Category: Democrats

So who is being racist and who is color blind?

Featured

 

Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee stands by remarks suggesting Jazmine Barnes’ killing may have been a ‘hate crime’

As you can see for yourself in the video segment where a Houston reporter for CBS affiliate KHOU asks Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee about her comments, Rep. Jackson Lee does not back down from having called the murder of Jazmine Barnes a “hate crime” in an article by Fox News.

A Texas Democratic Congresswoman is defending her earlier comments suggesting the drive-by shooting of 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes may have been a hate crime, even though both suspects in the case turned out to be black – and not a white individual as police and members of the public initially believed.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, when asked Sunday by a reporter about some of the comments made in the aftermath of the young girl’s death in Houston on Dec. 30, said it was “absolutely not” irresponsible to make that suggestion.

Barnes was shot and killed while sitting in the backseat of her mother’s car. Witness descriptions of a white man in his forties at the scene of the shooting – and a sketch put out by police – prompted widespread speculation a hate crime had happened.

“I believe – and having written hate crime legislation, knowing the criteria, I believe that this should be looked at as a hate crime,” Lee said during a press conference Friday, in a video posted to the Congresswoman’s Facebook page. “We don’t want to have on the street someone who is willing to kill children and possibly kill them in the name of hate.”

The next day, at a rally calling for justice for Barnes, Lee said “do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” according to several news organizations.

Prior to the arrests, Barnes’ family lawyer, Lee Merritt, also said “we do believe that it [the murder] was racially motivated in part because our nation at this moment is highly racially charged.”

(Read more at Fox News)

After a fashion, I think that Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee is correct and wrong. She is correct that a murderer of children deserves the most complete and severe punishment. However, she is wrong in initially crafting “hate crime” laws to punish criminals on the basis of their purported hate (or on the basis of race — and assuming that infers hate). I can tell you without wavering that almost no crimes are committed out of love for the victim.

So, if there is no case here for applying “hate crime” law against the perpetrators of a heinous murder of a little girl, why not just fully prosecute every crime? Why give certain groups postmortem advantages due to the density of melatonin in their skin or their choice of lifestyle?

As a Christian, I rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep (Romans 12:15 NASB). However, I think the “hate crime” model steps beyond empathy with the victim and steps into trying to assume and assign the unseen (that is, trying to guess motives, emotions, and other unquantifiable variables).

Family of man wrongfully accused by activist Shaun King in Jazmine Barnes’ shooting speaks out

In a 7 January 2019 article by ABC affiliate KTRK, the family of a wrongly-accused man pleads for the death threats to stop.

The family of a man whose photo went viral on social media as a possible suspect in the murder of 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes is telling everyone to “back off.”

Hailey Cantrell says despite the arrests of two suspects in the murder case, as recent as Monday, there have been threatening comments on her Facebook page regarding her uncle, Robert Cantrell.

“I hear, ‘Someone is going to rape, torture and murder the women and children in your family,” Hailey read from one comment.

Photos of her uncle were widely circulated starting last Friday. In a now-deleted Twitter post, activist Shaun King, who has one million followers, posted Cantrell’s mugshot and wrote, “We’ve had 20 people call or email us and say he is a racist, violent (expletive) and always has been. Just tell me everything you know.”

As a white man with blue eyes, he resembles the sketch the Harris County Sheriff’s Office released last week. Even his niece was afraid it was him.

“I’m not going to lie, I teared up,” said Cantrell.

The sheriff’s office now believes the sketch is of a witness that Jazmine’s sisters remembered and has said all evidence shows the little girl and her family were innocent victims.

Eric Black, 20, is charged with capital murder. Larry Woodruffe, 24, is in jail on an unrelated charge, but believed to be the shooter, according to ABC13 sources. Both are African American.

(Read more at ABC)

It would be nice if we could get back to the standards of “one crime, one punishment” and “assumed innocent until proven guilty.”

Robert Cantrell may have had a history that put him far from purity. However, if he currently resides in jail and two other men have been identified by numerous other sources as the murderers, then nobody should be threatening this man or his family.

barnesfuneral

Community remembers “Princess Jazmine” at her funeral service

An 8 January 2019 Houston Chronicle article lays out some of the events of the Jazmine Barnes funeral (but only the events that don’t reflect badly on local Democrats).

The pint-sized casket was adorned with purple and white flowers, with the words “Princess Jazmine” sewn into the fabric.

Hundreds of mourners wore purple — Jazmine Barnes’ favorite color.

And the pews were filled at The Community Faith Church Tuesday as family, friends, dignitaries and perfect strangers turned out to remember a young life cut short by a gunman who apparently mistook her family for someone else.

Her mother, LaPorsha Washington, her voice raw from tears, read a missive she said was 7-year-old Jazmine speaking from Heaven.

“There are no more tears, pain and sadness, just eternal love,” Washington told the congregation. “Do not be unhappy just because I am not by your side.”

In a case that sparked international outrage, Jazmine was gunned down in her mother’s car about 7 a.m. on Dec. 30 as they drove with her three sisters in northeast Harris County. The dogged manhunt began with a description of a white man seen in a red pickup truck amid growing tensions that the shooting had been racially motivated.

But by the time the funeral began Tuesday, two black men — including one suspected gang member — had been charged with capital murder in the shooting. Investigators said the men apparently thought they were aiming at a group with whom they had an altercation hours earlier.

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

Thank Heaven that Christ’s church reached out to the suffering mother of this murdered girl.

Likewise, thank God also for the widespread financial contributions that went toward the funeral expenses of Jazmine Barnes — including dollars provided by Shaquille O’Neal, Officer Kenneth Miles, Deandre Hopkins, and others.

However, one of a number of things this article does not mention was the stump speeches offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee, Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, and Mayor Sylvester Turner. Admittedly, campaigning at funerals has been a Democrat mainstay well before the Wellstone memorial; however, until the performances of Jackson-Lee, Gonzalez, and Turner, I did not know how much of an art form it was.

Shaq sends best wishes to Marine impaled in freak accident

Shaquille O’Neal has been reported by the Houston ABC affiliate to have sent an encouraging video to a Houston-area Marine who was recently impaled during a freak accident.

A Marine still in the hospital after being impaled in a freak accident around Christmastime got a much needed boost in the form of basketball legend Shaquille O’Neal.

“Shaq,” who is a friend to one of Fernando Dominguez’s friends, posted a video wishing him a speedy recovery.

“Fernando, it’s Shaq. Get well soon, brother. Everything will be alright. Drink that water. Start working out. Everything will be fine,” the Lakers legend said.

According to Dominguez’s mother, the message brightened his spirits.

The Marine, who suffered his injury on Highway 225 near Scarborough in Pasadena, underwent his sixth surgery since the freak accident occurred in late December.

(Read more at ABC)

While this bit of support has seen less air play, it seems to demonstrate Mr. O’Neal’s giving heart that he would send a supportive message to an injured Marine. Maybe it’s little — but if it gives hope and brightens the Marine’s spirits, it may be more valuable than many medicines.

Advertisements

6 things to know about the new Democrat House

Featured

1. By reviewing the Ocasio-Cortez initial announcement on the “Green New Deal,” we can see her blind spots and her focus

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Suggests Super Wealthy be Taxed Up to 70% to Fund ‘Green New Deal’

In a 4 January 2019 Mediaite article, the basic information on the Anderson Cooper interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which she first unveils the Green New Deal appears in print.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat with Anderson Cooper for an upcoming 60 Minutes interview set to air this Sunday, a portion of which has been released as a promotion. In the released segment, Ocasio-Cortez reveals how exactly she suggests paying for the environmental agenda known as the “Green New Deal” — with remarkably higher tax rates for the super wealthy.

Ocasio-Cortez suggests in the clip that in her esteem, people should be doing more to pay their “fair share.” When Cooper pressed on how she could possibly pay for the deal, she pointed to the progressive tax rate system in the 1960s, explaining that if you earn 0 to $75,000 a year, you would only pay 10% or 15% in income tax.

She continued:

“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your $10 millionth, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

(Read more at Mediaite)

From reading this, we can glean:

  • Regarding her view of salaries and rich people
    1. Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to understand that if income (or another reward) is removed, people will likely not produce at the same level
    2. The people earning $10 million are company owners that — when they scale back — may cause many people to lose their jobs. It seems she didn’t learn anything from Obama’s “The Great Recession” or Solyndra.
    3. She objectifies rich people as miniature banks for funding her pie-in-the-sky programs (not as people capable of compassion, mercy, or other laudable traits).
    4. She wants to divide us (the noble “green” voters) from the “rich” (who, according to her, do not pay their “fair share”).
  • Regarding her elevated view of “green” projects
    1. She assumes that “green” projects are so noble that they will escape strong questions by the press
    2. When she does get the muted criticism that this is “radical,” she glosses over the undercurrent of association with the failed states of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and many other broken states by glorying in the title.

Democrats are dangerous to business

2. By reviewing the details of her “Green New Deal,” we can see how it will explode costs and kill jobs

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more dangerous than you think

The 3 January 2019 Washington Examiner opinion piece that describes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed “Green New Deal” should be reviewed by all (along with the linked draft resolution).

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., hasn’t officially started her first term in office, but she’s already pushing a massive, far-left proposal that would fundamentally transform much of the economy and push the country closer than ever to socialism.

For several weeks, you might have heard Ocasio-Cortez reference the creation of a “Green New Deal,” but until recently, few people knew what would be included in the plan. In a draft resolution to form a select committee in the House that would help develop legislation to put her plan in action, Ocasio-Cortez finally outlined numerous proposals that she says should be part of future Green New Deal legislation. Taken together, the many ideas included in Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would be the most radical policy shift in modern U.S. history, dramatically increasing the size and power of government and running up the national debt by trillions of dollars.

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and at least 40 House Democrats, would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.

This policy alone would create widespread economic chaos. Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation. My colleagues at the Heartland Institute found that electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.

Not only is Ocasio-Cortez proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, she’s demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal doesn’t merely advocate for a gigantic shift in the U.S. energy industry. Her draft resolution says one of the proposed House committee’s priorities would be “upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” Taken literally, this mandate would cost trillions of dollars. There were about 136 million housing units in the United States in 2017, not including any businesses. Even if it would cost just $10,000 to “upgrade” every home and apartment, an extremely low estimate, this one relatively small part of her plan would cost more than $1.3 trillion.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

As much as people have enjoyed the sudden renaissance of jobs caused by Trump’s deregulation, Ocasio-Cortez’s turn towards the bureaucracy of socialism must be resisted. Not only does it abandon our resources of oil, gas, and coal — it cannot do anything to regulate the biggest polluters (China, India, and third world countries).

