Tag Archives: Democrat Party

Democrat presidential candidates propose giving citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants

Net annual cost of illegal immigration
Net annual cost of illegal immigration to taxpayers

The Democrat position on border security, as we know from that last few months, is that they would prefer that the government be shut down rather than build a wall. One Democrat presidential candidate even wants to give millions more illegal immigrants amnesty. Is there any reason why American taxpayers should be concerned about his plan?

The radically leftist Dallas Morning News reports:

Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro on Tuesday unveiled a detailed immigration plan that would offer a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the country without authorization.

He’s not the only one.

Fox News reports that Robert O’Rourke proposes something similar:

Days after saying he’d support eliminating U.S.-Mexico border barriers, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke has released a 10-point plan that argues that strict border enforcement encourages illegal immigration and that calls for giving millions of undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

[…]During an interview with MSNBC host Chris Hayes, O’Rourke said he would take down the wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Along the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, there are about 700 miles of fencing.

Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner that the Border Patrol numbers show there is a crisis at the Southern border. Basically, since the Democrats and the courts have blocked Trump’s attempts to secure the border and deport illegal aliens. Things are a lot worse at the border than they used to be, even under previous administrations.

Byron writes:

In a matter of months, migrants knew Trump could not stop them from entering the country illegally — and staying.

It should surprise no one that the numbers headed up again, to 396,579 in 2018. Now, crossings have gone through the roof, with 76,103 apprehensions in February of 2019 and 100,000-plus in March, numbers that could have come from the early- and mid-2000s.

And the numbers do not tell the whole story. In the Clinton-Bush years, the overwhelming number of illegal crossers were single, adult men trying to avoid detection as they sneaked across the border. When caught, they were quickly returned. So when 1.2 million were caught crossing, that did not mean that 1.2 million stayed in the United States.

Now, however, the nature of the flow has changed. Today, the large majority of those caught crossing are families and unaccompanied children. They are not trying to sneak in, they are crossing for the purpose of giving themselves over to the Border Patrol. They do that knowing U.S. law forbids them being returned, or separated, or even held for more than a few days. In short order, they are released into the United States.

It seems safe to say that more illegal crossers are staying in the U.S. than in the days of Clinton and Bush.

Well, that’s not good.

I thought it would be useful to highlight a couple of stories about law-abiding Americans who have been affected by all of this “compassion” from the Democrat party and their allies on the courts.

Here’s one from CBS News Louisiana:

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has announced the arrest of an undocumented immigrant accused of more than 100 counts of sex crimes.

Miguel Martinez, 44, was arrested on 100 counts of possession of pornography involving juveniles under the age of 13 years old, one count of production under the age of 13, and one count of sexual battery of a juvenile under the age of 13.

[…]Martinez was previously deported in 2005.

He is a registered sex offender in California, Landry said.

Previously deported, and a registered sex offender. I don’t think that we should elect a Democrat to give him citizenship.

Here’s one from NewJersey.com:

The man charged with raping and strangling a jogger in Jersey City’s Lincoln Park had already been deported twice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said.

Jorge Rios, who was identified by ICE officials as Jorge Alberto Rios-Doblado, is from Honduras and “has been removed from the country on two prior occasions, in 2003 and 2004,” according to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operation (ICE-ERO) in Newark. ICE officials also said Rios initially entered the country illegally.

He was deported before? Maybe we should have some sort of deterrent to keep out repeat offenders, like a wall or something?

Look, we have procedures for bringing in skilled immigrants. We should bring in immigrants using those procedures. If people want to come across our border illegally, they should be deported. We shouldn’t elect someone who wants to take down border walls and give people who broke the law to come here a path to citizenship.

Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)
Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)

Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned”. And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.

PJ Media reports:

Let’s review how Russia colluded with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

CNN reported on a false allegation for 22 months
CNN reported on a false allegation for 22 months

For the last 22 months, we’ve seen the media keep up a constant drumbeat about how Trump colluded with Russia to sell Russian corporations uranium rights in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, wait, the media hasn’t said anything about that. So, there was an investigation, and the investigation went on forever, and found nothing.

