibles?
The simple truth is that families would choose the policy that a) kept the entire family on a single policy and b) had significantly lower deductibles if they had that option. In fact, if that was a poll question, I’d bet that 95% of the people polled would opt for the single policy with low deductibles.
Thanks to Gov. Dayton and the DFL ideologues in the legislature, families didn’t have that option. That’s terrible. Simply put, that situation shouldn’t happen. Period. If not for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and MNsure, this family wouldn’t have gotten shoved into that inferior health insurance policy.
There’s no escaping the fact that Sen. Franken, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature own this mess. Their talk about caring about families is schtick. If they cared about families, they wouldn’t shove families into this situation. Sen. Franken started the ball rolling by voting for the ACA. Gov. Dayton lobbied for the health insurance exchange, aka the HIX. Without the HIX, this family wouldn’t be in that difficult position. Rep. Joe Atkins and Sen. Tony Lourey wrote the legislation that created the exchange. Then the DFL voted en masse for the exchange.
By contrast, Republicans didn’t vote for the ACA. They didn’t vote to create the exchange. They don’t share the blame for this disaster. The DFL owns this disaster lock, stock and barrel. That’s the inescapable truth. Next November, the DFL will feel the voters’ wrath for creating this disaster.
Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.
This isn’t a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn’t had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.
The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn’t that there aren’t enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn’t a solution to the problem it’s meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the ‘Border Trickle’ in the Senate Amnesty Bill:
On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.
In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.
House Republicans shouldn’t budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.
Dr. Schultz’s lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.
When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman’s question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.
The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.
If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I’d advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I’d send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I’d have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’d have them ask why they support a bill that doesn’t fix the problem.
It’s really that simple.
As I write this, Republicans are playing the role they often play: that of the timid, unprincipled party. They’re doing a terrible job negotiating the immigration bill. It’s time for them to tell Sen. Schumer that there won’t be a bill unless the fence is built. Yesterday, Sen. Schumer lied through his teeth when he said that building a fence “might take years and years and years.” A double fence doesn’t take long to build once there’s a will to do it.
Republicans should run from this bill. Instead, they’re giving platitude-filled speeches on the subject:
Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.
“What we have is special,” Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?”
The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,” the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.
That’s pretty sounding Unfortunately, that isn’t what’s needed. What’s needed is for Republicans to tell Sen. Schumer that the bill isn’t going anywhere without guaranteed border security. If Sen. Schumer replies that it’s impossible to do with this bill, Republicans’ response should immediately be that it’s never impossible to build things like fences.
If Republicans vote for this immigration bill, they’ll be the minority party for a generation. They will have shown themselves to be as unprincipled as Democrats. Not as corrupt but as unprincipled.
At this point, they aren’t engaged in negotiations. They’re engaged in taking orders from Sen. Schumer. They’re frightened that the media and the DNC will paint them as mean-spirited, rigid ideologues. They shouldn’t worry about that. Democrats will paint them that way regardless of what happens.
As for Sen. Rubio, he should be ashamed. If he asserted himself on the fence, he’d win that negotiation. He isn’t asserting himself, which is why Republicans appear to be on the verge of signing onto another bad bill. If he doesn’t assert himself on that specific issue, he’ll never be president.
The bottom line is that no bill is better than a bill that doesn’t build a fence. The bottom line is that Republicans hurt themselves when they’re seen as being unprincipled. That’s what they look like now.
It’s obvious that Ryan Winkler is either the most ignorant, loud-mouthed DFL legislator or he’s totally dishonest. Rep. Winkler tweeted this during Thursday night’s speeches:
First time tuning in to RNC. Romney speech seems fine but it occurs to me GOP wants to go back to Founders: white, male property owners.
I believe Rep. Winkler when he said that Thursday night was his “first night tuning into the RNC” because he doesn’t have a clue about the racial and ethnic diversity within the GOP. Chuck Todd appreciates the GOP’s diversity:
Anyone who watched this convention knows that the GOP is filled with tons of talented newcomers and that there’s tons of diversity within this group of newcomers. Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez wowed crowds with their speeches. That they’re Hispanic just adds to their appeal with the general public. Add them to Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, the first governors of Indian descent, and it’s pretty obvious that the GOP is a principled big tent political party.
That’s before talking about soon-to-be US Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s before talking about rising rock star Mia Love, who should defeat Jim Matheson in Utah’s 4th District.
Had Rep. Winkler paid attention to the delegates in the hall, he would’ve seen a hugely diverse crowd. It’ll be difficult for the Democrats to be more diverse than the GOP’s delegates.
The TEA Party has helped grow, not to mention energize, the conservative movement. They’ve attracted men and women into the movement. Apparently, the TEA Party’s principles of limited, constitutional, government resonates with people of all ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds.
Rep. Winkler hasn’t figured it out that ABM’s charicature of the TEA Party doesn’t match reality. The Left’s charicature of the TEA Party isn’t even close to reality.
When it comes to the national stage, the so-called party of diversity are more like the Neanderthal Party. Their image of the GOP is severely outdated.
Senate Democrats plan on pushing legislation that would invalidate SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Today starts the SCOTUS oral arguments for the Arizona law. They’d only push this legislation if the SCOTUS validates it as constitutional.
“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.
He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
What a windbag. If the Supreme Court rules in Arizona’s favor, they will have ruled that Arizona didn’t change or set federal immigration laws. They will have ruled that they acted within the framework of federal immigration laws.
As for SB1070 being toxic to Hispanic voters, that might be true. However, it’s wildly popular with voters who don’t already lean Democrat. Simply put, this isn’t a winning issue for Democrats.
It’s just a situation where they please one demographic group but piss off a different demographic group. Since the group that Democrats would piss off is significantly bigger than the Hispanic group, it’s a net loss for the Democrats.
I’d recommend that vulnerable Senate Republicans vote for the bill so they’re protected against future ads. I’d then tell Republicans occupying strong GOP seats to defeat the bill.
I’d then instruct the House to not bring the bill up for consideration. Once that happens, the bill dies quietly.