Additionally, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill plays loosely with tax dollars being collected and handed out. In fact, it is wrong on so many levels, because:

  1. The quickest way to raise the price of a commodity (like electrical power) is to mandate that the public buy that commodity from a monopoly (the green power producers)
  2. The best way to ensure a service (like the installation of green power conduits) is inordinately high-priced involves requiring everyone install them under penalty of law
  3. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates the use of natural resources (that — through gasoline formulation technology and scrubbing technology — have become increasingly cleaner)
  4. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates currently good-paying jobs in a time window too short to allow a workable transition

3. If the above issues are not enough, Ocasio-Cortez doubles down on forcing entrepreneurs from New York

Ocasio-Cortez Tax Plan Creates 82.7% Top Income Tax Rate for New Yorkers

If we go to a 4 January 2019 article by Americans for Tax Reform, we find a bleaker picture painted for the job creators of New York.

In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will call for federal income tax rates of up to 70 percent as part of a proposal to create vast new government spending programs.

The current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket.

New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent:

Federal income tax rate: 70.0%
NY state income tax rate: 8.82%
NYC income tax rate: 3.876%
TOTAL: 82.696%

New Yorkers would not be the only ones suffering under the Ocasio-Cortez plan. California taxpayers would pay a top rate of 83.3 percent (70 percent plus the California rate of 13.30 percent).

(Read more at Americans for Tax Reform)

If this is not a formula for speeding the exodus of businesses from New York, I don’t know what is.

Pelosi gives it away to foriegn nations

4. For those concerned with border security, the new House Democrats have nothing. But they do have a nice gift for the dictators of Central America.

Democrat Spending Bill Offers $12 Billion More for Foreign Aid, $0 for Border Wall

A 3 January 2019 Breitbart article outlines the excesses the Democrats have taken to advance socialism and abortion internationally.

The spending bills proposed by House Democrats to end the partial government shutdown offer no funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, but provide over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested, according to a statement on Thursday from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The statement warned the new House Democrat majority of President Trump’s intention to veto the bills, noting that the administration “cannot accept legislation that provides unnecessary funding for wasteful programs while ignoring the Nation’s urgent border security needs.”

The statement reiterated President Trump’s request for “at least $5 billion for border security” and asserted that the Democrats’ proposal “does not come close to providing these necessary investments and authorities.”
The White House then highlighted the billions in funding the Democrats are offering for “unnecessary programs at excessive levels” beyond what the Trump administration requested, including:

  • $12 billion more for “international affairs programs,” including $2.9 billion more “for economic and development assistance, including funding for the West Bank/Gaza, Syria, and Pakistan, where our foreign aid is either frozen or under review.”
  • $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restored funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund, which would undermine the administration’s Mexico City Policy that bars the use of taxpayer dollars for foreign organizations that “promote or perform abortions.”
  • Approximately $2 billion more than requested for the Environmental Protection Agency
  • $7.1 billion more than the administration requested for Housing and Urban Development programs

(Read more at Breitbart)

Of course, these Democrats have to know that these measures will not pass the Republican Senate and will not be signed into law by President Trump.

Still, forget reality. These are the Democrats.

5. Democrats know from commercial sources that America wants Border Security

Americans want border security, and the numbers show it

A 5 January 2019 Fox News article on a recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans value border security.

President Trump is far from alone in his determination to secure our borders — according to a recent Gallup poll, Americans view immigration as the second-biggest problem facing the country today.

That’s bad news for the Democrat Party, which is hellbent on opposing the president’s efforts to fix our broken immigration system, especially the border wall he needs in order to get illegal immigration under control.

The Democrats have a very simple, two-part strategy on immigration: first and foremost, they want to keep President Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people; second, they want to make it even easier for foreigners to enter this country illegally.

With Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, it’s no surprise that Americans are deeply troubled by the immigration crisis.

Over the past several decades, millions of illegal immigrants have successfully evaded our efforts to enforce immigration laws, putting local economies and welfare programs under tremendous pressure to cope with the massive influx of undocumented workers and their families, most of whom receive at least one form of government welfare.

In fact, illegal immigration costs taxpayers a staggering $134.9 billion a year while contributing only $19 billion in state, federal, and local taxes. At the federal level, medical costs make up the lion’s share of government expenditures on illegal immigrants, while education is the largest single expense that illegal immigration imposes on state and local governments.

(Read more at Fox News)

Although it is the Democrats who seem hellbent on denying border security to America, I have to admit that the Republicans have had ample chances to fix the problem over the past two years.

6. If you don’t live in a major population center, the Democrats do not care about you.

Nolte: Tyrannical Democrats Introduce Bill to Kill Electoral College

According to a 4 January 2019 Breitbart article, the Democrats would like to silence the fly-over states between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to kill the electoral college.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen said in a press release. “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”

Democrat frustration over losing the presidency when they won the most votes is certainly justified. But it is also their own fault. If these triggered snowflakes would get over their Red State prejudices and dare to live amongst us, that influence might flip enough states. But they refuse to. These snobby bigots find Middle America icky, so they cower together in coastal and big city bubbles.

If you will pardon a small digression… never forget that those who claim to believe in Global Warming also choose to stubbornly live on the very same coasts that are supposed to be underwater already.

Anyway, eliminating the electoral college is the road to tyranny — which is why Democrats and the media desperately want it eliminated.

Trust me, the last place any free person wants to live is in a country where 51 percent of the population can strip the rights away from the 49 percent.

Imagine a country where the only way to get elected president is to appeal to the left-wing extremists who live in large population centers, which is exactly what would happen. In fact this would be the only way to win the presidency because it would be the easiest — the cheapest as far as ad buys, getting out the vote, and that most precious commodity of all: time. Campaigns are going to go to where the most votes are.

(Read more at Breitbart)

While the Democrats know that getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment to the constitution, I have read elsewhere that Democrats are doing an end-run on the electoral college by getting individual fly-over states to voluntarily give their delegates to the popular winner of the overall presidential election.

5 reasons to support building the wall

Featured

Call the bluff of the liberals

Reason 1: To call the liberals’ bluff

The liberals (including the press, as demonstrated by the article below) have put together a mesh-mash that reflects poorly on the Trump administration. That mesh-mash includes accusations against President Trump, stories reflecting well on the illegal aliens, and favorably quoting sources from the aliens’ countries of origin. Without making outright statements of “this is wrong and that is right,” the articles push an open-borders, free-healthcare perspective.

Therefore, the first reason to push toward building the wall is to call the liberals’ bluff and start an honest conversation on the topics surrounding immigration, national sovereignty, and law beyond our national boundaries.

Too bad liberals don’t seem to aspire to those goals.

Trump widens demands in wall standoff, threatens Mexico border closure

A 28 December 2018 Reuters article does its best to lay the blame on Trump (starting with the heading [quoted above] and proceeding to quotes from the incoming Mexican President [not included in the blockquote below]).

President Donald Trump threatened on Friday to close the southern U.S. border with Mexico unless he gets the money he wants for a wall, raising the stakes in a standoff that will present an immediate test next week for the new U.S. Congress.

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, they plan to quickly approve a spending measure meant to end a partial government shutdown that began on Dec. 22, triggered by Trump’s demand for $5 billion in funding for his proposed wall.

Democrats have made clear that the House measure, which would then have to go to the Republican-controlled Senate, will not include $5 billion Trump says is needed for the wall, a central part of his tougher positions on immigration than his predecessors.

“Democrats are united against the president’s immoral, ineffective and expensive wall … that he specifically promised that Mexico would pay for,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement, referring to a Trump 2016 presidential campaign pledge.

(Read more at Reuters)

One of the reasons that I voted for President Trump rests firmly in the fact that Trump takes no guff. This is one instance where it would greatly benefit the Trump administration if he were to remain true to this trait.

Anyway, considering the fact that few of the average Americans seem to be even marginally effected by the shutdown, maybe some government savings are in order.

Pueblo sin Fronteras of Chicago leads the invasion

Reason 2: To expose the liberal organizations in their tactics and motivations

Another reason to push for a border wall is that, in doing so, we might expose the tactics of the liberal organizations that oppose the wall.

As with the article used to illustrate the previous point, the liberal perspective central to its writing suggests some fuzzy anti-Trump and pro-liberal ideas.

Although the following article does start with a statement of fact that exonerates Trump and his Border Patrol, the rest of the article seems to suggest a number of liberal talking points that most Americans will not support.

Guatemalan boy who died in U.S. custody had the flu: state officials

In light of the wailing by liberals regarding the second death of an underage illegal alien brought by a parent invading from Guatemala, we have to wonder whether liberals want us to:

  1. Sue the organizations that obviously have been trolling through communities and suggesting that a child is a ticket for access to Easy Street in the US or
  2. Provide health care to any potential invader to the US

Otherwise, it would seem that their complaints about our protecting our sovereignty are all just proofs that liberalism is a mental disease.

Nonetheless, the account of the death of the Guatemalan boy and accompanying statements by the Guatemalan and “advocacy organizations” found their ways to a 28 December 2018 Reuters article.

The 8-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in the custody of U.S. border agents this week had the flu before he passed away but the cause of his death is still unknown, state officials said on Friday.

Felipe Gomez Alonzo was the second Guatemalan child to die this month while being held by U.S. authorities, sparking outrage from immigration advocates.

In the wake of the deaths, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was traveling to the border to observe medical screenings and conditions at Border Patrol stations while Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate have called for a full investigation.

Gomez fell ill after being detained near the U.S. border with Mexico with his father. The two had traveled to the United States from their remote village of Yalambojoch in Guatemala.

New Mexico’s Medical Investigator’s office said in a statement that nasal and lung swabs during an autopsy found Gomez had influenza B, but said “determining an accurate cause of death requires further evaluation.”

(Read more at Reuters)

Any American who has had a young child knows the trips to the hospital that we experience (even with the multitude of vaccines available). Since early-childhood sickness is a common evil for parents even in affluent America, what would tempt a parent of a more-susceptible Central American family to take a young child on a stressful trip and expose that child to many sources of infection?

Let me suggest that these groups that advocate for “immigrant rights” (meaning “illegal alien rights”) have traveled to Central America and are telling people, “Increase your chances of getting in and remaining in America by bringing a young child.” Why else would these parents bring 6 and 7-year-old children on a 3,000 mile walk in the cold part of the year? When does the flu normally come to the Americas? Do they not know this?

If proof comes forward that these “immigrant rights” advocates have pushed susceptible young parents into making this trip with children, they should be held accountable.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga arrested

Reason 3: To protect America

A third reason to push for a border wall becomes evident through examination of any of a number of articles describing the murder of Americans by illegal aliens.

Although these articles rarely accuse President Trump of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, these articles (especially those covering the death of a law enforcement official) drive home the need to protect our citizens from illegal alien lawbreakers.

Police arrest illegal immigrant suspected in California officer’s killing

One 28 December 2018 Reuters article presents the bare facts on the death of an officer and the apprehension of an illegal alien suspect.

A suspected illegal immigrant accused of shooting to death a California police officer was arrested on Friday after a two-day manhunt that President Donald Trump cited in his push for building a wall on the border with Mexico, officials said.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga, 32, a Mexican national, was arrested in Bakersfield, a city less than 200 miles (320 km) south of Newman where the officer was shot on Wednesday, Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said at a news conference.

The shooting and manhunt in California’s agricultural Central Valley entered the national debate over immigration, after Trump tweeted about it in his advocacy for a border wall and Christianson criticized California’s sanctuary law for immigrants.

Arriaga is accused of shooting to death Newman police corporal Sonil Singh after Singh pulled him over on suspicion of driving under the influence.

The suspect, who exchanged fire with Singh, has claimed to be involved with a criminal gang called the Sureños and was trying to escape to Mexico, Christianson said.

On Friday, heavily armed police officers surrounded the Bakersfield home where they believed Arriaga was hiding and he walked out with his hands up, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood told reporters.

(Read more at Reuters)

I have to ask this: if we could build a structure that would discourage (even turn back) one or two people who feel entitled to kill our police, why wouldn’t we?

America's collective pocket is being picked

Reason 4: To show even more that we will not be the continued object of financial abuse

One last reason listed in this post for supporting our building the border wall could be expanded into infinity — our need to rein in our habit of throwing cash at everything. In this case, America needs to stop throwing money at regimes that do nothing to further our interests.

In other words, we need to stop sending millions of dollars to countries that support our enemies or send their criminals or otherwise try to confound our systems.

Of course, if we are going to eliminate our international largess, why not pare down our bureaucratic waste? Why not eliminate federal departments that have not improved the overall performance of fields that they duplicate state and local efforts?

Trump threatens to cut aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador

According to a 28 December 2018 article in The Hill, talks about how Trump “threatened to cut foreign aid” (as if these funds were guaranteed and owed in perpetuity the American people to these foreign nations).

President Trump on Friday threatened to cut foreign aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, accusing the Central American countries of “doing nothing for the United States but taking our money.”

“Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money,” Trump tweeted.

“Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries – taking advantage of U.S. for years!”

This is not the first time that Trump has threatened stop providing foreign aid to countries he says are not doing enough to stop migrant caravans from forming. In October he said that “no more money or aid will be given to Honduras” if a migrant caravan was not stopped.

I want your ideas

Reason 5: To put flesh to other conservative ideas

Since I don’t pretend to have a monopoly on conservative thought, I am open to hearing from other conservative thinkers.

Please either post your ideas on why we should support the building of the wall in the comments or put a link in the comments to your post on the same topic.

Liberal hyperbole

Featured

Bob Woodward hyperventilates

Liberal hyperbole on the wall

Woodward: We’re in a ‘Governing Crisis’ — ‘This Is Not Just Another Government Shutdown’

Bob Woodward again feels a need to broadcast his anti-Trump views through CNN, as reported by Breitbart in a 26 December 2018 article.

During Wednesday’s “New Day” on CNN, journalist Bob Woodward commented on the ongoing partial government shutdown along with Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis’ departure, calling what is going on right now in the White House a “governing crisis.”

“It’s a governing crisis,” Woodward stated. “[W]e better face the reality. This is a dangerous time. This is not just another government shutdown or another example of this impasse. It is something people better think about.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Are we really in a governing crisis? Sometimes I wonder whether we are in a reporting crisis. That is, with the drop in the market over the 22 and 24th followed by the surges on the 26th and 27th, I wonder about the power of the media to both shape and withhold information. I think of the second year of over 90% negative coverage of Trump while they continue to suck up to the head of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the NSA scandal, the IRS scandal, and too many other scandals to list here.

What would happen if we did not have a partisan press?

tweet straightening out Alexandria

Liberal hyperbole as they try to take advantage of things they oppose

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says Jesus was a ‘refugee’ in Christmas tweet

Despite the fact that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unconditionally supports “a woman’s freedom of choice,” belongs to the party that booed God at its last convention, and makes sport of subverting Christians’ religious rights, she now wants to glom onto the sympathy for the Christ Child as she has been reported by Houston Fox affiliate in a 26 December 2018 article to have claimed the manger-ridden Jesus to be a refugee.

U.S. Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., wished her Twitter followers a Merry Christmas Tuesday by referring to the newborn Jesus as a “refugee.”

