VIDEO: JOE BIDEN'S ORCHESTRATED INVASION.
Gov. Abbott: This will end with a new president
Hispanics Will Not Join a Black/Brown Coalition
The adage "be careful of what you wish for, you may just get it" most certainly applies to recent efforts by black political leaders to expand ballot access. Their reasoning seems alluring: voting has been their ticket to progress, and the more blacks who vote, the greater the progress. A corollary is that such expansion would also help their political allies, notably Hispanics and other minorities of color, and thus build a mighty coalition. Moreover, open borders bring more Hispanics, and this will, eventually, swell yet further this alliance which, it is assumed, will be led by blacks.
Reality may be a disaster for blacks. For one, expanding ballot access by easier absentee voting and the like will likely have minimal impact on black turnout, since black non-voters are disproportionately less-educated, disproportionally poor, less interested in politics, and often legally barred from voting due to felony convictions. Banning personal ID requirements and similar measures will have scant impact on this apathetic group.
By contrast, today’s low Hispanic turnout is bound to increase without hard political battles. Among Hispanics, growing U.S. citizenships, increased education, moving up economically, population aging, and especially learning English all will promote higher turnout. Thanks to their current low turnout, Hispanics have lots of “headroom” to expand their political clout and demographic forces will outweigh tweaking voting laws. The future of American “minority politics” is Hispanic, not African American.
There are other Hispanic electoral advantages. Just observe Hispanic officeholders -- though many have distinctive Spanish origins and names via immigrant parents or grandparents, and speak fluent Spanish, they are often physically almost or entirely “European.” Examples include Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, plus countless others such as Representative Vicente Gonzalez, who hardly appear to be stereotypical “Hispanics.” Further add those who define themselves as “Hispanic” but lack a distinctive Hispanic name. Bill Richardson, who had a distinguished political career, is Hispanic, grew up in Mexico City.
These Hispanics may be “minority “candidates” but they generally appear “American” and have more conventional backgrounds such as business owner, lawyer, or educator, and often are military veterans. These traits are a huge advantage in American coalition-based politics with heterogeneous electorates. “Hispanic” candidates can thus win in districts with few Hispanic voters while blacks usually depend on mobilizing large black populations.
This wider appeal is especially valuable if running against black candidates who often must emphasize their “blackness” to attract black voters in primaries against rival black candidates. Being a good “race man,” however, may alienate non-black voters. It’s hard to imagine Hispanic candidates trying to out-Hispanic Hispanic opponents by appealing to narrow group interests and invoking racially inflammatory language.
Consider, for example, Alex Mooney (R-W.VA) who was born and raised in Fidel Castro’s Cuba. He’s an Army vet (Bronze Star), an outspoken conservative and a bona fide Hispanic who represents the whitist state in America. And Alex looks as if he’s “a good old boy” who “…believes in the American values of hard work, faith, and freedom that have made our country great.” On the other side of the partisan aisle is Salud Carbajal (D-CA) who appears more "Hispanic” than Congressman Mooney, but despite ample Spanish on his website, is basically a conventional liberal Californian Democrat. He’s a former Marine and focuses on the environment, social services, the military, the budgetary process and public safety. Yes, fiery black elected officials like Maxine Waters or Cori Bush may enjoy job security in heavily black districts, but the future belongs to the people like first-generation American Mike Garcia, a highly decorated United States Naval officer and businessman recently elected to the House as a Republican from California.
A perfect example of how Hispanic candidates can defeat black officeholders in areas long dominated by African Americans occurred in New York’s City’s 13th Congressional District. This is Harlem, a district emblematic of black political power, and between 1971 and 2017, it was represented by an African American, Charles Rangel, Unfortunately for Rangel, personal scandals and recent Hispanic immigration spelled his doom. He was replaced by Adriano Espaillat, a Dominican Republic immigrant who slowly climbed up the political ladder by diligently helping constituents. Who would ever believe that a House seat once held by Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. is now occupied by a once-illegal Spanish-speaking immigrant? So much for open borders.
A “black/brown” coalition led by blacks is pure fantasy. It is hard to imagine two more antagonistic groups who often live in proximity. This conflict is frequently physical, as reflected in gang battles over turf, schoolyard and particularly violent prison battles plus acrimonious minor encounters in stores and restaurants. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Latino Gang Members in Southern California are Terrorizing and Killing Blacks.” The academically-crafted message that all racial and ethnic minorities, including “the Latinx,” must unite against white oppression is totally foreign in Californian cities like Compton where an influx of Hispanics are pushing out blacks from a city they long dominated.
There are also deep differences over bread-and-butter issues. Many of the small businesses destroyed during the post-George Floyd riots were Hispanic-owned, a disaster exacerbated by the lack of sympathy among blacks who framed the destruction as a legitimate outrage over historic injustice. Many Hispanics also personally see that an open southern border brings economic competition that will invariably lower their own wages. Especially for those near the border, the influx of drug, gang violence, sex trafficking, and other criminal behavior is a personal matter, not an ideological abstraction. Meanwhile, while black leaders call for defunding the police, Hispanics are increasingly joining the force. Hispanics no doubt take the defund movement personally -- they have family serving as police officers.
Nor does the current Democratic Party agenda seem relevant to Hispanics. How many Latinos embrace the woke agenda of LGBTQ+ rights, reparations for slavery, renaming buildings, subsidizing black home ownership, and, perhaps most of all, government mandated Diversity, Inclusion and Equity? It’s hardly surprising, since many of today’s Hispanics were not educated here and thus are immune to the siren song of guilt-heavy identity politics. Pandering to blacks is a losing strategy in Hispanic neighborhoods. It is hardly surprising then that when affirmation action was on the ballot in California, Hispanics generally refused to support it.
Moreover, unlike white liberals, Hispanics are not easily cowed by accusations of racism. It helps to be a minority of color when, for example, black activists demand that you step aside in dividing up the spoils or occupying positions of power. In fact, given the macho nature of Hispanic culture, blacks will think twice about trying to push them around. As such, Hispanics are great allies in resisting black demands.
Predictably, poll after poll reports a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to the GOP. A political party dominated by blacks and influenced by ideas promoted by rich whites, especially academics, hardly offers Latinos a comfortable home. They want a booming economy, business-friendly law, and could care less about promoting Critical Race Theory. Today’s Hispanics may resemble the Irish of the 19th century who flocked to the Democrats when that party offered a better life, not an agenda to transform America. Today the GOP may be that political home, and this is not a happy outcome for blacks.
Image: GPA Photo Archive
Supreme Court Poised To End Leftwing Election Shenanigans
Kevin Daley • July 2, 2022 4:58 amBlue state judges and liberal bureaucrats caught flak for littering their states with drop-boxes and accepting mail-in ballots during the 2020 election without permission from lawmakers. The Supreme Court is poised to stop them from doing it again in 2024.
The justices announced Thursday that they will hear a case later this year involving the "independent state legislature theory," which holds that state lawmakers alone control election procedures and redistricting. The news invigorated conservative groups who say bureaucratic tinkering with district lines and election laws is destroying public confidence in the political process.
"Dark money-fueled left-wing lawyers have misused the courts to manipulate election laws and undermine commonsense voting safeguards for political gain," the Honest Election Project’s Jason Snead said. "The Supreme Court now has the chance to uphold the Constitution and ensure that future elections have safeguards that make it easier to vote and harder to cheat."
The justices stepped into a heated debate by taking the case. Late-breaking changes to election procedures helped fuel former president Donald Trump’s narrative that Democrats stole the 2020 election. For their part, Democrats see the case as yet another attack on voting rights, and a bid to insulate pro-gerrymandering lawmakers from judicial scrutiny.
The Constitution provides that the "time, place, and manner" of elections shall be "prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." A second rule with similar language governs selection of presidential electors. On that basis, Republican lawyers say each state legislature has the final say on election rules, such as voter ID laws or absentee balloting, as well as the decennial redistricting process. Neither state courts nor state agencies can interfere.
The case the Court took Thursday comes from North Carolina, where the state supreme court set aside a congressional district map state lawmakers crafted and imposed its own, which is friendlier to Democrats. Republican leaders in North Carolina’s statehouse appealed to the Supreme Court, and noted disputes about election regulation plagued the last election.
Ahead of the 2020 election, judges and bureaucrats across the country refashioned election rules on their own, citing the pandemic as justification. They suspended witness signature requirements for absentee ballots in South Carolina, relaxed deadlines for mail-in ballots in Minnesota, established universal vote-by-mail in California, and authorized drop boxes in Pennsylvania, all without input from lawmakers.
"The question presented in this case, at root, is who is vested with the power to decide the when, what, where, and how of the American people’s exercise of self-government," the North Carolina GOP’s petition reads.
A victory for North Carolina Republicans would have immediate national ramifications. Republicans control 30 statehouses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and would be positioned to swiftly implement long-sought changes to voting rules without opposition from other branches of state government. They would also be in the driver’s seat for redistricting.
Top GOP entities like the RNC, the party’s congressional campaign arm, filed an amicus brief backing North Carolina Republicans.
