Sunday, October 6, 2019

THE ANTI-AMERICAN DOCTRINE OF ELIZABETH WARREN

How the Quest For Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren

I first met Elizabeth Warren when she was a professor at Harvard Law School, in 2004. She was fresh off the publication of her bestselling book, "The Two-Income Trap." There's no doubt she was politically liberal -- our only face-to-face meeting involved a recruitment visit at the W Hotel in Los Angeles, where she immediately made some sort of disparaging remark about Rush Limbaugh -- but at the time, Warren was making waves for her iconoclastic views. She wasn't a doctrinaire leftist, spewing Big Government nostrums. She was a creative thinker.
That creative thinking is obvious in "The Two-Income Trap," which discusses the rising number of bankruptcies among middle-class parents, particularly women with children. The book posits that women entered the workforce figuring that by doing so, they could have double household income. But so many women entered the workforce that they actually inflated prices for basic goods like housing, thus driving debt skyward and leading to bankruptcies for two-income families. The book argued that families with one income might actually be better off, since families with two incomes spent nearly the full combined income and then fell behind if one spouse lost a job. Families with one income, by contrast, spent to the limit for one income, and if a spouse was fired, the unemployed spouse would then look for work to replace that single income.
Warren's core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. But her policy recommendations were even more fascinating. She explicitly argued against "more government regulation of the housing market," slamming "complex regulations," since they "might actually worsen the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older ones." Instead, she argued in favor of school choice, since pressure on housing prices came largely from families seeking to escape badly run government school districts: "A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly."
Her heterodox policy proposals didn't stop there. She refused to "join the chorus calling for taxpayer-funded day care" on its own, calling it a "sacred cow." At the very least, she suggested that "government-subsidized day care would add one more indirect pressure on mothers to join the workforce." She instead sought a more comprehensive educational solution that would include "tax credits for stay-at-home parents."
She ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans, too, or more taxpayer spending on higher education directly. Instead, she called for a tuition freeze from state schools. She recommended tax incentives for families to save rather than spend. She opposed radical solutions wholesale: "We haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model."
So, what happened to Warren?
Power.
The other half of iconoclastic Warren was typical progressive, anti-financial industry Warren. In "The Two-Income Trap," she proposes reinstating state usury laws, cutting off access to payday lenders and heavily regulating the banking industry -- all in the name of protecting Americans from themselves. While her position castigating the credit industry for deliberate obfuscation of clients was praiseworthy, her quest to "protect consumers" quickly morphed into a quest to create the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau -- an independent agency without any serious checks or balances. But despite her best efforts, she never became head of the CFPB, failing to woo Republican senators. The result: an emboldened Warren who saw her popularity as tied to her Big Government agenda. No more reaching across the aisle; no more iconoclastic policies. Instead, she would be Ralph Nader II, with a feminist narrative to boot.
And so, she's gaining ground in the 2020 presidential race as a Bernie Sanders knockoff. Ironically, her great failing could be her lack of moderation -- the moderation she abandoned in her quest for progressive power. If Elizabeth Warren circa 2003 were running, she'd be the odds-on favorite for president. But Warren circa 2019 would hate Warren circa 2003.
Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller "The Right Side Of History." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

Trump vs. Warren: Trump Builds, Warren Destroys

President Trump's vision of our country is America First.  Unlike all presidents of the past 30 years, Donald Trump is not afraid of saying he puts his own people first.  Everything he does is in the interest of ordinary Americans.
The policy of America First rejects the globalist and universalist policies of the past that saw America as just one nation among others — and a guilty and undeserving nation at that.  The low point in this anti-American era was President Obama's apology tour of 2009, during which he traveled to Europe and the Middle East apologizing for everything America had done in the past and promising that we would do better in the future.  They loved it in Berlin and Cairo, places where they do not love America and where they do not share our fundamental values of individual liberty.  Obama spoke the words that other nations wanted to hear, and he spoke them because he shared their disdain.  He believed that America needed to be "transformed" from what it had been in the past.
That kind of antagonism toward America is shared by Elizabeth Warren today.  She does not speak with awe of the Greatest Generation that saved the world from fascism and communism.  Nor does she celebrate the greatness of our capitalist economy, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, the right of religious expression in the public sphere, the need for a strong military and police force (including ICE), the crucial role of the family, or even the debt we owe to our legal immigrants.
Instead, Warren is pushing the transformation of America farther.  Her official website offers no fewer than 46 "plans" for changing America.  It says nothing about preserving what is good about our country.
Warren's plans range from the familiar "protecting a woman's right to choose" to "100% clean energy for America."  They cover every politically correct topic, from "LGBTQ+ rights" to "A fair and welcoming immigration system" — welcoming those who cross illegally?  When one digs into her "plans," they come down to a familiar, even trite recitation of progressive causes — call it Obama on steroids.  Warren offers nothing that is different — only more of what didn't work in the past.
Warren's plan for "gun safety," for example, involves familiar ideas for restrictions on gun ownership: universal background checks, extended waiting periods, and bans on sales to many classes of individuals.  It goes even farther by "holding gun companies accountable" for crimes involving use of their weapons — in effect, forcing them into bankruptcy.  And it promises investigations that would weaken the NRA as well.  
Democrats have always run with promises of free cash, and Warren's plan for Social Security is not at all different.  It includes an immediate increase of $2,400 per year in benefits to all recipients, plus "even greater" increases for "people of color" and "women and caregivers, low-income workers, public sector workers, students and job-seekers, and people with disabilities."  Everyone gets an extra raise except those who have worked and paid in most of their lives.
One of Warren's more extreme "plans" is her support for the Refund Equality Act — a bill that would refund taxes to homosexual couples who previously filed as unmarried singles.  The point is that in the past, before the legal recognition of gay "marriage," homosexuals living together were single.  That is why they filed as singles.  Warren wants to extend tax refunds to them retroactively.
A disturbing pattern emerges in Warren's plans for America.  At every point, they pit one class of Americans against another.  Women versus men.  Blacks versus whites.  Gays versus straights.  Disabled versus abled.  And especially poor versus rich.  In the past, despite whatever disparities that existed, Americans saw themselves as one people.  They believed that their treasured citizenship as Americans was more important than any differences.  My family was not rich, but we didn't go around railing against the 1% — or, in Warren's case, the 2%.  All that Warren can do is to attack those she sees as "privileged."
Another pattern in Warren's plan is the emphasis on collectivism, or, if you like, socialism — and Warren is a socialist, despite her disavowal.  Like many socialists before her, Warren wants sweeping government control of private enterprise.  As she says, she believes in "markets that have a cop on the beat and have real rules and everybody follows them."  Markets with agency "cops," constant regulation, and "everybody" after them are not free markets.  What Warren wants is government control of markets, not free enterprise.  Her over-regulation would stifle the robust economy that President Trump has set in motion.   
Warren's environmental views have been described as an "adult version" of Greta Thunberg's sneering performance at the U.N. last month.  Warren supports the Paris climate agreement and most other globalist initiatives that would curtail U.S. power and growth.  Meanwhile, she opposes the USMCA (NAFTA 2.0), which would benefit American farmers and manufacturers.  Her positions are not based on what would help ordinary Americans — they are aimed at pleasing her narrow political base.
If there is one word that describes Warren, it is "planner," and like socialists everywhere, Warren has a government plan for everything.  That includes family planning.  Warren is an "aggressive" supporter of abortion who wants to require private insurance and Medicaid to fund abortions.  She believes that unwanted children should be aborted.
So far, Warren's socialism remains just a dream, but that will change if she is elected president.  Her supporters love it when she attacks the rich, Wall Street, and Big Business.  Yet, despite all her words about "saving the middle class," she has accomplished little in her seven years in the U.S. Senate.  In the latest 2019–2020 term, Warren sponsored or (mostly) co-sponsored 357 bills, but of the handful that passed the Senate, only one made it to the president (the Christa McAuliffe Commemorative Coin Act of 2019), and Warren was not the primary sponsor even of this bill.
If elected, Warren would undermine much of what America has been for 243 years: "the land of the free," a country whose citizens possess the liberty to worship as they like, speak as they like, work as they like, save and invest as they like (without the confiscatory wealth tax and investment trading taxes that Warren is proposing), and live their private lives as they like.  Warren's policies, if carried to their logical end, would undermine all of our freedoms.  They would impose sweeping hate speech limitations on free speech, restrict gun ownership, prohibit religious expression in public areas, curtail investment, and place businesses under close government regulation and control — in effect, nationalizing the economy.
This is very far from America as we have known it, and it is far from President Trump's ethos of America First.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).