“Joy to the World!” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “Merry Christmas everyone – here’s to a holiday filled with happiness, family, and love for all people. (Including refugee babies in mangers + their parents.)”

Mary and Joseph are not depicted as refugees in the Nativity story. According to the Gospel of Luke, Joseph brings the pregnant Mary to Bethlehem so that he may enroll in a census ordered by the Roman emperor Augustus. The couple are forced to take shelter in the stable where Jesus is born due to a lack of room at the inn.

However, in the Gospel of Matthew, Mary and Joseph flee into Egypt with the infant Jesus after King Herod of Judea orders the murder of every boy aged two and under in Bethlehem after the Magi ask him where to find the newborn “King of the Jews.” The Holy Family escape the slaughter and are told by an angel to return to Israel once Herod is dead.

(Read more at Fox)

I can pray for this leader and show love to her; however, I cannot be quiet, because she has been (1) just making political points using the name of Jesus and (2) acting as a vocal opponent to Christian causes like the fight for life and the struggle for religious rights within our society. To remain quiet would mean denying my Christian brothers and sisters.

Liberal hyperbole on a lie

Newsweek falsely reports on Trump visit to troops

Reporters at Newsweek falsely reported in a 26 December 2018 article that President Trump had not visited the troops at the front lines.

Donald Trump is the first U.S. president to not visit troops over the Christmas holiday since 2002. On Tuesday morning, Trump continued the presidential tradition of telephoning military personnel, using the occasion to address the partial government shutdown over funding for his long- promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But did not visit with any troops in person.

His actions stood in contrast with last year’s, when Trump spoke with wounded veterans at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on December 21, bestowing the Purple Heart on one injured soldier and praising military personnel as “some of the bravest people anywhere in the world.”

But this year he sidestepped that tradition. Between 2009 and 2016, President Barack Obama visited with troops stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, every year over Christmas, NBC reported, while President George W. Bush visited Walter Reed every Christmas between 2003 and 2008, passing on the opportunity in 2002 and 2001.

In yesterday’s call with U.S. troops stationed abroad, Trump used the time to reassert his position that the government shutdown would not end until he received $5 billion for his long-promised border wall.

(Read more at Newsweek)

Sometimes, I wish they would try to check their information instead of just publishing things that help Democrats and hurt conservative Republicans.

President Trump visits the troops

Donald and Melania Trump make surprise visit to US troops in Iraq

In a New York Post article published on the same day, Mark Moore and Nikki Schwab correctly reported that the President and First Lady visited troops in Iraq.

President Trump, who has been criticized for not visiting US troops during the holidays, slipped off to an air base in Iraq on Wednesday.

Trump, wearing a dark suit and red tie, and first lady Melania Trump met with military personnel on Wednesday at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq just west of Baghdad – his first visit with military members in a war zone since he entered the White House almost two years ago.

He told the gathered servicemen and women, many of whom were wearing fatigues, that he has “no plans at all” to pull them out of the country, where they’ve been helping Iraq forces battle Islamic State terrorists.

The commander-in-chief also defended his controversial decision to withdraw the 2,000 US troops in Syria that are leading a global coalition against the terror group.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Thanks to those outlets who do correctly report the news.

One point of division & one point of agreement on the Syrian withdrawal

The point of division

I’m with Trump on most policies, just not on the abandonment of Syrian Kurds, Christians, and Yazidis

As evidenced by my previous posts, I support the safety and livelihood of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. As evidenced by my posts, I have agreed with most of Trump’s actions in Syria. Recently, one strong point of agreement centers on the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2018 that promises to fund relief of Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq.

Problem is that this law does not provide protection for the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. Additionally, since it provides no protection, we know from prior experience what will happen when the current protection moves out. During Obama’s tenure, his abandonment of Iraq resulted in the birth of ISIS. Therefore, I (like the IDF reservist quoted below) oppose this policy of pulling out of Syria.

IDF reserve officer warns of Iran inroads

Former IDF officer: Withdrawal from Syria means Iran wins

As outlined in a 20 December 2018 OneNewsNow article, Israeli Defense Force Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi suggests that America’s withdrawal from Syria will result in a win for Iran.

Wednesday’s announcement for the U.S. to withdraw all its military forces from Syria marks an abrupt end to America’s strategy in the region – and sparks major concern from Israel, one of America’s greatest allies.

OneNewsNow spoke with Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi about the announcement. Zehavi, a former intelligence officer with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) within the IDF Northern Command, contends the move to extract a few thousand forces from Syria “will give Iran the ability to gain a massive stronghold in the region.”

As founder of the ALMA Research and Development Center in Israel, she attests that “a ground corridor to transfer weapons and soldiers from Tehran to Damascus and Beirut” will finally be established.

Zehavi says the efforts of Iran “to build a ground corridor – consisting of highways, roads and railways – began upon the regime change” in Iraq in 2003. However, the Syrian civil war put Iran’s efforts on hold.

Although ISIS was vastly incapacitated in Iraq and the greater majority of its territories were captured in Syria, Zehavi explains “[these] circumstances actually allowed Iranians to develop a ground corridor from Tehran to Damascus, through Iraq.” It is through this corridor, she says, that the Iranians will be “enabled to transfer weapons beyond Damascus” and all the way “to Israel’s northern border – into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon.” The former IDF officer identifies three potential routes that would provide a “continuous road-link” connecting Iran with Syria and Lebanon.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Not only will Iran flow their tools of power into the void created by an American exit, other bad actors like the Turks, Russians, and Chinese will take advantage of the situation.

To this date, I have supported all of Trump’s stances toward the state of Israel. However, this retreat from Syria will likely create a power void that will be very detrimental to Israel.

Putin welcomes US pullout from Syria

Putin welcomes US pullout from Syria

As proof that bad actors welcome our exit from Syria, a 20 December 2018 Associated Press article discusses how Putin has applauded the potential exit.

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the U.S. decision to pull its troops out of Syria, saying Thursday that “Donald is right.”

Speaking at Thursday’s annual marathon news conference, Putin said he agrees with U.S. President Donald Trump that the Islamic State group has been defeated, making the U.S. presence in Syria unnecessary. He also argued that the U.S. troops shouldn’t have been there to start with.

“I agree with the U.S. president, we have made significant progress in fighting terrorism on that territory and dealt serious blows to IS in Syria,” the Russian leader said.

He noted that there is still a danger that IS militants could flee from Syria to their home countries and other regions.

“It’s a big threat to all of us, including Russia, the United States, Europe and Asian countries,” Putin said. “Donald is right about that, I agree with him.”

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Considering that Russia has invaded Ukraine, taken Crimea, buzzed our Naval ships, and supplied the nuclear effort of Iran — we cannot consider this anything but a warning.

Syrian Kurds protest news of Turkish planned attacks

The Latest: Syrians protest Turkish threats of offensive

In addition to the bad actors like the Russians, threats from the Turks against the Kurds surface in a 20 December 2018 Associated Press article.

Thousands of Syrians have gathered outside the headquarters for the U.S.-led coalition in northern Syria to protest Turkish threats of an imminent offensive.

The protesters congregating in Jalabiya southeast of Kobani city are demanding a clear stance from the coalition on threats by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to strike at U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters in northern Syria.

Turkey views the main Kurdish militia in Syria as a terrorist group and an extension of the insurgency within its borders. U.S. support for the group has strained ties between the two NATO allies.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

As mentioned previously, there are numerous bad actors in the area that would attack our current allies as soon as we leave the area.

Stand with Trump

Democrats, don’t hyperventilate. I’m not abandoning Trump

Democrats cannot count on my changing over to their socialist ranks. However, RINOs (like John Cornyn, Republican Senator from Texas) might consider bringing their voting record back in line with the campaign promises of most Republicans. For example, most Republicans (even the reprobate John McCain) campaigned on repealing Obamacare. Additionally, most Republicans campaigned on some form of border security.

Republicans, I stand with Trump. If you want my vote, your voting history had better align with my desires as expressed by Trump’s campaign promises.

Nonetheless, if I could bend Trump’s ear, I would bend it to protect the lives of the religious minorities of Syria and Iraq. These groups will come under great persecution as soon as the Russians, Turks, and Syrian government can start.

A point of agreement

We need to be out of Afghanistan

Trump pulling out of Syria. Might Afghanistan be next?

The Associated Press asked in a 20 December 2018 article whether Trump would pull out of Afghanistan next, now that he has decided to pull out of Syria.

Against the advice of many in his own administration, President Donald Trump is pulling U.S. troops out of Syria. Could a withdrawal from Afghanistan be far behind?

Trump has said his instinct is to quit Afghanistan as a lost cause, but more recently he’s suggested a willingness to stay in search of peace with the Taliban. However, the abruptness with which he turned the page on Syria raises questions about whether combat partners like Iraq and Afghanistan should feel confident that he will not pull the plug on them, too.

“If he’s willing to walk away from Syria, I think we should be concerned about whether Afghanistan is next,” Jennifer Cafarella, the director of intelligence planning at the Institute for the Study of War, said in an interview Wednesday.

(Read more, if you can stand the anti-Trump moralizing, at the Associated Press)

Although the article primarily consists of editorial comment and moralizing, it does raise a good question. In opposition to the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan seems to be little but a monoculture of Muslims. As opposed to the approximately 2,000 American troops in Syria that have seen few attacks from Muslim trainees, the 7,000 troops in Afghanistan (where our soldiers have been for 17 years) have seen numerous Muslim attacks.

So why should we continue to send young Americans to Afghanistan to die at the hands supposed allies? There must be some method of cleaning out garbage pails that does not involve splashing the rotten remnants in our faces.

Do we want to be there forever?

Donald Trump Dismisses Critics of Syria Withdrawal: ‘Do We Want to Be There Forever?’

According to one 20 December 2018 Breitbart article, President Trump dismissed critics of the Syria withdrawal by asking “Do we want to be there forever?”

President Donald Trump defended his decision to withdraw American troops from Syria on Thursday.

“Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing?” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Do we want to be there forever?”

Foreign policy hawks such as Sen. Bob Corker, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham adamantly criticized the president on Wednesday for ordering the withdrawal of forces in Syria.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Here, I am I complete agreement with President Trump. While the job of a soldier is dangerous, we should not have to endure attacks from our “allies.”

So what will the Democrats choose — a fake Latino socialist or a real Latino socialist?

Featured

So do liberals prefer a costume Latino to a real one?

Why Robert Francis O'Rourke shouldn't run for president

Beto O’Rourke’s Presidential Campaign Is Going To Wear Us Out

It seems that we haven’t heard enough from the guy with the Latino nickname and Irish surname, as revealed to us through a 12 December 2018 article in the Dallas Observer.

Whatever one wants to call the thing that’s going on in presidential politics right now — the money primary, the silly season or the greatest trick Iowa and New Hampshire ever pulled — Texas finds itself squarely in the thick of things, apparently for the long haul. Julian Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio and ex-U.S. housing secretary, has given every indication that he plans to take a shot at the 2020 nomination. In most years, Castro’s anticipated run would be all Texas political junkies had to look forward to as the presidential race heated up. This isn’t most years.

Thanks to his near miss against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in November and a load of fawning national media coverage, Beto O’Rourke, a largely unknown U.S. representative from El Paso as recently as two years ago, now has people acting like he is a serious contender for the nation’s top job.

Tuesday, a straw poll of members by the progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org showed O’Rourke leading the field of potential Democratic contenders, with 15.6 percent of respondents saying they supported his candidacy. Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren rounded out MoveOn’s top five. Castro came in 17th, with just 0.48 percent support.

(Read more at the Dallas Observer)

Looks like the current run of short-attention-span Democrats (aka the liberal version of the rest of America) have chosen Robert Francis O’Rourke.

 

 

Julian Castro

Julián Castro calls Latinos to action amid hints of 2020 run

From reading the previous article, it sounds like Julian Castro should go from calling other Hispanics to action and hinting (as he did in a 12 December 2018 Guardian article) and start the real work of a presidential run.

Julián Castro may have the worst poker face in American politics as the Democratic party prepares for an intense contest to pick someone to try to defeat Donald Trump. Is he leaning one way on whether to announce a presidential bid in coming months? “Well, yeah,” he chuckled when asked the question at a UN gathering this week.

It is no secret Castro has been acting a lot like someone who plans to seek the the White House. On Wednesday he announced the formation of an exploratory presidential committee – a technical step that allows him to begin raising funds.

The former San Antonio mayor and secretary of housing and urban development (Hud) under Barack Obama has already held events with prospective donors for a 2020 campaign. He told Rolling Stone in October that he is “likely” to run.

(Read more at the Guardian)

So, Democrats, what will it be? Do you want this experienced socialist that has been in the wings for years? Do you want an Anglo Barack Obama that is Hispanic in nickname only?

Liberals show their tendency to threaten our freedoms

Featured

Democrat Ted Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’

In a recent CNN interview that was subsequently reported in a 12 December 2018 Washington Times article, Democrat Ted Lieu revealed his dictatorial tendencies.

Rep. Ted Lieu told CNN on Wednesday that his desire to regulate speech is only thwarted by the U.S. Constitution.

An interview on Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s testimony before lawmakers with House Judiciary Committee took a tyrannical turn when the California Democrat expressed his “love” for the idea of controlling free speech.

The moment happened after host Brianna Keilar asked if Mr. Lieu failed to “press” Google’s CEO on Tuesday regarding the company’s vulnerabilities to “outside interference.”

“It’s a very good point you make,” Mr. Lieu replied. “I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don’t get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”
Viewers on The Washington Free Beacon’s YouTube channel were stunned at the lawmaker’s admission.

(Read more at Washington Times)

This remotely sounds like Barack Obama before he decided to circumvent immigration law by creating DAPA and DACA.

Thankfully, we have been saved from the effects of DAPA and hopefully will see the demise of DACA. Nonetheless, you have to wonder if Rep. Lieu will make a move on the freedom of speech now that the Democrats have the House.

  

Project Dragonfly

Google denies its partnership with the repressive government of China to repress free speech

Report: Google Hasn’t Halted ‘Project Dragonfly,’ Continues to Devote ‘Substantial’ Resources

As a possible preview of the free-speech-killing acts available to Democrats, Breitbart reports in a 12 December 2018 article (at least in the title) how Google may be hiding the development of a tool that the government of China may use to direct searches.

In an article, Wednesday, the Verge analyzed Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s comments about Project Dragonfly, Google’s censored Chinese search app project, during his hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

The Verge reported that though Pichai claimed there are “no plans” to “launch a search product in China,” the company is indeed still working on the project.

“[Pichai] made it clear that, whether the company currently has ‘plans’ to launch the product, Google certainly hasn’t halted work completely,” declared the Verge. “In fact, it has continued to devote substantial resources to the project. While saying the effort was ‘limited,’ Pichai at one point said Google had devoted about 100 people to it, although The Intercept has reported the number is closer to 300.”

During the hearing, Pichai repeatedly denied Google’s intentions to launch Project Dragonfly in China, after Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) asked multiple questions about the project.

…

After Marino then asked, “Am I then to understand you have no plans to enter into any agreements with China concerning Google, how it’s used, in China?” Pichai replied, “We currently do not have a Search product there… Right now there are no plans to launch a Search product in China.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Considering the times Google has been caught lying about its censorship of conservative videographers, lying about conservative cancer survivors, lying to Congress about the bias built into its search engine, lying about meddling in the campaign of Rep. Blackburn, and caught in many other lying events — something tells me not to trust them here.