The Federalist reports:

In a four-page letter provided to Congress on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr officially revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not find any evidence that President Donald Trump or members of his campaign treasonously colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

No collusion:

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election,” Barr’s letter to Congress noted.

No obstruction of justice:

The investigation headed by Mueller also examined whether Trump obstructed justice at any point related to ongoing investigations of Russian interference. In his letter, Barr stated that Mueller’s investigation was unable to demonstrate that the president broke the law by interfering with law enforcement.

Just to count the cost of the investigation, it was:

  • 19 lawyers
  • 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and more
  • 2,800+ subpoenas
  • 500 search warrants
  • 500 witnesses
  • over $25 MILLION in taxpayer dollars

Remember, this isn’t the first time that the media reported constantly on a story that fit their radically-leftist narrative, but then was later disproven with evidence. Remember how they breathlessly reported the charge that Brett Kavanaugh ran a secret gang rape cartel? How about when the Covington kids literally assaulted a peaceful native American who literally served overseas in Vietnam? How about the faked Jussie Smollett hate crime? This happens all the time.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton presents Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a “reset button”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presents Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a “reset button”

Here’s some collusion with Russia

Remember this article from the radically leftist New York Times?

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

Why didn’t that get investigated for 22 months by a Special Consel duting the Obama administration? Why didn’t the mainstream news mendia report on that for 22 months ahead of the 2016 presidential election?

Obama promised Vladimir Putin "more flexibility" after the 2012 election
Obama promised Russian president Dmitri Medvedev “more flexibility” after the 2012 election

Russia colluded with Barack Obama

And speaking of collusion with Russia, how come this was never investigated:

Why didn’t actual collusion with the Russians deserve a 22-month Special Counsel investigation? Why didn’t the media run that clip for 22 months asking why Obama was colluding with the Russians? You don’t have to look very far in his foreign policy to see actual examples where we sided with the Russians against our allies, such as when Obama backed out of giving missile defense to Poland. Or when Obama stood by and did nothing after Russia ran tanks into Georgia in 2008.  Or when Obama refused to sell anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, after Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Obama’s entire foreign policy was pro-Russia! It was right there in the open.

By the way, Trump did sell 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, to defend themselves from Russia. But did the mainstream news media report on that? How exactly is selling anti-tank missiles to Russia’s enemies “collusion with Russia”?

What about Obama?

What about the Obama administration? Were they ever investigated for their many scandals?

The Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels so they could call for more gun control when those guns were used to kill Border Patrol agents. Or the Obama administration using the IRS as a weapon against conservative get-out-the-vote organizations, just before his re-election campaign. And on and on. The media had nothing to say about those scandals.

Republicans introduce new federal legislation to expand school choice

If I were giving advice to the Republican party about how to win in 2020, I would advise them to focus on three priorities. Lowering unemployment, reforming the criminal justice system, and expanding school choice. They should also paint the Democrats as the party of infanticide, Green New Deal and elimination of private health insurance.

So far, Trump has done an excellent job of encouraging private sector job creators to create millions of new jobs. Unemployment is at a record low, and that’s important for persuading Black and Hispanic voters to vote for smart policies instead of tribal identity and envy. I don’t agree with with reforming criminal justice to favor criminals, but that will help with minority voters as well. But what we really need to do is provide Black and Hispanic voters with a way to get their children out of failing public schools. Public schools are filled with lazy, unionized Democrat teachers and administrators who care more about indoctrinating kids with Democrat propaganda than teaching them job skills that will make them independent, self-sufficient adults.

The Republican party knows that school choice is a win for them, and they are doing something about it.

Here’s the latest from the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that promotes fiscally conservative policies:

Today, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos joined Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), to announce new federal legislation that would establish a federal tax-credit expanding school choice. The proposal would give dollar-for-dollar tax credits to individuals and corporations who donate to state designated scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). While its particulars bear scrutiny, the “Education Freedom Scholarship” (EFS) proposal’s overall design is a solid attempt to walk a tightrope of backing state efforts at school choice while protecting against federal meddling now and in the future. Unfortunately, a number of critics on the right are too quick to react on their fears, and too slow in remembering what is holding back school choice.

Some conservatives and libertarians worry that solving the problem of underforming schools from the top down is a political overreach, but the AEI policy analyst writing the article says that the Republican bill doesn’t have that problem:

As I wrote back in 2017, backing state developed tax-credit scholarships is the best, and probably only, way the federal government could support state efforts without overreaching.  It would not be a federal program, but a tax credit that supports programs where states are explicitly responsible for policy particulars.

[…]No doubt, the bill would need to be explicitly structured to ensure the states’ primary role, and durably prevent federal overreach; fortunately defending states’ role is a paramount feature of the bill’s design.

School choice is a nice issue for Republicans, because it allows them to point out the hypocritical nature of Democrat politicians. Democrat politicians are essentially hypocritical. They want to ban guns for you, but they have armed security to protect themselves. It’s the same thing for education. They want to ban private schools for your children, but their own children all attend private schools.

Top Political Contributors in 2016 election cycle
The top Political Contributors in 2016 election cycle includes two teacher unions

Democrats are obligated by teacher unions, (e.g. – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers), to vote against parents who want their children to get a better education. That’s because teacher unions are some of the biggest Democrat donors. Teacher unions just want more salary and bigger benefits, despite the evidence that clearly shows that more education spending doesn’t produce better student achievement.

Education spending has tripled since 1970
Education spending has tripled since 1970

Here’s a study from 2012 published in the journal “Education and Urban Society“. It says:

The possibility is examined that school choice programs could be a means to reducing the achievement gap. Data based on meta-analytic research and the examination of nationwide data sets suggest that school choice programs that include private schools could reduce the achievement gap by 25%. The propounding of this possibility is based on research indicating that the achievement gap in faith-based schools is generally 25% narrower than one finds in public schools. Results of these studies suggest that both the racial achievement gap and the socioeconomic achievement gap are reduced by the same degree (25%). The significance of these results is discussed, especially as it pertains to the attitudes that people frequently have toward school choice.

Not only do children do better in non-public schools, but the competition forces public schools to focus less on leftist indoctrination, and more on reading, writing and math.

This study from the on-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) explains why.

It says:

A school that is more productive is one that produces higher achievement in its pupils for each dollar it spends. In this paper, I comprehensively review how school choice might affect productivity. I begin by describing the importance of school productivity, then explain the economic logic that suggests that choice will affect productivity, and finish by presenting much of the available evidence on school choice and school productivity. The most intriguing evidence comes from three important, recent choice reforms: vouchers in Milwaukee, charter schools in Michigan, and charter schools in Arizona. I show that public school students’ achievement rose significantly and rapidly in response to competition, under each of the three reforms. Public school spending was unaffected, so the productivity of public schools rose, dramatically in the case in Milwaukee.

School choice makes public schools perform better because competition between providers always lowers the cost and increases the quality of services and products being provided to the consumers. Consumers always suffer when there is a monopoly. This is why people are more satisfied purchasing goods from Amazon and Netflix than they are lining up at the post office or the department of motor vehicles. The free market serves the consumer.

I was raised in a poor background, and I am a visible minority. If Republicans want to get the votes of people in my community, it makes sense to put in place policies that allow people like me to get a good education so we can get good jobs and do better than our parents did. Republicans should be all about equipping people to be independent and self-sufficient. These are conservative goals.

Canadian court rules that parents can’t prevent children from obtaining hormone replacement therapy

Canada Election 2015: Socialists in red, Communists in Orange, Conservatives in blue
Canada Election 2015: Socialists in red, Communists in Orange, Conservatives in blue

Yesterday, I blogged about how progressive politicians and public school administrators allied in order to promote gay activist policies to young children in the state of Ontario, in Canada. I also mentioned how their child sex education curriculum was designed by a convicted pedophile. But they’re not the only state pushing gay activism against the parents who pay their salaries.

The Federalist first reported on the story in the last week of February:

Clark* first found out that his 12-year-old daughter Maxine was being treated as a boy by her school when he saw her new name in her class’s grade seven yearbook. “Quinn” was the new name her counselor had helped her pick out, and Maxine’s school district in Delta, British Columbia, Canada, had decided that “Quinn” should be treated, for all intents and purposes, as a boy.

The district apparently felt justified in leaving Maxine’s father completely out of the loop. Maxine’s school district was operating by the BC Ministry of Education’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policy, according to which Clark had no right to know his daughter’s “preferred sex, gender, or name” at school.

Keep in mind that the policies of schools in Canada are often developed in conjunction with gay rights groups, who are consulted first, so that the schools can avoid costly “discrimination” lawsuits from gay rights lawyers later on.

More:

Maxine’s counselors at school … referred Maxine and her mother, Sarah, to a “Dr.” Wallace Wong — a psychologist and LGBT activist who predictably decided that Maxine should be referred to a children’s hospital for testosterone injections when she was only 13. Not to be outdone, the children’s hospital asked Maxine’s parents for permission to begin injecting Maxine with testosterone on her very first visit. Clark said no and refused to sign.

From the middle of August until October, the hospital worked Clark over, trying to get his consent. When he finally refused, the hospital dropped a bombshell threat: simply put, they declared that they didn’t need Clark’s or Sarah’s permission for that matter. In a letter mailed December 1, 2018, Dr. Brenden Hursh informed Clark that they would begin treatment on Maxine in two weeks, without Clark’s consent. BC Children’s Hospital believed Maxine was a “mature minor,” who could receive treatment against the wishes of both her parents, according to section 17 of the BC Infants Act.

Well, as you can see, the school teachers, school administrators, courts and hospital doctors (all taxpayer-funded actors), are anxious to get started on “treating” the child with drugs. Only the parent is in the way. I guess he thinks that he should be trusted to raise his own child as he sees fit, rather than to just pay the salaries of these public sector agents and then let them decide for him.

In Canada, people are seen as competent enough to earn money, but not competent enough to spend their money as they see fit. A (large) portion of taxpayer’s income is taken from them in the form of mandatory taxes, and it is then given to teachers, education bureaucrats, hospital administrators and courts in order to regulate their choices to be more in line with progressive values.

So what did the courts decide?

Here is the latest from The Federalist in the first week of March:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that a 14-year-old girl receive testosterone injections without parental consent. The court also declared that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or addressed her by her birth name, they would be considered guilty of family violence.

As previously reported, Maxine* was encouraged by her school counselor in BC’s Delta School District to identify as a boy while in seventh grade. When Maxine was 13 years old, Dr. Brenden Hursh and his colleagues at BC Children’s Hospital decided that Maxine should begin taking testosterone injections in order to develop a more masculine appearance.

Keep in mind that because the money for health care is extracted from taxpayers before they choose their medical treatment, taxpayers have no right to decide what treatments they will and will not get. It’s the politicians and the hospital administrators who decide. This is what single-payer health care means. You pay your income to the government, and the government decides whether you will be treated, when you will be treated, and even what treatments are appropriate for you. And if you disagree with that, there is no opt-out, except to leave the country. Although they might interpret your disapproval of their decision-making on parenting issues as a “mental illness”, and prescribe you with appropriate treatments for that – e.g. – confining you to a mental institution where your rebellion against the rule of bureaucrats can receive the proper medical attention.

As I noted in yesterday’s post about gay rights in Canada, some Canadian states have passed laws to allow the government to seize children from parents who refuse to respect the will of government bureaucrats.

The Daily Caller explains:

Ontario passed a law Thursday that gives the government the right to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity.”

Parents who oppose or criticize the LGBT agenda will be considered potential “child abusers” and may have their children taken away by the state, according to the new bill. If the parents are ruled to be abusers by failing to wholeheartedly support their child’s gender choice, that child “can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

[…]The old law allowed parents to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing” but now says a parent must influence a child’s education and upbringing “in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

That bill passed 63-23. So you can imagine what sort of sympathy you could expect from Canadians as a whole if you dissented from this law.