The Court’s conservatives have already signaled their sympathy with the independent legislature position. In March, North Carolina Republicans asked the justices for an emergency order reinstating the legislature-drawn district lines. The High Court refused that request. In an opinion accompanying the order, Justice Samuel Alito said the Court will be forced to weigh in—and the sooner the better.
"If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections," Alito wrote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has expressed similar views.
Critics counter that independent legislature doctrine is hostile to states’ rights. Each state has laws and constitutional provisions which guarantee voting rights. Administrators and state courts enforce those laws to protect the political process. If the Supreme Court privileges the legislature over state constitutions and other branches of government, critics say, it will undermine federalism.
The idea that legislatures have unchecked power over elections was central to Trump’s push to undo election certification in several states. A coterie of outside loyalists urged Republican lawmakers in battleground states to ignore the election results and select pro-Trump electors, citing the untested independent legislature doctrine.
It is far from obvious that statehouse primacy on election regulation empowers lawmakers to ignore the will of the people. But progressives nonetheless cast Thursday’s grant as a sign the High Court will help Republicans cheat in 2024.
"We are witnessing a judicial coup in process," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) wrote on Twitter.
Convicted Illegal Alien Serial Killer, Accused of Killing 25 Elderly Americans, Indicted for Four Murders
Billy Chemirmir, a 48-year-old illegal alien accused of murdering 25 elderly Americans and convicted of murder this year, has been indicted for the murders of four of those Americans in Collin County, Texas.
In April, Chemirmir was convicted of murdering 81-year-old Lu Thi Harris, just one of his alleged 25 elderly victims. He is accused of murdering the victims, stealing from them, and then selling their belongings online from April 2016 to April 2018.
Chemirmir is believed to be Texas’s deadliest serial killer.
Now, Chemirmir has been indicted by Collin County prosecutors for four of the murders. The victims in the murder indictments are 90-year-old Marilyn Bixler, 79-year-old Diane Delahunty, 93-year-old Mamie Miya, and 82-year-old Helen Lee.
Lee was previously unnamed in the case.
“These indictments should serve as a reminder that every victim of a violent crime deserves to have their case investigated and prosecuted, and Collin County law enforcement and prosecutors will work every day to hold violent offenders accountable,” Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis said in a statement.
The Angel Families released a statement, writing:
We the families and loved ones of Marilyn Bixler, Diane Delahunty, Helen Lee, and Mamie Miya are grateful to hear of today’s four additional capital murder indictments. These indictments are another step in holding Billy Chemirmir accountable for the full extent of his horrible crimes. We’d like to thank police and prosecutors for listening to us, and for their continued efforts to see that justice is done for all the victims and their loved ones. [Emphasis added]
Chemirmir was previously indicted in Collin County on five counts of capital murder and two counts of attempted capital murder. The cases are pending and Chemirmir is set for trial in October.
Chemirmir’s conviction in April came after his initial murder trial in Dallas County was declared a mistrial when one juror on the 12-member jury ensured that the case’s verdict remained “hopelessly deadlocked,” according to the jury.
Aside from Harris, Chemirmir has been linked to 24 other victims:
- 83-year-old Leah Corken
- 82-year-old Juanita Purdy
- 88-year-old Mary Brooks
- 84-year-old Minnie Campbell
- 82-year-old Ann Conklin
- 75-year-old Rosemary Curtis
- 85-year-old Norma French
- 92-year-old Doris Gleason
- 81-year-old Carolyn MacPhee
- 81-year-old Miriam Nelson
- 91-year-old Phyllis Payne
- 94-year-old Phoebe Perry
- 80-year-old Martha Williams
- 82-year-old Joyce Abramowitz
- 87-year-old Glenna Day
- 89-year-old Solomon Spring
- 90-year-old Doris Wasserman
- 86-year-old Margaret White
- 79-year-old Diana Delahunty
- 93-year-old Mamie Dell Miya
- 86-year-old Catherine Probst Sinclair
- 90-year-old Marilyn Bixler
- An 81-year-old “Jane Doe”
- 82-year-old Helen Lee
Soon after Chemirmir’s arrest in May 2019, Breitbart News exclusively reported that Chemirmir, born in Kenya, first arrived in the U.S. on a B-2 tourist visa in July 2003. Though Chemirmir was supposed to only temporarily be in the U.S., he overstayed his visa and became an illegal alien, eligible for deportation.
Rather than being deported — which would have made him ineligible to ever secure legal status in the U.S. — Chemirmir was able to use a loophole in the nation’s legal immigration system, allowing him to obtain a green card after marrying an American citizen. In November 2007, Chemirmir was approved for a green card.
Chemirmir had a criminal record, Breitbart News exclusively learned, including convictions for drunk driving, trespassing, assault, and obstructing a police officer.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment