But apart from ethnic pimps trying to get money from the government, no authentic person calls himself a “Hispanic.” They’re “Portuguese,” “Cuban” or “Colombian” — and they don’t think of themselves as “brown.”
Everybody else is from a country.
It’s an insult to imagine that recent immigrants are all in a simmering rage at Trump’s affront to the brown masses. Salvadorans and Guatemalans resent having to pretend they’re Mexican — much less Mexican illegal immigrant rapists.
Mexico is heaving Hondurans out of their country. El Salvador and Honduras went to war over a soccer game. But we’re supposed to imagine that the moment they cross the Rio Grande, they all become blood brothers.
The only people who believe in something called “Hispanics” are white liberals and the RNC. The condescending class is not happy unless they are infantilizing minorities.
Republicans B.T. (Before Trump) worked overtime to reinforce these artificial group identities as one big happy (and aggrieved) family, constantly babbling about reaching out to — as Rand Paul says — “blacks and browns.”
Has he heard of Compton? The city memorialized in the song “Straight Outta Compton,” by the hip-hop group N.W.A. (modern translation: African-Americans With Attitude), is now majority Mexican.
This dramatic transformation didn’t happen because “blacks and browns” came together in peace and harmony in our vibrant melting pot, but because Mexicans moved in and decided they wanted blacks out, which they accomplished with violent racist attacks and drive-by shootings.
Unlike white Americans, Mexicans are unguiltable.
Nearly 20 years ago, both black and Hispanic Americans begged Congress to do something about illegal immigration. Rich white people see illegal immigrants only as their maids. Blacks and Hispanics live in their neighborhoods.
Terry Anderson, a black radio talk show host from South Central Los Angeles, told a U.S. House subcommittee on immigration in 1999 how illegal immigration had changed his predominantly black community. (That was then; today South Central is 99 percent Mexican.) He said all anyone ever hears about is the “poor, poor immigrant,” and the immigrant worker, “who works harder than the black person works and he will take the job that nobody else takes.”
But, Anderson said: “You never hear that every time that illegal alien comes here, he displaces somebody else ….
“You never hear about all the race-based organizations that step forth and advocate for the illegal alien. You have MALDEF, MEChA, LULAC, La Raza and others who are exclusive only to one race of people and advocate for those people only …
“(You) will never hear from these people about the 17-year-old black kid in my neighborhood who went to McDonald’s and was told you can’t work here because you don’t speak Spanish.”
In response to Anderson’s claim that only Spanish-speakers could get jobs at McDonald’s, Democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee tried to put the onus entirely on McDonald’s. Anderson wasn’t having any of it.
Every time Rep. Lee tried to say the responsibility belonged to corporate America, Anderson responded with, “And to the illegal alien who takes the job. Yes, ma’am.”
Would any politician ever blame the foreign law-breakers themselves? That’s a rhetorical question — the answer is “no.” Until Trump.
A Latina witness, Angie Morfin from Salinas, California, told the committee that illegals were bringing “crime, gangs and an overloaded social safety net” and that “the Latino-American citizens of our community want illegals removed.” She blamed Reagan’s amnesty for the rise of Mexican gangs in the U.S., saying, “You gave them a right.”
Republicans obsessed with winning the “Hispanic vote” act as if these Hispanics don’t exist. The only Hispanics in their circle of concern are those who broke into our country illegally.
By constantly groveling to ethnic activists, the GOP simply confirmed the idea that people should see themselves as ethnic identity groups — and ought to be bloc-voting for whichever party offers their team the most goodies.
Their argument to Hispanics was: We’ll give you everything the Democrats are offering, but not as much. Paul Ryan’s “opportunity society!” was not cutting it.
Democrats must go home and laugh themselves silly at the GOP’s incompetence at sucking up to minorities. We buffaloed them out of talking about immigration once again!
Instead of cooing at immigrants and trying to lick their necks, Trump treats them like Americans.
They like America! They came here. And they’d like good-paying jobs without the endless competition of cheap foreign labor.
Trump’s plan to stop job-killing trade deals, H1-B workers replacing American workers, and the dump of millions of low-skilled workers on the country has made him the great unifier!
The media’s only move is to quadruple down on the phony “racism” charges. But to accuse Trump of “racism” because he wants to protect jobs for our own poor, working-class and native-born is like squeezing a balloon. His popularity with the employers of nannies and diversity coordinators may be in the dumps, but oh my gosh — look at what’s happening at the other end! It looks like Americans want jobs!
Let Hillary produce studies showing that it’s much better for African-Americans to have to compete with Mexicans. Yes, that’ll work!
No one really enjoys thinking of himself as a victim. Trump sees Americans as winners and he doesn’t care if you’re black, white, gay or a disabled Eskimo. He’ll bring back jobs for everyone — except the plutocrats outsourcing manufacturing and importing cheap labor while making the rest of us subsidize their foreign workforces.
Because of his positions on immigration, Trump has a sneaky appeal to everybody. For more on how great America is going to be under our next president, get In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, out this week.
worst case of the flu, and you c an understand why I am not posting today.
Monday, August 29, 2016
issue 326
TOPSTORIES
[Re:’Muslim Activist Qudosi Banned Permanently From Facebook’]: The CCIF have blocked me too! If you even suggest reformation or that secular values are more important you are branded racist! Since when has Islam been a race?
No smoke she says. How about this?
Hillary’s good pal, Loretta Lynch at the (increasingly-inappropriately-named-under-the-Obama-administration) Department of Justice 
Kevin Daley, Legal Affairs Reporter / 08/23/2016
Bearing Arms editor Bob Owens outlines how Hillary will destroy your gun rights, and she can do it 
A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.
Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.
The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”
Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:
The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.
McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.
Implications for Policy
The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.
Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.
The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.
This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.
The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.” (If the image below does not play, please proceed to https://youtu.be/O9RE_VD1nf8)
Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”
They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”
Findings on Transgender Issues
The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:
Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:
Policymakers should take these findings very seriously. For example, the Obama administration recently finalized a new Department of Health and Human Services mandate that requires all health insurance plans under Obamacare to cover sex reassignment treatments and all relevant physicians to perform them. The regulations will force many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and treatments, even if doing so violates their moral and religious beliefs or their best medical judgment.
Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.
Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes
The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:
What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”
But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.
As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”
Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling
Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”
Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”
These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”
But the science does not show this.
While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.
In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.
As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”
We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves.