Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Education, Election 2016, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Latin America, Law, Media Bias, Mexico, Politics, Progressives, Progressivism, Regulation, The United States | Tags: Marco Rubio, Recognized Minority Groups, Ted Cruz
The Washington Examiner published an article suggesting that the “Media questions whether Senators Rubio and Cruz are really Hispanics.” It is expected that in a political campaign, and this seems to be one of the more unusual ones, thee will be a lot of silly attacks to go with the substantive ones. When our culture decides that “diversity” is the most important thing to address, it leads to some very strange results.
“Diversity” seems to mean dividing people up into groups based on skin color and ethnic origin, if you belong to a recognized minority, you will get a great deal of attention. However, recognized minorities seem to be limited to blacks and Hispanics, Occasionally American Indians are included, but only if you have some activists speaking out, otherwise the tribes are mostly ignored. American blacks include only those who are descended from the slavery culture, and believe they are discriminated against. Those who have become successful and well to do are insulted and called “Uncle Toms.” Blacks who have immigrated from Africa don’t count, because they are not descended from the horrors of slavery, so they mostly just get on with their lives.
The term “Hispanic” refers, according to the EEOC, as “A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) may be the sons of Cuban immigrants , but”the senators only “embrace their Hispanic heritage” when it’s “convenient” said a Nightly Show panel:
“To me, it’s really upsetting especially when it comes to the issue of bilingualism because Rubio speaks perfect Spanish,” contributor Grace Parra said, as the rest of the group nodded along. “Because Rubio speaks perfect Spanish and he never chooses to pull it out.”
“I think race is important to talk about when talking about this because it feels like, in an attempt to get rich, white voters,” she added, “Rubio and Cruz especially have actually alienated Latinos to the point where Latinos don’t trust them … We don’t even necessarily consider them Latino because they haven’t embraced their heritage.”
The New York Times in an op-ed on Feb. 3, explored the arguments that the two are not really Hispanic:
Neither Mr. Cruz nor Mr. Rubio meets conventional expectations of how Latino politicians are supposed to behave. Neither of these candidates claims to s peak for the Hispanic population or derive a crucial portion of their support from Hispanics, and neither bases much of his political identity on being a Latino.
Univision’s Jorge Ramos called them “race traitors” because of their positions on immigration control.
“There is no greater disloyalty than the children of immigrants forgetting their own roots. That is a betrayal,” he wrote.
I have been listening to these two gentlemen since the first days of the campaign, and I would venture that only a Liberal would not know that they are both of Cuban heritage, and are proud Americans. They both talk about their families quite a bit, and their pride in being American and pride in their parents for escaping the communist state of Cuba.
It would seem that if you are not a victim of belonging to a minority group, and suffering from your minority status, but instead taking pride in becoming not only fully American, but a candidate for the office of President of the United States, you will be severely criticized for your offensive behavior. There is something rotten at the heart of this line of thinking.
Sometime back in 1978 there was a famous court case called Bakke vs. University of California. “In that decision, Justice Lewis Powell asserted that an undefined “diversity” could allow taking account of race in college admissions, and it was a “compelling state interest” that justified an exception to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on discrimination by race. In 2003, in Grutter vs Bolinger the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “compelling state interest” of diversity since it provided, as Justice Sandra Day O’Conner argued,”the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
Well, all very nice, but what exactly are the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body? Diversity based on differences in ideas and ideology clearly has benefits to offer, but our universities at present are deeply concerned with allowing no diversity of ideas whatsoever, hence the rise of ‘microaggressions’ and ‘safe spaces,’ and the banning of any speaker who might have an opinion differing from accepted wisdom. You must not offend by offering a new idea. How is it possible that they got so far off track? Education has become indoctrination in correct ways of thinking and correct thought.
Here’s Bruce Thornton, college professor, fellow at the Hoover Institution and the David Horowitz Freedom Center:
Encumbered with a fossilized illiberal ideology, progressives must rely on what Robert Conquest called “thought-blockers”––empty words and phrases that comfort and rouse the party faithful, and camouflage the lack of coherent argument, consistent principles, and empirical evidence. More important, these empty words and phrases that lie at the heart of progressivism are the tools for increasing the progressives’ political power and influence, at the expense of everybody else’s freedom. …
That common feel-good notion of diversity, however, is the “bait” in the ideological “bait and switch” of politicized diversity. The latter is not about the wondrous variety of Americans, especially their political diversity. It is instead the old Marxist fable of American crime and tyranny, enhanced with multicultural identity politics, the clichéd melodrama of white neo-imperialist, neocolonialist oppression of carefully selected innocent “victims” and their superior “cultures.” This diversity, then, is a mechanism for increasing the power and influence of certain ideological factions in society, especially the schools, at the expense of others.
Filed under: Communism, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Latin America, Military, National Security, Politics, Russia, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: President Barack Obama, The Castro Brothers, The Cuban People
June 7, 2015: The Secret Life of Fidel Castro A member of Castro’s security guard tells all.
August 18, 2015: Obama circumventing Congress to loosen Cuba travel ban Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said the effort is one more example of the president abusing his executive power and trying to circumvent Congress.
August 20, 2015: What Does the U.S. Get Out of Obama’s Restored Ties to Cuba? Nothing Good The 54 year communist military dictatorship has gotten the full benefit of restored U.S. ties without conceding anything.
September 9, 2015: Coddling Castros Has Made Cuban Regime More Vicious than Ever Far from loosening up, the Castro brothers are cracking down on Cubans harder than ever. It’s as if the fresh attention is a perk for them alone, and the Cuban people not invited.
October 08, 2015: Cubans Have FLOCKED To The US Since Obama Renewed Relations The pace of immigration from Cuba is up 78 percent this year.
October 15, 3015: Cuba-based musical group performs at White House for the first time in 50 years Members of Orquesta Buena Vista Social Club perform at a reception for Hispanic Heritage Month
October 15, 2015 ‘A SLAP N THE FACE TO OBAMA:’ CUBAN TROOPS FIGHT FOR ASSAD IN SYRIA Cuban special forces are operating on the ground in Syria in defense of dictator Bashar al-Assad, and are expected to operate Russian tanks in battles against anti-Assad rebels.
Just another bright idea scratched off on the to-do list.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economy, Immigration, Latin America, Law, Mexico, National Security, Regulation | Tags: Only 36 Miles, Over $17 Million per Mile, Vehicle - Pedestrian - Double Layer
According to the Washington Examiner, only 36 miles of effective double-layer fencing has been erected along the U.S.– Mexico border.
Sixty-six percent or 1,300 miles have no fencing. This is despite repeated congressional demands, and a congressional bank account of $2,5 billion. Congress has asked for 700 miles of fencing.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says that different types of fencing has been put up along the border, the cost so far is $7.1 million per mile.
— 1,300 miles have no fencing (66.5%)
— 299.8 miles have vehicle fence (15.3%)
— 316.6 miles of pedestrian fence (16.2%)
— 36.3 miles of double-layer fencing (.02%)
— The current total for primary fencing to be 352.9 miles. 316.6 single layer plus 36.3 miles of double layer = 352.9 miles of primary fencing.
What’s more, no fencing is currently being erected on the empty 1,300 miles.
A Senate official said that the 2006 Secure Fence Act required 700 miles of double-layer fencing because Border Patrol members said double layer works best. Reports indicated that illegal immigrants can easily scale single fences.
Donald Trump is not going to build a great big wall, and Mexico is certainly not going to pay for it. That’s just braggadocio. But an accurate count of what we have, how much it costs and what is being done may be useful. Checking in with what other countries are doing may be more useful as would details of what works and what doesn’t.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Immigration, Latin America, Law, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: 26 States Have Sued, Misleading a Judge, Obama's Illegal Amnesty
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty action on immigration, has ordered the Justice Department to respond to allegations that the government has misled him about part of the President’s plan.
The judge has ordered federal government lawyers to appear in his court on March 19 in Brownsville, Texas. The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged some deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen’s February 16 injunction. Government attorneys has said that officials wouldn’t accept requests for reprieves for DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) illegals until February 18, and would start DAPA (deferred action for parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) in May of 2015.
On March 3, Obama’s lawyers admitted to the judge that officials had already given three-year DACA amnesty to 100,000 younger people. Only off by 100,000.
Out of an abundance of caution, however, Defendants wish to bring one issue to the Court’s attention,” said the administration’s document given to the judge. “Between November 24, 2014 and the issuance of the Court’s [Feb. 16] Order, USCIS granted three-year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines.”
The government claimed that the 100,000 illegal immigrants who were granted three-year reprieves and work permits were already eligible under a previous immigration plan from 2012.
The 26 states suing over Obama’s amnesty plan requested more information.
It’s not nice to fool U.S. District Judges. They may be annoyed.
Estimates of the cost of Obama’s amnesty program run from half a billion to expand the workforce by more than 3,000, up to $2 trillion over the long term in benefits and increased government expenditures. That’s just for the federal government, there will be billion of dollars for costs for the states.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Immigration, Latin America, Law, National Security, Terrorism, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Amnesty for Illegals, Illegal Jobs for Illegals, Unconstitutional
The year is 2011, and election coming up, the president is making lots of speeches and fundraising. On May 10, President Obama spoke at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso Texas. He vowed to “keep up the fight” to pass comprehensive immigration reform through Congress, because the immigration system was broken. (Not broken. The immigration laws simply are not enforced).
He assured the audience that the border fence was essentially complete, (if “essentially complete” means that 84 miles of the mandated double fencing have been built of the 1,933 miles of our border with Mexico). That pertains to compliance with the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Then he added:
“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself, but that’s not how a democracy works,” Obama said. “What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.”
Back in the halls of Congress, it is Jeff Sessions who once again spoke of constitutional government in defense of American workers in a clarifying speech yesterday on the Senate floor:
A number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. There’s been a lot of spin about that and that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word “obfuscation,” I suppose, or “disingenuousness.” The truth is, the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It’s provided the level of funding the President asked for. It’s kept all the accounts at Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says, but, Mr. President, we considered your bill, this amnesty bill that will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits. You can’t do that. We considered that and rejected it. So we’re not going to fund that.
Now, the President has told us and his staff that they have across the river in Crystal City, they’re leasing a new building and this building is going to hire a thousand workers, paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, part of Homeland Security. Are those thousand workers going to be utilized to enforce the laws of the United States? Are they going to process applications for citizenship or visas? No. Those 1,000 people, costing several hundred million dollars, in truth, those people are going to be processing and providing these benefits to people unlawfully in America… (Read on below)