Elizabeth Warren caught makin' it up about pregnancy discrimination

Elizabeth Warren has a pretty impressive penchant for makin' it up when it comes to serving a leftist narrative.
Fake Indian, complete with tales of discrimination experienced, worked for awhile, until it didn't.
So did the fake research, claiming medical costs are the reason behind most bankruptcies. Nope, not at all.
Now we have Warren saying that when she became pregnant as a young teacher of special-ed students, presumably in the 1960s, she was asked to leave her post for being visibly pregnant. A found tape of her speaking in 2008 suggests maybe she actually wanted to leave her dead-end job teaching special-ed to scale the career ladder instead. 
According to this report in Fox News:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested this week that a school principal effectively fired her from a teaching job after she became "visibly pregnant," but a resurfaced video indicates that wasn't the actual reason she left the job.
"I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married," Warren, then a Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview posted to YouTube in 2008.  "My first year post-graduation, I worked -- it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called.
"I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don’t think this is going to work out for me,'" Warren continued. "I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, 'What am I going to do?'"
Now, it's possible she didn't tell her whole story and maybe the principal did 'hint' 'hint' that she ought to leave for being pregnant which might have been a secondary factor for her exit. There are women this has happened to. (I had a friend who had to accept a general discharge from the Navy over being pregnant and not being able to make it to basic training, so this sort of thing actually does happen, at least in government). But given that this happened apparently in the early woke 1970s, the era of George McGovern, and along with the rest of what Warren said, there's reason to find that possibility dubious.
Warren was teaching in a more-demanding, less prestigious, and for that reason, easier-to-obtain special ed teaching slot (based on the accounts she's given, it sounded as though she wanted to be a classic school teacher of ordinary or maybe gifted kids), without the credentials to move upward, it's more likely that she did want out and wasn't escorted out. Her biography says she was a brilliant student, and gave up a full scholarship to George Washington University to marry her boyfriend and move to Texas instead. It was a marriage that eventually ended and probably soured well before that, so there would have been many disappointments in her life at about that time, and the lack of certificate would have hampered her capacity to get the kind of teaching slot she might have really wanted. 
Just the fact that the school system did have a special-ed track suggests it was already woke and unionized, so quite likely not discriminating against pregnant women. It ought to be checked for sure. And the fact that she was teaching on a 'emergency certificate,' most likely meant there was a labor shortage, so once again, unlikely that they would want to dump a trained teacher on a tough beat they didn't have enough people for, solely for being pregnant.
She also didn't mention that she wasn't a liberal at the time she was doing the teaching -- her swing to the left came as she climbed the career ladder and moved into monolithically blue ivy league elitist circles. She did that the easiest way, too, by focusing on finance as a means of keeping attention low on ideological issues. (When I was a rare conservative at Columbia journalism school, I focused on financial journalism for what was likely the exact same reason -- to be in an area where the ideological talk would be kept a minimum.) But it was probably too much for her and she eventually came out as a leftist in order to advance. It's an ideological bubble over there, so it's quite possible she was so immersed in it she eventually came to believe it, too. Bottom line, the supposed pregnancy exit in the schoolhouse wasn't something that radicalized her, so again, her claim is dubious.
It goes to show that Warren has a habit of making things up, not just for personal advantage, not just to appear a hero, the way Joe Biden does, but in her case, specifically to advance a false left wing 'narrative.'
She claimed her Indian ancestry derived from a mixed-race marriage among her ancestors resulted in discrimination - a truly phony claim given that there was no recent Indian ancestor - but it was useful to claim for the lefty 'narrative' that America, even in a nice place like Oklahoma, was brimming with racists.
She claimed medical costs in her research were behind most bankruptcies - totally errant, but again, useful for the leftist narrative to advance a the idea of a socialist government takeover of health care. Now she's thrown out this whopper on being ousted for pregancy, making herself part of a labor/women's grievance narrative always experiencing pregnancy discrimination because the discriminators even in lefty woke educational institutions are rampant in society. It's nonsense.
It's a lefty vision of a world that doesn't exist which is why it's constantly trapping her and exposing her as a liar.





Elizabeth Warren 2007 Video Contradicts Campaign Tale of Losing Job For Being Pregnant

Elizabeth Warren (Mario Tama / Getty)
Mario Tama / Getty
5:59

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has made a habit of telling audiences at campaign rallies how she lost her beloved job teaching children with special needs at a public school when she became “visibly pregnant.” However a recently-unearthed video from 2007 suggests she left because she lacked the necessary education qualifications.

Warren’s biography has been central to her pitch to voters. For example, in Franconia, New Hampshire, in August — the town hall meeting that marked the start of her latest surge — she said (emphasis added):
I have known what I wanted to do since second grade. You may laugh — you didn’t decide ’til third grade, fourth grade. [Laugher] Not me, man. I have known since second grade: I wanted to be a public school teacher. Can we hear it for America’s public school teachers? [Applause] Oh, I knew — and I invested early. I used to line my dollies up and teach school. I had a reputation for being tough, but fair. [Laughter] I’m just kidding. I loved it, I loved it. And I never wavered from what I wanted to do. But by the time I graduated from high school, my family didn’t have the money to pay for a college application, much less to send me off to a four years at a university. So, like a lot of Americans, I have a story that kind of has a bunch of twists and turns in it. And here’s how mine goes. I got a scholarship to college — yay! — and then, at 19, I fell in love, dropped out, got married, took a minimum wage job. [Laughter] It was my choice, and it was going to be a good life. But it wasn’t a dream. I thought I’d given up on ever being able to teach school. And then, and then — I found it. I found a commuter college, 45 minutes away, that cost $50 a semester. And for a price I could pay for, on a part-time waitressing job, I finished my four-year diploma, I became a special needs teacher — I have lived my dream job! [Applause] Now do I have any special needs teachers here? [Applause] Oh, good — I’ve got some. Got some here. Fabulous. Back me up on this: teaching special needs is not a job, it’s a calling. And I loved it. I truly loved it. I still can remember the faces — I had little ones. Still remember their faces. And I probably would still be doing that work today, only my story has some more twists and turns. And here’s how the next twist goes. By the end of my first year in teaching, I was visibly pregnant. And the principal did what principals did in those days: wished me luck and hired someone else for the job. Okay, so I’m at home, I’ve got a baby now, no chance to get a job. What am I going to do? And the answer is: I’ll to go to law school!
Warren told a similar story at the last Democratic Party presidential primary debate in September (emphasis added):
By the time I graduated from high school, my family didn’t have money for a college application, much less to send me off to four years at a university. And my story, like a lot of stories, has a lot of twists and turns. Got a scholarship, and then at 19, I got married, dropped out of school, took a minimum wage job, thought my dream was over.
I got a chance down the road at the University of Houston. And I made it as a special needs teacher. I still remember that first year as a special needs teacher. I could tell you what those babies looked like. I had 4- to 6-year-olds.
But at the end of that first year, I was visibly pregnant. And back in the day, that meant that the principal said to me — wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
So, there I am, I’m at home, I got a baby, I can’t have a job. What am I going to do? Here’s resilience. I said, I’ll go to law school.
However, Warren’s current version of the story contradicts a version she told during a recently-resurfaced interview in 2007, when — as a Harvard Law School professor — she described her career path (4:42 to 7:49, emphasis added):
I’m of that generation where there were only two things that a woman could do if she wanted to do something other than stay home, and that was: she could become a nurse or she could become a teacher. And so there were some awfully able women who taught me from grade school on. And what they opened me up to was the possibility that I could become a teacher. And, frankly, that’s when I went off — When I went off to college, the whole idea was so that I could be a teacher. That’s what I wanted to do …  I came to college on a debate scholarship. I was 16 years old when I graduated from high school. And I got a full scholarship in debate — that was room, board, tuition, books, and a little spending money. It was a fabulous scholarship. At George Washington University. If I would debate for them. It was sort of the equivalent of an athletic scholarship, only this was one that actually a girl could get, even though there weren’t very many girls in debate, either. I was going to be a teacher. And I quickly switched over and decided what I wanted to do was work with brain injured children. And so I got my degree in speech pathology and audiology, which meant that I would be able to work with children who had head trauma, and other kinds of brain injuries. And that’s what I did. .. I was married at 19, and then graduated from college, actually, after I’d married. And my first year of post graduation, I worked — it was within a public school system, but I worked with the children with disabilities. And I did that for a year. And then that summer — I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. And I went back to graduate school, and took a couple of courses in education, and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” And I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby, and I stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking what am I going to do. … And so I went back home to Oklahoma … for Christmas, and saw a bunch of the boys that I’d been in high school debate with, and they’d all gone on to law school. And they said, “You should go to law school, you’ll love it.” And I said, “You really think so?” And they said, “Of all of us who should have gone to law school, you’re the one who should have gone to law school.”
There are consistent themes in these stories, such as that Warren wanted to teach children with special needs — as well as some puzzles (such as her claim that she could not afford to apply to college, then received a scholarship).
But there are also contradictions — and the most glaring is the different reasons given for her leaving her teaching job.
In the 2007 version of the story, the reason for her leaving her job was that she lacked the necessary education qualifications and was on a special contract — not because a male principal dismissed her for becoming pregnant. It was her subsequent studies in education, not discrimination, that convinced her to choose a different career path.
However, on the campaign trail, Warren has chosen to tell what Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher describes as a story in which “[t]he central idea has always been that she was living her dream of being a public school special ed teacher until some villainous Mad Men-era principal put the kibosh on the whole thing because of her baby bump.”
The program that interviewed Warren is called Conversations with History, a project of the University of California. The story about the contradictions appears to have been broken first by blogger Jeryl Bier, who in turn credited left-wing Jacobin magazine wrier Meagan Day, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, for the information.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.



So no one who worked for Obama should ever be investigated?

Since January 2017, the media and other Democrats have talked about the Constitution, the rule of law, and piously intoned that no one is above the rule of law.
Yet from January 2009 to January 2017, the Constitution and rule of law were effectively suspended for President Obama and those who worked for him. 
Here are some examples:
Trump did not dictatorially and unilaterally change and ignore existing immigration law. That was Obama, and Trump is trying to reverse Obama's unconstitutional action and enforce the laws Congress passed as his oath requires. 
Trump did not sue states that sought to enforce immigration laws. That was Obama.
Trump did not threaten to cut off funds from Ukraine if they didn't do something specific. That was Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden. What's more, Biden said it on tape. That was quid pro quo.
The U.S. and Europe, in the 1990s, agreed to help Ukraine defend itself if it would agree to give up nuclear weapons. When Ukraine was attacked by Russia, the agreement meant nothing. Obama turned down the request. Trump didn't -- and gave them the weapons.
The U.S and Ukraine also have an agreement, a law signed by then-President Clinton, to cooperate on corruption. Obama looked the other way as Biden's son got a $50,000 per month retainer in a no-show job he knew nothing about. Biden himself threatened to cut off funds if the prosecutor investigating the company's previously corrupt dealings didn't get fired on the spot. The media didn't care about that, but it goes after Trump for looking into corruption.
Trump didn't take $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to bribe Iranian tyrants. That was Obama.
Trump did not charge eight whistleblowers with violating the Espionage Act nor did he sic the government on journalists. That was Obama. If Trump even uses the word 'spy,' the media and other Democrats accuse him of violating the law. Remember this?

Obama’s Legacy: A Historic War On Whistleblowers

As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of a federal prosecution and was initially charged for sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already been made public.


The Trump administration didn't illegally spy on thousands of Americans, including on people surrounding his political opponents as well as on reporters. That was Obama.
Trump didn't use the media to spread lies about the Iranian deal. That was Obama, according to his loyal creative-writing minion, Ben Rhodes.
Trump didn't dictatorially stop a years-long investigation by the supposedly "independent" Justice Department into drug running by terrorists sponsored by Iran. That was Obama.
Trump didn't use the IRS to violate the freedom of speech and freedom of association rights of political opponents. That was Obama.
Trump didn't violate the nation's bankruptcy laws to reward political supporters. That was Obama, rewarding unions when he used taxpayer money to bailout GM.
Trump didn't use foreign nationals as an excuse to spy on and attempt to take out a political opponent. That was the Obama administration, in collusion with the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
The Trump administration did not illegally unmask names surrounding his political opponents. That was Obama. 
Trump did not give U.S. uranium operations to Russia after his Secretary of State got massive donations for her foundation and her husband got huge amounts for a single speech from Russia. That was Obama.
Trump did not whisper that he would be flexible with Russia. That was Obama. 
Trump did not give a stand down order to stop investigating Russian hacking before an election. That was Obama.
Trump did not allow people to die while concocting a lie about a video to protect his political power. That was Obama (and Hillary).
Trump did not violate separation of powers by illegally stealing money more than once to pay shortfalls for Obamacare. That was Obama.
Trump did not shake down corporations and set up slush funds at EPA, Justice and CFPB to be used for political purposes and to reward political supporters. That was Obama.
Trump does not look away when sanctuary cities and states refuse to enforce immigration laws that Congress passed. That was Obama.
Trump did not willfully and illegally withhold documents from Congress for years on Fast and Furious. That was Obama. 
Trump did not have an Secretary of State who continually violated the nations security laws and then made sure that she wasn't prosecuted. That was Obama. Maybe that was because Obama himself violated the laws by corresponding with her on that computer. 
Trump did not have a Secretary of State handing out favors for huge foreign donations. That was Obama. 
Trump did not look the other way while people named Eric Holder, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice and others committing perjury. That was Obama. People associated with Obama were always above the law while the media and other Democrats lecture the public about no one being above the law. 
For eight years most of the media cheered as Obama and his administration ignored the law and Constitution and for three years, they have been searching for a crime with which to impeach Trump. They print fake stories with anonymous sources to seek reasons to impeach. They act like the Obama administration was scandal-free to intentionally mislead the public because the only thing that matters is power for Democrats. 
It is truly a shame that so few in the media, in collusion with other Democrats, believe that Democrats are above the law and intentionally mislead the public by creating fake crimes for Trump.
It is a bigger shame when Republicans want to be loved by the media and other Democrats and instead of wanting to root out crimes and corruption climb on board to attack Trump. 
Thank God for Trump and his tweeting because if he was not so vocal, he would have been gone by now and the corrupt media and other Democrats would be well on their way to destroying America, capitalism and our way of life. Few Republicans have the gonads that Trump has to take the cabal on the way he does.




Elizabeth Warren Claims Plan to End Corruption in Washington

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
 16 Sep 2019668
5:37

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) unveiled yet another plan Monday, which she claims will end corruption in Washington. This comes in the wake of mounting questions surrounding the lawmaker’s controversial actions in the past.

Warren revealed another one of her big plans in a lengthy Medium post on Monday titled, “My Plan to End Washington Corruption,” teasing it as the “most sweeping set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate.”
The presidential candidate argues that “right-wing politicians have spent a generation attacking the very idea of government” but concedes that the government “doesn’t work for most people.” Insurance companies, Warren says, “put profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people” and lobby against Medicare f0r All. Oil companies, Warren continues, deliberately “conceal” studies on climate change and fund “bought-and-paid-for climate denial research” while opposing the Green New Deal. She says the same of pharmaceutical companies, arguing that they want to “squeeze every last penny out of the people who depend on their prescriptions, while their army of lobbyists suffocates reform any time there’s a discussion in Congress on drug pricing.”
She also places the bulk of the blame on President Trump, calling his administration “the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes.”
“But these problems did not start with Donald Trump. They are much bigger than him — and solving them will require big, structural change to fundamentally transform our government,” she writes.
Warren’s lengthy plan to combat corruption in Washington focuses largely on lobbyist activities and government transparency.
On lobbying, she pledges to:
  • Ban “golden parachutes” that provide corporate bonuses to executives for serving in the federal government.
  • Restrict the ability of lobbyists to enter government jobs.
  • Make it illegal for elected officials and top government appointees to become lobbyists — ever.
  • Restrict the ability of companies to buy up former federal officials to rig the game for themselves.
On transparency, she pledges to:
  • Prohibit courts from sealing records involving major public health and safety issues.
  • Impose strict transparency standards for federal courts and remove barriers to accessing electronic judicial records.
  • Strengthen federal open records laws to close loopholes and exemptions that hide corporate influence, and increase transparency in Congress, federal agencies, and nonprofits that aim to influence policy.
She also promises to open a U.S. Office of Public Integrity and expand the existing Office of Congressional Ethics.
Warren plans to reintroduce a version of her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act as well, Politico reports.
She is expected to delve deeper into her anti-corruption plan during a speech Monday evening at New York City’s Washington Square Park.


Tomorrow, September 16th, I’ll be in New York City to tell the story of how working women organized to change the course of history after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. I hope to see you there: http://ewar.ren/warren-nyc  #WarrenNYC

Warren, however, has faced corruption scandals of her own in years – even months – past. While she has publicly decried corruption in Washington, some say she has willingly participated in the problem. For instance, Warren advocated for and accepted money from big defense contractors – particularly Raytheon, which is based in her home state – in the past. She accepted defense industry money as recently as 2018.
Per Foreign Policy:
Still, Warren’s ties to the defense industry—including another company with facilities in Massachusetts, General Dynamics—could come up during her presidential campaign. She reportedly made an effort to reach out to both companies during her 2012 Senate campaign and time in the Senate, including facility visits and at least one phone call to Raytheon’s chief executive. She also accepted more than $80,000 in donations from the defense industry from 2011 to 2018 and in her first year in the Senate fought to stop the Army from shifting funds away from a General Dynamics-built communications network that a government watchdog has dinged for cost overruns and performance deficiencies.
Warren has also prided herself on funding her presidential campaign without the help of big, influential donors. However, that is not necessarily true, as Warren is reportedly using what has been described as a “stockpile” of funds from her senatorial bid – in which she happily courted big donors, attended fundraisers, and ultimately accepted their money– to cushion her presidential campaign.
As Breitbart News reported:
The Massachusetts senator attended big fundraising events for her Senate reelection bid in 2018, and while she has declined big donor involvement in her presidential bid, she reportedly transferred $10.4 million in “leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run.”
Ultimately, Warren’s $10.4 million cushion gave her more flexibility, allowing her to get ahead of other candidates, some of whom are still struggling to get their campaigns off the ground.
Some of her former donors were quick to call out her hypocrisy, including Gov. Ed Rendell, who donated $4,000 to Warren in 2018:
Rendell cohosted a Biden fundraiser earlier this year. To his surprise, the Warren campaign slammed the event as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors” – despite the fact that Warren benefitted from similar events in the recent past.
“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Rendell said, according to the Times. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”
Warren has also faced continuous criticism for falsely claiming Native American heritage throughout her life and listing herself as a minority professor for years. A DNA test released last year revealed that Warren had between 1/64 and 1/1024 Native American heritage (or 0.1 percent to 1.56 percent) – none of which, if exists, stems from tribes in the U.S. Warren has denied that she did so to get a leg up in academia but has refused to go into details on her false claims, telling potential supporters that she made a “mistake” and apologizing for “furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.”
September 8, 2019

So Hillary Clinton is the Ã©minence grise behind Elizabeth Warren?

Up until now, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, have always been reported as two aging leftists unable to stand each other. "Friends now, trouble ahead," reads some of the headline of a 2016 Politico news story.
Get a load of how those times have changed, according to NBC News:
The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren's launch has been previously reported — according to several people familiar with their discussions who spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of private interactions.
And the pair have been talking a lot, to the point of Hillary Clinton seemingly backseat-driving the Warren campaign. According to NBC:
It’s hard to know exactly how many times they’ve reached out to each other — or precisely what they’ve discussed — in part because neither camp wants to reveal much of anything about their interaction and in part because they have each other's phone numbers, and there are many ways for two high-powered politicians to communicate that don’t involve their staffs.
One source was aware of just one additional call between Warren and Clinton since then. But a person who is close to Clinton said the contact has been substantial enough to merit attention, describing a conversation between the two as seemingly recent because it was "front of mind" for her.
Very typical Clintonian - which is to say behind the scenes and non-transparent.
And while the two share the same left-wing extremism, and their blonde-white-woman brand of pantsuit suburban socialism (Hillary was always much farther left than her husband Bill), the Warren relationship is probably more about exerting political muscle.
Warren may still not be able to stand Clinton, but Clinton is useful to Warren for rigging the Democratic nomination.
According to NBC:
More important, an explicit or implicit blessing from Clinton could help Warren if she finds herself battling for delegates and superdelegates at a contested Democratic convention next summer.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention," said Deb Kozikowski, the vice chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
So instead of Democratic voters choosing their candidates freely, quite unlike the 2016 fiasco where Hillary Clinton's operatives rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, Clinton is doing the same thing she did in 2016, putting her thumb on the scale of Democratic party politics, this time for a willing and ambitious Elizabeth Warren, to put the fix in on delegates. That ought to go over real well for Democratic turnout once they realize another fix is in.
Meanwhile, Warren is now useful for Clinton, who still wants to be president, but now can't be. In Warren, she now has a useful puppet for getting her agenda and surrogates into the White House. That would not only get her the socialism she craves, it would also protect her from the long arm of the law.
The personnel issue is interesting because "the slots" have always been of paramount importance to Hillary, ever since she fired the White House travel office staff because "we need the slots."
Back when the pair couldn't stand each other, Warren was backseat-driving to Clinton's campaign, vetoing Clinton's "people" in a battle over "slots." Politico reported:
But there’s tension on the horizon: If Clinton wins, Warren has promised to rattle the gates of a Clinton White House — as she did to President Barack Obama — pushing for progressive, anti-Wall Street crusaders to fill posts as top economic advisers and, most importantly to her of all, Treasury secretary.
Warren and her staffers have already been feeding to the Clinton campaign lists of individuals they would consider appropriate for those posts — and signaling in unsubtle terms those whose appointment they would fight to block.
The reverse could be just as true, with now Clinton backseat-driving who the appointments would be, who's in, who's out, as the pair plan a socialist takeover.
None of this is good news for the Democrats. A jurassic political powermonger, and a far-left fake Indian trying to come off as having sane ideas, doesn't represent a bright new generation with fine fresh ideas, just the same old machine politics, rendered worse by extremism.
If the Democratic emails get hacked again this year, oh, what a story those emails of this alliance of two leftists who secretly loathe each other might just tell.
Image credit: Tim Pierce, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0



Warren Undercuts Populist Agenda with Donor Class Immigration Plan
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
27 Aug 20196
4:02

While Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has vowed an economic nationalist-populist agenda, her plans to increase foreign competition against American workers match the solutions routinely offered by the nation’s donor-class and big business lobby.

With a rise in the polls, Warren is doubling down on her economic agenda, calling out multinational corporations for outsourcing and offshoring American jobs for decades.
“There are a lot of giant companies who like to call themselves ‘American,'” Warren said in a new video out on Twitter. “But face it, they have no loyalty or allegiance to America.”
“In a Warren administration, government policy will support American workers,” Warren said. “I call it economic patriotism … this is not a question of more government or less government. It’s about who government works for.”


A lot of giant companies refer to themselves as “American.” But let’s face it, they only have one real loyalty: Their shareholders. A Warren administration will halt the hollowing out of American cities and create good American jobs. Here’s how.

Warren, however, has juxtapositioned her economic patriotist plan to crack down on outsourcing and offshoring of American jobs by corporations against an agenda to import additional foreign workers for those corporations.
In her immigration outline released last month, Warren promised to “expand legal immigration” beyond current historically high legal immigration levels, at which more than 1.2 million legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S. every year. Part of this plan includes increasing the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.
America should welcome more legal immigration — done in the right way and consistent with our principles … We should reflect our values, which means expanding family reunification and making it easier for relatives of citizens and green card holders to come to the United States,” Warren writes.
Warren writes that her expansion of legal immigration will “grow the economy,” the case often deployed by the donor class and big business lobby to demand more foreign workers.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce executives, for example, told the Washington Post this year that the country is “out of people” and thus more legal immigration is necessary to grow the economy and provide an endless flow of foreign workers to business.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s organization New American Economy is wholey dedicated to lobbying for plans like Warren’s to be enacted in order to grow the U.S. economy and GDP. The organization is headed by Bloomberg and funded by a long list of billionaire donors, including the CEOs of Hewlett-Packard, Delta Airlines, Time Warner Inc., Goldman Sachs, Quest Diagnostics, and Citigroup.
Warren’s plan is also supported by the editorial board of billionaire Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post, where they argued that the U.S. needs a constant stream of low-skilled foreign workers to fill American jobs.
Meanwhile, America’s working and middle class have seen their wages crushed for decades just as a stream of illegal and legal foreign workers have grown their share of various U.S. occupations.

Extensive research by economists like George Borjas and analyst Steven Camarota reveals that the country’s current mass legal immigration system burdens U.S. taxpayers and America’s working and middle class while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth every year to major employers and newly arrived immigrants.
Camarota’s research has found that for every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of American workers’ occupations, their weekly wages are cut by about 0.5 percent. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.75 percent.
Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” economic model, on the other hand, has lifted wages for America’s blue-collar and working-class by decreasing foreign competition in the labor market through stricter immigration enforcement. Trump’s agenda has also shifted power from corporations to U.S. workers where businesses now compete for workers rather than the decades-long practice of workers competing for jobs at businesses.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

 

 

Elizabeth Warren, the worst of the bunch

"Hi, I’m Elizabeth Warren. Even though I’m as white as library paste, I pretended to be an American Indian to get preferment. My research on medical bankruptcies was as fraudulent as the way I gamed the racial spoils system. So you should totally trust me when I say I’m “capitalist to my bones”!
The above quotation is from Armed & Dangerous...how each of the candidates would introduce themselves if they were honest.   There is an imaginary intro for each of them and they are all spot on, but because Warren is allegedly "surging," and because she is  the panderer-in-chief,  her gross dishonesty must be exposed.
Caricature by Donkey Hotey
There is quite the contest among the declared candidates for the Democrat nomination, and for reasons unknown to most of us, they are each clamoring to be the most wealth-redistributing socialist, the most radical, the nearest to communist.  They each advocate for open borders to all who show up, no matter from what their home country, no matter how likely they may be to be criminals.  Not one of them cares about the thousands of American citizens who are killed by illegal immigrants.  No, they only care about the "poor children at the border" whose parents have either sold or rented them to drug cartels or coyotes for a price.   But bleeding-heart Warren now wants to repeal the 1994 crime bill, pushed by Joe Biden at the time, and that actually worked.  For wholly mysterious reasons, Warren, like the rest of the left, values criminals, legal or illegal residents, over American citizens.  This is how they roll.  They think this is a winning tactic, as if there are more criminals than law-abiding citizens in America and that coddling them is the answer.
While nearly all of the Democrat candidates are monstrous hypocrites, especially on climate change, Warren may well be the worst of the bunch.  Her despicable record as a liar to gain a position at Harvard is well-known; she claimed to be Native American which, as we all know now, is preposterous on its face.  She gave no thought to taking a position which an actual minority applicant might have won.  In short, she is a woman of low character who is willing to do or say anything she supposes might work in her favor to gain power.  She was once an avowed capitalist who worked for corporations to avoid insurance claims -- but no more.  Now she is a fully formed anti-American who loathes the wealthy she promises to punish in order to support the deluge of migrants from around the world she assumes will reward her with their support.  
She will of course grant them the right to vote as will any one of the candidates if elected.   If you have entered the US illegally, then Warren and her fellow candidates are there for you.  Commit a crime?  No problem. The Democrats are there for you.  Need free medical care?  US citizens will pay.  The left values you over legal citizens.  Warren is the worst of the bunch.  She is the "dead phony walking."  She is a liar and a cheat and, if the nominee, will remind everyone of their most hated elementary school teacher.  She does not talk, she harangues. 
Like Hillary Clinton, Warren is contemptuous not only of Trump and his supporters but of pretty much all Americans.  By her standards, we are all stupid.   She overstates her significance; we are not as dumb as she thinks.  She is an armchair lefty whose cheap disdain for the rest of us is all there is to her.   The gamblers  are betting on her to be the candidate now that Biden's dementia is showing.  What does that tell us about the American left in 2019?   "Evil appears as good in the minds of those whom God leads to destruction." (Sophocles)  If Warren is the nominee, Trump will sail to victory with ease.

Elizabeth Warren To Announce Presidential Campaign From City Ravaged by Opioids, Illegal Immigration

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/02/09/elizabeth-warren-to-announce-presidential-campaign-from-city-ravaged-by-opioid-epidemic-illegal-immigration-n2541101

 


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is set to announce her 2020 presidential campaign from the historically significant Lawrence, MA. In the early portion of the 1900s, the bustling mill town was known for the advancement of fair wages as well as being a welcoming hub for legal immigrants. Yet in the 21st century, Lawrence is known for something more nefarious; it is the "clearing house for illegal drugs" brought into a region ravaged by the opioid epidemic with narcotics often trafficked by illegal aliens.
 The town located on the Merrimack River is replete with political symbolism and activism. Historians, feminists, and Big Labor activists recall the 1912 women-led strike against mill owner's after the reduction of wages in response to a new law limiting weekly working hours. These women staged walkouts and forced mill owners to pay fairly which in turn bolstered union support. As David Rutz of The Washington Free Beacon notes, this was "[c]onsidered a landmark moment for unions, the strike received national attention and eventually prompted federal investigations into brutal working conditions and pay raises for workers around New England." 
With the backdrop of these organized labor victories and the city's high immigrant population, it makes for a picturesque scene for the progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential launch. But, the current political and cultural reality of Lawrence seems far better to help President Trump's stance on illegal immigration and serves as a staunch rebuke of Sen. Warren's views on federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In the past, Sen. Warren has said America needs "to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality and that works." But, ICE actually works very well in conjunction with other agencies who are trying to rid American streets of dangerous substances that have led to the deaths of at least 1500 Massachusetts residents in 2018 and an estimated 50,000 overdoses nationwide in 2017.
ICE's success is evidenced by an October 2018 multiagency drug sweep through the city of Lawrence which resulted in the arrest of 50 people, including 13 illegal immigrants, as well as the seizure of 20 pounds of fentanyl -- enough to kill half of the Bay State. 
At the time, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling told the Boston Herald, “Lawrence is a clearing house for illegal drugs pouring into New Hampshire and Maine via 93 and 495." 
The Herald noted that the Department of Justice led the bust officially known as the "Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative." It "involved over 200 federal law enforcement agents and targeted repeat criminals that had prior convictions for violence, drug trafficking, firearm offenses or records of being in the country illegaly." 
Lelling reported Project Safe Neighborhood proved the "larger point that the city of Lawrence is significant to law enforcement.”
Based on the previous admonishment from the Massachusetts senator, it seems to be a safe bet Warren will not praise law enforcement for their heroic work led in part by stopping illegal immigrants in Lawrence and elsewhere from dealing opioids which in turn kill citizens.
Nonetheless, Lelling's October press conference can tell the American people what they really need to hear about former mill towns that the left will not tell you -- "What the people living there need is help and support. What they don’t need is drug dealers selling kilos of fentanyl and felons brandishing guns," Lelling told the media at the time. 

VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?

THEN VOTE DEMOCRAT! ILLEGALS ARE!

ZOGY POLL ON MEX RACISM AND VIOLENCE….. Half the murders in CA

are by Mex gangs, and 93% of murders in La Raza-Occupied Los Angeles are by

Mexicans.

ZOGBY

“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

Mecha's  (M.E.Ch.A.) own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."
LA RAZA: The Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “THE RACE” and the Reconquista and surrender of America to NARCOMEX
VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?
The comparison to the Nazi Party is well deserved. La Raza openly supports pushing all but Latino Americans out of a portion of the United States (ethnic cleansing), they call for 'Reconquista' or the re-conquest of the American Southwest by Mexico (the re-occupation of the Sudetanland), and the establishment of 'Atzlan' which is the utopian all-Latino version of the American Southwestern states (Adolf Hitler planned to called his utopia Germania).
"Despite the fact that the majority of documented hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it is scorned as racism."
Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."
"We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within  our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan”  or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New  Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico."
"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens --- was the last gasp of white America in California." --- Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party… NOW THE PARTY for LA RAZA SUPREMACY… do a search for Barack Obama and LA RAZA.
"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."  --- Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times  
“Make no mistake about it: the Latino community holds this election in your hands. Some of the closest contests this November will be in states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico -- states with large Latino populations.”   PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA  
“I know how powerful this community is. Just think how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.”    PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA 

THE U.S. TAX DOLLAR SUPPORTED MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race” IS NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus.

La Raza Founder РKill the Gringos (Jos̩ Angel Guti̩rrez)

 


Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “The Race”

FIFTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LA RAZA “THE RACE”
by Michelle Malkin
Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."
Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.
Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":
15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
14."The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.
13. "The Race" vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.
12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.
11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.
10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.
9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.
8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."
7. "The Race" has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.
6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."
5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as "a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."
4. "The Race" is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."
3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain … ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."
2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."
The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.
*
ALIEN NATION: Secrets of the Invasion
Why America's government invites rampant illegal immigration
It's widely regarded as America's biggest problem: Between 12 and 20 million aliens (MOST SOURCES SUGGEST THERE ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY NEARLY 40 MILLION ILLEGALS HERE NOW) – including large numbers of criminals, gang members and even terrorists – have entered this nation illegally, with countless more streaming across our scandalously unguarded borders daily.
The issue polarizes the nation, robs citizens of jobs, bleeds taxpayers, threatens America's national security and dangerously balkanizes the country into unassimilated ethnic groups with little loyalty or love for America's founding values. Indeed, the de facto invasion is rapidly transforming America into a totally different country than the one past generations have known and loved.
And yet – most Americans have almost no idea what is really going on, or why it is happening.
While news reports depict demonstrations and debates, and while politicians promise "comprehensive border security programs," no real answers ever seem to emerge.
But there are answers. Truthful answers. Shocking answers.
In its groundbreaking May edition, WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine reveals the astounding hidden agendas, plans and people behind America's immigration nightmare.
Titled "ALIEN NATION," the issue is subtitled "SECRETS OF THE INVASION: Why government invites rampant illegal immigration." Indeed, it reveals pivotal secrets very few Americans know. For example:
Did you know that the powerfully influential Council on Foreign Relations – often described as a “shadow government" – issued a comprehensive report last year laying out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter"?
Roughly translated: In the next few years, according to the 59-page report titled "Building a North American Community," the U.S. must be integrated with the socialism, corruption, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. As Phyllis Schlafly reveals in this issue of Whistleblower: "This CFR document asserts that President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' and assigned 'working groups' to fill in the details. It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American Summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet 'vigilantes' on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona."
The CFR report – important excerpts of which are published in Whistleblower – also suggests North American elitists begin getting together regularly, and presumably secretly, "to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations." The Bilderberg and Wehrkunde conferences are highly secret conclaves of the powerful. For decades, there have been suspicions that such meetings were used for plotting the course of world events and especially the centralization of global decision-making.
Did you know that radical immigrant groups – including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and the National Council of La Raza (La Raza) – not only share a revolutionary agenda of conquering America's southwest, but they also share common funding sources, notably the Ford and Rockefeller foundations?
''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. So why would the Rockefeller and Ford foundations support such groups? Joseph Farah tells the story in this issue of Whistleblower.
Why have America's politicians – of both major parties – allowed the illegal alien invasion of this nation to continue for the last 30 years unabated? With al-Qaida and allied terrorists promising to annihilate major U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, with some big-city hospital emergency rooms near closure due to the crush of so many illegals, with the rapid spread throughout the U.S. of MS-13, the super-violent illegal alien gang – with all this and more, why do U.S. officials choose to ignore the laws of the land and the will of the people to pursue, instead, policies of open borders and lax immigration enforcement?
The answers to all this and much more are in Whistleblower's "ALIEN NATION" issue.
Is there hope? Or is America lost to a demographic invasion destined to annihilate its traditional Judeo-Christian culture, and to the ever-growing likelihood that nuclear-armed jihadists will cross our porous borders and wreak unthinkable destruction here?
There most definitely is hope, according to this issue of Whistleblower. Although most politicians of both major political parties have long since abdicated their responsibility for securing America's borders and dealing effectively with the millions already here illegally, there are a few exceptions – most notably Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.
May's Whistleblower includes an exclusive sneak preview of Tancredo's forthcoming blockbuster book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security." In an extended excerpt, Whistleblower presents Tencredo's expert and inspired analysis of exactly how to solve the nation's most vexing problem.
*
THE AZTLAN INVASION & THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY
“The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.”
MULTICULTURALISM, IMMIGRATION AND AZTLAN
By Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno
One of the standard arguments invoked by those in favor of massive immigration into the United States is that our country is founded on immigrants who have always been successfully assimilated into America's mainstream culture and society. As one commentator put it, "Assimilation evokes the misty past of Ellis Island, through which millions entered, eventually seeing their descendants become as American as George Washington."1 Nothing more vividly testifies against that romantic faith in America's ability to continuously assimilate new members than the events of October 16, 1994 in Los Angeles. On that day, 70,000 people marched beneath "a sea of Mexican flags" protesting Proposition 187, a referendum measure that would deny many state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children. Two weeks later, more protestors marched down the street, this time carrying an American flag upside down. Both protests point to a disturbing and rising phenomenon of Chicano separatism in the United States — the product of a complex of forces, among which are multiculturalism and a generous immigration policy combined with a lax border control. The Problem Chicanos refer to "people of Mexican descent in the United States" or "Mexican Americans in general." Today, there are reasons to believe that Chicanos as a group are unlike previous immigrants in that they are more likely to remain unassimilated and unintegrated, whether by choice or circumstance — resulting in the formation of a separate quasi-nation within the United States. More than that, there are Chicano political activists who intend to marry cultural separateness with territorial and political self-determination. The more moderate among them aspire to the cultural and political autonomy of "home rule". The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.
Whatever their goals, what animates all of them is the dream of Aztlan. According to legend, Aztlan was the ancestral homeland of the Aztecs which they left in journeying southward to found Tenochtitlan, the center of their new civilization, which is today's Mexico City. Today, the "Nation of Aztlan" refers to the American southwestern states of California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, portions of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, which Chicano nationalists claim were stolen by the United States and must be reconquered (Reconquista) and reclaimed for Mexico. The myth of Aztlan was revived by Chicano political activists in the 1960s as a central symbol of Chicano nationalist ideology. In 1969, at the Chicano National Liberation Youth Conference in Denver, Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales put forth a political document entitled El Plan de Aztlan (Spiritual Plan of Aztlan). The Plan is a clarion call to Mexican-Americans to form a separate Chicano nation: In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historial heritage, but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the nothern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers ...declare that the call of our blood is...our inevitable destiny.... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.... Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come .... With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan.
How Chicanos are Unlike Previous Immigrants Brent A. Nelson, writing in 1994, observed that in the 1980s America's Southwest had begun to be transformed into "a de facto nation" with its own culture, history, myth, geography, religion, education, and language. Whatever evidence there is indicates that Chicanos, as a group, are unlike previous waves of immigrants into the United States. In the first place, many Chicanos do not consider themselves immigrants at all because their people "have been here for 450 years" before the English, French, or Dutch. Before California and the Southwest were seized by the United States, they were the lands of Spain and Mexico. As late as 1780 the Spanish crown laid claim to territories from Florida to California, and on the far side of the Mississippi up to the Great Lakes and the Rockies. Mexico held title to much of Spanish possessions in the United States until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American war in 1848. As a consequence, Mexicans "never accepted the borders drawn up by the 1848 treaty."
That history has created among Chicanos a feeling of resentment for being "a conquered people," made part of the United States against their will and by the force of arms. Their resentment is amply expressed by Voz Fronteriza, a Chicano student publication,
which referred to Border Patrol officers killed in the line of duty as "pigs (migra)" trying to defend "the false frontier."
Chicanos are also distinct from other immigrant groups because of the geographic proximity of their native country. Their physical proximity to Mexico gives Chicanos "the option of life in both Americas, in two places and in two cultures, something earlier immigrants never had." Geographic proximity and ease of transportation are augmented by the media. Radio and television keep the spoken language alive and current so that Spanish, unlike the native languages of previous immigrants into the United States, "shows no sign of fading."
A result of all that is the failure by Chicanos to be fully assimilated into the larger American society and culture. As Earl Shorris, author of Latinos: A Biography of the People, observed: "Latinos have been more resistant to the melting pot than any other group. Their entry en masse into the United States will test the limits of the American experiment...." The continuous influx of Mexican immigrants into the United States serve to continuously renew Chicano culture so that their sense of separateness will probably continue "far into the future...." There are other reasons for the failure of Chicano assimilation. Historically, a powerful force for assimilation was upward social mobility: Immigrants into the United States became assimilated as they rose in educational achievement and income. But today's post-industrial American economy, with its narrower paths to upward mobility, is making it more difficult for certain groups to improve their socioeconomic circumstances. Unionized factory jobs, which once provided a step up for the second generation of past waves of immigrants, have been disappearing for decades. Instead of the diamond-shaped economy of industrial America, the modern American economy is shaped like an hourglass. There is a good number of jobs for unskilled people at the bottom, a fair number of jobs for the highly educated at the top, but comparatively few jobs for those in the middle without a college education or special skills. To illustrate, a RAND Corporation study forecasts that 85 percent of California's new jobs will require post-secondary education. For a variety of reasons, the nationwide high-school dropout rate for Hispanics (the majority of whom are Chicano) is 30 percent — three times the rate for whites and twice the rate for blacks. Paradoxically, the dropout rate for Hispanics born in the United States is even higher than for young immigrants. Among Chicanos, high-school dropout rates actually rise between the second and third generations. Their low educational achievement accounts for why Chicanos as a group are poor despite being hardworking. In 1996, for the first time, Hispanic poverty rate began to exceed that of American blacks. In 1995, household income rose for every ethnic group except Hispanics, for whom it dropped 5 percent. Latinos now make up a quarter of the nation's poor people, and are more than three times as likely to be impoverished than whites. This decline in income has taken place despite high rates of labor-force participation by Latino men, and despite an emerging Latino middle class. In California, where Latinos now approach one-third of the population, their education levels are far lower than those of other immigrants, and they earn about half of what native-born Californians earn. This means that, for the first time in the history of American immigration, hard work is not leading to economic advancement because immigrants in service jobs face unrelenting labor-market pressure from more recently arrived immigrants who are eager to work for less. The narrowing of the pathways of upward mobility has implications for the children of recent Mexican immigrants. Their ascent into the middle-class mainstream will likely be blocked and they will join children of earlier black and Puerto Rican migrants as part of an expanded multiethnic underclass. Whereas first generation immigrants compare their circumstances to the Mexico that they left — and thereby feel immeasurably better off — their children and grandchildren will compare themelves to other U.S. groups. Given their lower educational achievement and income, that comparison will only lead to feelings of relative deprivation and resentment. They are unlikely to be content as maids, gardeners, or fruit pickers. Many young Latinos in the second and third generations see themselves as locked in irremediable conflict with white society, and are quick to deride successful Chicano students as "wannabes." For them, to study hard is to "act white" and exhibit group disloyalty. That attitude is part of the Chicano culture of resistance — a culture that actively resists assimilation into mainstream America. That culture is created, reinforced, and maintained by radical Chicano intellectuals, politicians, and the many Chicano Studies programs in U.S. colleges and universities. As examples, according to its editor, Elizabeth Martinez, the purpose of Five Hundred Years of Chicano History, a book used in over 300 schools throughout the West, is to "celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders." The book calls the INS and the Border Patrol "the Gestapo for Mexicans."
For Rodolfo Acuna, author of Occupied America: The Chicano's Struggle Toward Liberation, probably the most widely assigned text in U.S. Chicano Studies programs, the Anglo-American invasion of Mexico was "as vicious as that of Hitler's invasion of Poland and other Central European nations...." The book also includes a map showing "the Mexican republic" in 1822 reaching up into Kansas and Oklahoma, and including within it Utah, Nevada, and everything west and south of there
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
‘Diversity,’ Illegal Immigration and Destroying America

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Center for Security Policy, February 20, 2018

Now that official Washington’s political oxygen is being consumed by the latest school shooting, it’s easy to forget abiding disagreements about immigration policy. Yet, until supplanted by the current children’s crusade for gun control, it was the so-called “DACA kids” who had to be accommodated with a massive amnesty.

Just as we seem determined to ignore factors in mass murders like the pop culture’s role in inculcating a lust for violence – the more, the better, what passes for debate about illegal aliens is increasingly unmoored from any discussion of their impact on American society.

It’s time to reprise a 2003 warning by Democratic former Colorado governor Dick Lamm about a “secret plan” that is destroying our country through the combined effects of unchecked immigration, the “diversity” agenda and abandoning our national principle of “out of many, one.” This lunacy must end.
. . .



No comments: