Author Archives: eehines

Republicans Created Harris’ Title of Border Czar?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of The Wall Street Journal news room writers.

Republicans exaggerated her role to label the vice president as “border czar,” though her initiative was much narrower.

They also claim that Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ DOC was working with Northern Triangle nations to reduce the illegal alien flood. That last, not so much. Here’s Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s own statement announcing his appointment of Harris to the post:

I’ve asked her, the VP, today—because she’s the most qualified person to do it—to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help—are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.

Not just the Triangle nations—included in Harris’ portfolio are Mexico, which is our southern border and those “countries…going to need help,” which are the aggregated origin of all of the illegal aliens flooding across our southern border.

Regarding the title—label if you prefer—Border Czar, Andrew Arthur, writing shortly after Harris’ appointment in a piece for the Center for Immigration Studies, noted

the executive branch has used the term loosely for almost 60 years to describe an official with a portfolio that includes the duties of other officials.

That’s hardly a current, Republican, creation. Instead, here’s the press, specifically, the New York Post, just two weeks after her appointment. First, the headline:

Where is Kamala? Two weeks since being named border czar, Harris still hasn’t visited

And in the body:

Instead, in her first two weeks as czar, she has traveled….

And NBC News, referring to Harris’ immediate predecessor:

In a statement Friday announcing that Roberta Jacobson, Biden’s border czar who has played a key role….

And so on.

Maybe the WSJ needs to get a new crop of interns for its newsroom research function. Or more accurate writers.

Fact “Checking”

Posted on by
Reply

USA Today now is claiming that Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has visited our southern border twice. Harris has visited US southern border twice as vice president | Fact check goes the paper’s headline. The outlet even cited the El Paso Times (it’s necessary to look to the byline under the headline to see that the article is from the live reporting of Times‘ writers).

That live reporting, though, carries only reporting of Harris’ visit to the Customs and Border Protection processing facility that sits well back from the border. Times writers do make passing references to Harris “heading to” the Paso del Norte International Bridge and her claimed intention to “tour” the border fence, but there’s no reporting by these on-scene writers that she actually arrived or toured—which surely they would have done had she done so.

My rating of USA Today‘s fact “check:” FALSE

USA Today misleads again.

O the other hand, even if she has visited the border twice, that’s still breathtakingly few times for the Border Czar to have visited it over her three-and-a-half years of being charged with dealing with her and Biden’s border crisis and the flood of illegal aliens pouring in.

The spacing of Harris’ visit(s) is illustrative of her own lackadaisical attitude toward our border. Her first visit, if it occurred, was ‘way back in June 2021. She’s been nowhere near our border (though she has successfully made it to Europe) since then until this campaign season when she made a campaign stop to visit the Arizona border (actually, this time) last September.

Naked Threats of Vengeance

Posted on by
Reply

This is what the leftist American Bar Association is tolerating in its midst—intolerance to the point of seeking destruction of those who don’t kowtow to their ideology.

[A] group called “The 65 Project” has taken to social media vowing to go after the licenses of attorneys who chose to work for former President Donald Trump.

Apparently, only the Precious Left and a section of the ABA guild are allowed to use the courts to seek election integrity.

The 65 Project isn’t troubling itself with facts in their attacks, either. Here’s Managing Director Michael Teter:

Across the country, lawyers who lent their credibility as officers of the court to Donald Trump to file factually and legally baseless claims to overturn legitimate election results have been investigated by state bar associations, been fined, had their licenses suspended, and even disbarred[.]

Not so much. The vast majority of the cases brought over election results never got to the merits, legitimate or baseless; they were dismissed on procedural or other grounds. Further, “across the country” is a cynical exaggeration. Only a very few lawyers have been sanctioned over the cases they brought.

Alan Dershowitz, still a staunch Democrat and Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus, has the correct characterization of the project’s shenanigans:

It’s pure McCarthyism. And unethical. And it’s scaring some lawyers away.

This is what wants to rule over us. Keep it in mind next month.

Drones Over our Domestic Military Bases

Posted on by
Reply

Now we’re getting reports, and sightings, of drones flying over our military bases, installations like the East Coast Langley Air Force Base.

For several nights, military personnel had reported a mysterious breach of restricted airspace over a stretch of land that has one of the largest concentrations of national-security facilities in the US The show usually starts 45 minutes to an hour after sunset, another senior leader told [USAF General Mark] Kelly.

And

Two months earlier, in October 2023, five drones flew over a government site used for nuclear-weapons experiments.

No one in our government has any idea of the origin or purpose of the drone overflights, but that isn’t the worst of this. Instead, while the overflights are illegal,

Federal law prohibits the military from shooting down drones near military bases in the US unless they pose an imminent threat.

This is the worst of it, and this law needs to be changed. Aside from the obvious—espionage flights over our military bases are most certainly an imminent, as well as a long-term threat—in a conflict, those drones will be armed but otherwise indistinguishable from the drones that have illegally flying over our bases for some time.

Not Black?

Posted on by
Reply

Now ex-President Barack Obama (D) is making plain (as if it hasn’t been for some time) the Progressive-Democratic Party’s contempt for Americans ignorant enough not to buy Party’s line.

You’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses; I’ve got a problem with that. Because part of it makes me think—and I’m speaking to men directly—part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.

Because, after all, it couldn’t possibly be that Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris is a lousy candidate. It couldn’t possibly be that Americans who happen to be black men don’t like the Party candidate for economic, border, foreign policy reasons having nothing to do with her skin color or gender.

Those characteristics were the explicit reasons for which then-Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden picked her for his running mate. It’s apparent that, Obama’s contempt to the contrary, black men are smarter than that when they consider who should get their vote.

This is Obama echoing then-Party candidate Joe Biden’s 2020 racist claim that if a black American doesn’t support him that person isn’t really black.