theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Are Liberals HOPELESSLY Irrational?

No matter how consistently liberal economic policies fail, progressives continue to believe that by doing the same thing repeatedly, they will get a different result.

Image result for irrational liberals

Robert Arvay

In theory, two intelligent people who disagree on something, should be able to discuss the matter and resolve the issue. In practice, I have (to my dismay) found this not to be the case. Some people seem never to learn from experience. For example, no matter how consistently liberal economic policies fail, progressives continue to believe that by doing the same thing repeatedly, they will get a different result.
There are too many anecdotes to recount here, but two of them, from my personal experience, should suffice.
I was employed in an office with mostly liberal coworkers. About two or three days before the Thanksgiving Day holiday, a charming young lady called to make airline reservations for the day before the event. When told (over the telephone) the price, she seemed horrified. I could not of course hear the other end of the conversation, but she asked, what gives you the right to charge so much just because it’s a holiday?
I would have stayed out of it, but the lady asked me directly, what I thought of, in her term, airline price gouging. I briefly tried to explain to her that if the airline charged the everyday price, the flight would have been booked solid weeks before, and she would still not be able to fly. She rejected that reply. Even when another office worker (a liberal who had voted for Al Gore for president!) explained the matter to her, it was all to no avail. The lady just felt that somehow, some way, the airlines could provide unlimited numbers of seats at the off-season price, to the destination she desired. I am sure that she still feels that way. Oh, the unfairness of it all!
In another instance of irrationality, a woman who disputed the balance due on her account defied the math. After I failed to quickly find any discrepancy, I offered to go over the record with her, line by line, in search of any disputed charges, or unrecorded payments. I felt confident that we would either find and correct the error, or else, confirm the accuracy of the billing statement. As I reviewed the statement with her, I asked at every point, is the running total correct so far? Be sure and tell me if it is not. For about half an hour, we went methodically through the record, and at every single point, the lady affirmed the correctness of the balance due. Arithmetic does not lie.
But when we got to the final line, the correct balance due, she said, well that just can’t be right. I know I don’t owe that much. At that point, I realized that she was simply irrational, and told her that it was now her responsibility to find any error. She admitted that she could not, but still disputed the balance due. I leave it to you to discern her economic philosophy. Can she possibly be a fiscal conservative?
Many more examples of this sort could be offered, but by now I am certain that anyone reading this (assuming that liberals will not read this) understands the point. One final anecdote follows.
In 1990, a tax on luxury yachts actually reduced tax revenues and increased unemployment. The tax was finally repealed (in 1992) with bipartisan support, but only after much harm had already been done to the economy. Yet, to this day, progressives still favor “tax the rich” policies, despite the fact that higher tax rates that exceed the optimum actually reduce tax revenues and impose harm on working people. Even Barack Obama, in his first presidential campaign, admitted as much -- but he still supported those kinds of taxes because they were, in his words, fair. It is simply “unfair” not to tax the rich, even if doing so harms the poor. As far as I know, prominent liberals never questioned this irrational statement.
The 2016 presidential election campaign underscored the enormous divide between those who believe that government is the solution, and those who understand that, too often, government creates the problems it claims to solve. Just ask the unemployed blue-collar Democrats who voted for Trump.
One might hope that a careful discussion with the liberal side could help resolve the disagreement, but when the other side not only refuses to have the discussion, but actually uses violence to silence those who dissent, then we are dealing with something much worse than mere irrationality.

The American Founders Knew A VIRTUOUS Republic REQUIRES Virtuous People

Incredibly, it has become controversial to argue the founding founders supported natural rights and the need to cultivate moral citizenry. In the 'The Political Theory of the American Founding,' Thomas G. West offers a convincing and necessary corrective to modern scholarship.

The American Founders Knew A Virtuous Republic Requires Virtuous People

Mike Sabo

“Does this nation in its maturity still cherish the faith in which it was conceived and raised? Does it still hold those ‘truths to be self-evident’?”
This is the pivotal question the political philosopher Leo Strauss raised in the opening pages of his most well-known book, Natural Right and History. Quoting part of the famous second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Strauss implied that the knowledge of founding principles and continued belief in their truth were vital to the success of the American experiment in self-government.
But if recent findings are any indication, Americans’ acquaintance with the founders’ principles and practices seems to be at a nadir. According to a report of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a majority of college graduates can’t recall “the substance of the First Amendment, or the origin of the separation of powers.” Perhaps most alarmingly, “nearly 10% say that Judith Sheindlin—‘Judge Judy’—is on the Supreme Court.” A big part of the problem seems to stem from the fact that of the 1,100 “liberal arts colleges and universities” surveyed, just “18%” require students to take a course on American history or government before graduation.
Though certainly more classes and study are necessary to correct these glaring deficiencies, scholar Thomas G. West suggests that the problems go much deeper. While professors are undoubtedly intelligent, he argues that their views on America—especially regarding our nation’s founding—have some serious flaws.

Truth Above All

In his new book The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom, West sets out to remedy this problem. West, professor of politics at Hillsdale College and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, gives a comprehensive overview of the founders’ political theory and the intricate web of policies that flowed from those principles. (For what it’s worth, I am former student of West.) This sober and deeply learned work represents the culmination of decades of serious study and reflection on the American founding. And it might just be the best book ever written on the subject.
In his previous book Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America, West defended the founders’ natural law and natural rights principles and controversial policies from historians and public intellectuals, liberals and conservatives who have attacked them as controversial according to contemporary standards. But as West says in the introduction to his new work, he did not understand at the time how much those principles were simply misunderstood:
After I published Vindicating, I became increasingly aware that for many people—often including scholars who might be expected to know better—the founders’ political theory might well be buried in some deep dark and long-forgotten pit. My task, then, has something in common with archeology—digging up old bones. But these bones, unlike those of long-dead Romans or Chinese, are of interest today because they claim to be living principles based on timeless truths. 

What makes West unique among scholars and historians, then, is that he actually “treats the founders’ political theory as if it might be true.” In an age when an easy-going historicism envelops the American mind and History itself is thought to pick winners and losers, this standpoint is refreshing. West comes from the perspective not of the dogmatic skeptic nor the blind zealot but of a concern for the truth of things above all.
West divides his book into three overarching sections: an overview of the founders’ political theory, an argument for why they thought government should inculcate citizen morality and virtue, and an extended examination of their views on property and economics. As he reasonably argues in the book’s introduction, before we can praise or condemn the founders, we must “first know” both “why the founders set up the regime they did” and “how their political order worked.”
West more than lives up to the daunting task he sets before himself.

The Founders’ Political Theory of Natural Rights

In the book’s first section, West argues that a “natural rights doctrine” is at “the core of the founders’ political theory.” This stance sits squarely against the bulk of scholarship on the American founding, which tends to view the founders’ theory as a combination of liberalism (natural rights), republicanism, Scottish enlightenment theory, British common law, and Protestant theology, among other elements.
West, by contrast, posits that although “the conditions and traditions of colonial America before 1776” were surely important, natural rights determined “which traditions would continue and which would be discarded.” This argument is a useful corrective to the popular idea in certain circles that America is a “proposition nation”—meaning that it is defined solely by “abstract principles” without regard to any other considerations such as citizen character.
Citing a copious amount of primary sources, West meticulously pieces together the founders’ political theory. Natural rights are the inalienable liberties all human beings possess, not through government largesse, but by nature. Because “all men are created equal” in the sense “that there are no natural masters or natural slaves,” everyone has the natural liberty to order his life “without interference from other people.” Among these rights are the right to life, possessing and acquiring property, religious liberty, and to seek happiness—what West calls “the goal of human life.”
On the reverse side of rights are the duties all men have not to transcend the moral limits on the use of their rights. The founders called these natural limits the law of nature, or natural law. Natural law, which can be discovered through the faculty of reason, is “both the source of natural rights and a statement of our duties.” West argues that “natural liberty exists only within the moral limits of the law of nature.” Liberty, in other words, does not equal license.
Because all men are created equal, just government can only be founded on the unanimous consent of individuals who want to protect their rights, which are insecure outside of civil society. (The founders called the condition in which there is no common authority to protect against infringements of one’s rights the state of nature.) “The logic of the equality principle,” West contends, “necessarily leads to the right of the people to rule themselves in person or through elected representatives.” Consent, then, must be granted not only at the founding of a regime but also in the course of its operation, lest it degenerate into a tyranny.
Finally, West notes that the government’s purpose is to secure the natural rights of all who are under its auspices. Government violations of the people’s rights may justify the people to resort to what John Locke called an “appeal to heaven”—the natural right of the people to revolt and institute a new government that secures their safety and happiness.

Teaching Virtue

With the founders’ political theory fully sketched out, West turns to an important argument about how they conceived of virtue and the government’s role in inculcating it among citizens.
Against the view of scholars such as Thomas Pangle, Allan Bloom, and Harvey Mansfield, West contends that the founders were far from being concerned only with low bourgeois virtues, such as acquisitiveness, and comfortable self-preservation. In fact, they considered “virtue as a condition of freedom and a requirement of the laws of nature.”
West argues forcefully that the project of sustaining our republic is not satisfied simply by getting government out of the way.
Many public documents from the time spoke of the need for social and republican virtues within the populace such as justice (i.e., obeying the law), moderation, benevolence, temperance, industry, frugality, religious piety, and a responsibility among the people’s representatives to secure their good. In times of war, however, virtues of strength such as courage, leadership, bravery, vigor, and manly exertion are required. “Virtue is of concern to government not as an end in itself, but as a means to security and ultimately to happiness,” West concludes.
Opposed to the libertarian ethos that has consumed much of the Right, West argues forcefully that the project of sustaining our republic is not satisfied simply by getting government out of the way. The founders thought it was the duty of government (at least at the state level) to encourage virtue through public education, support for religious instruction, and a vast network of laws that discourage crime and promote stable families.
West understands, therefore, the decisive role politics plays in shaping the character of the regime. Contra Andrew Breitbart and most commentators on politics today, politics in its highest sense is not downstream from culture. “To know whether a culture is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, liberating or oppressive,” Charles Kesler once remarked, “one has to be able to look at it from outside or above the culture.” That is, in the founders’ view culture should conform to principles of political justice that are true for all men everywhere.
While West ably proves his arguments here, one wishes he would have critiqued more recent scholarship such as the work of Yuval Levin, whose impressive books and essays deserve a careful and thoughtful appraisal.

Property Rights and Economics

West devotes the book’s last section to an extended examination of the founders’ thoughts on property rights and economics.
Because today’s defenders of capitalism such as Sen. Ted Cruz talk only about the utility of property rights, it is no wonder that ‘capitalism comes to be seen as low.’
The founders featured two arguments when discussing property rights: justice and utility. From the standpoint of justice, property rights are “a fundamental right that would be morally wrong to infringe.” Property rights seen from the standpoint of utility provide “usefulness to life and society.”
But because today’s defenders of capitalism such as Sen. Ted Cruz talk only about the utility of property rights, it is no wonder that “capitalism comes to be seen as low.” This is likely is a major reason why a certain strain of socialism—which, as David Azerrad of the Heritage Foundation has argued, is nothing other than “a continuation of liberalism by other means”—has been making a comeback in America over the last few decades.
West also highlights an important but overlooked part of the founders’ theory of property rights: human beings have the right to possess and acquire property. They thought this important so that “the poor as well as the rich can benefit from property rights.” This stands in stark contrast to feudal ages in which serfs had virtually no prospects of climbing the ladder of opportunity and making their own way in life.
Though founders such as Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed over policies to secure property rights, West argues that they shared a consensus on principles. They agreed on widespread private ownership, the importance of establishing a domestic free market, and the necessity of having a “precious-metals monetary standard.” In an implicit rebuke to conservatives who tend to view global free trade as a principle of natural right, West notes that “considerations of interest” above all determined the founders’ trade policy. The founders, he rightly points out, did not believe “in laissez-faire economics at the expense of American prosperity or national defense.”
The book culminates with West’s overall conclusions on the founders’ project:
The nobility of the founding consists in its realism about the self-interested nature of man, combined with its idealism about building a government that serves the common good by enabling people to acquire enough property to live, while making it possible for people in their private lives to serve God in the way they believed best and to cultivate their minds without being tormented by persecution.
In attempting to understand the founders as they understood themselves, West has done a yeoman’s service not only for scholarship on the American founding, but also for showing how a republican polity must be maintained. This book should be on the bookshelf of every scholar and patriot who cares about the continued success of that nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

OpEd: The Multi-Cultural Farce

theodore  M I R A L D I.

Culture is the guiding characteristic of every society across the globe. What may astonish many, is that merely 10% of the world lives with the positive effects of Western Society. Western Culture has tamed the savage beast, giving the individual freedom of choice and higher standards of living.

But most of all, it has given higher morality a conscience in a world ripe for disasters each and every day. It's why most Western Constitutional Democracies/Republics have incremental type governments filled with checks and balances.

Many nations take Immigrants from around the world guided by the old maxim that assimilation into the cultural norms of their adopted countries are expected. Not so any longer, and that's the heart of the problem.

In the past the only way outside invaders could hijack your community was by physical force, laying the groundwork to change the norms. Now, we gleefully invite individuals from savage nations to disrupt the public safety and destroy the rule of law.

What we are seeing today are immigrants from nations with the most dysfunctional cultures crossing our borders and disrupting our social and cultural norms.

We have seen the dramatic results in our cities, towns and communities and sit idly by contemplating the usefulness of marginal players upon an ever expanding welfare community.

And although Immigrants have contributed to our expansion and power in the past, the majority of the newly arrived care less about becoming American citizens. 

We are being raped, morally, economically and legally by a wave Immigrants bent on confrontation and bully tactics. They call Americans Racists who stand up and defend our Laws or Beliefs. 

The United States has been looked upon as the last best hope for the world, by the rest of the world.

Immigrants have been welcomed and embraced throughout our history. Those who feel they have some special privilege are wrong. We as a society give that honor to those who are deserving. 

It's time to put the bullies back in the bottle! If you're here Illegally, you have NO RIGHTS!

Thirty years ago, I said the huge influx of Immigrants from our southern border would set our nation back 40-50 years in social development. Why? The left decided that assimilation was either too much trouble for government to oversee, or the immigrants themselves had no intention of assimilation into an English speaking nation. Seeing no clear future adjustment in policy the flood gates remained open.

Americans are now seeing the truth regarding this charade from the left as merely a plan to make this nation less white, and by extension less successful. What could be more irrational than that?

I suggest anyone who still promotes the fantasy that cultures must be embraced should move their wives and children into a community filled with foreigners who disrespect our citizens and nation daily. Try getting a job, try defending your national honor.

It is apparent in cluster communities. The same communities civil rights leaders have opposed as a form of segregation. Have we learned so little, or is this a planned invasion? 

One must feel the fear of an ever growing population that wants to tear away the foundations of Western Culture. It's the very culture that offers the rest of the world hope of a better and safer life.

Diluting the power of the American Dream needs to be resisted at all costs.

The fact that there are more Non-English speaking immigrants in our nation than any time in history should be a dead give-away regarding non-assimilation.

Immigration needs to be slow and with the intent, so that anyone who wants our Freedoms must prove their allegiance to our standards of an orderly society, and not that of a nation that they are fleeing.

When you have figures like Jose Ramos spewing his hatred of White America and its values, gleeful of a possible future when Whites will become the minority, it's time to act.

Multi-Culturism is failing around the world, and it's not the first time! 

My apologies to those Immigrants who love and serve our nation, sometimes with their lives. We welcome you with open arms.

To those who insist on resistance, maybe you're in the wrong place.

Friday, April 28, 2017

NKOREA Official Calls US Efforts to Rid Nukes a 'WILD DREAM'



UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- North Korea's deputy U.N. ambassador said Friday that U.S. efforts to get rid of his country's nuclear weapons through military threats and sanctions are "a wild dream."
Kim In Ryong told The Associated Press that North Korea's nuclear weapons are never part of "political bargains and economic deals."

"In a nutshell, DPRK have already declared not to attend any type of talks which would discuss its nuclear abandonment, nuclear disbandment," he said, using the acronym for the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Kim reiterated North Korea's longstanding contention that its nuclear program "is the product of the United States hostile policy towards DPRK."

"That is why every solution will be possible when the United States hostile policy is withdrawn in advance," he said.

Kim "categorically rejected" Friday's U.N. Security Council meeting on the North Korean nuclear issue - which his country declined to attend - as "another abuse" of the council's authority, acting on instructions of the United States which is a veto-wielding member.

The United States holds the council presidency this month and organized the ministerial session that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson chaired.

Tillerson called for new sanctions on North Korea and urged all countries to exert pressure on Pyongyang and implement the six U.N. sanctions resolutions. He also stressed that the Trump administration will only engage in talks with Pyongyang when it exhibits "a good faith commitment" to implement Security Council resolutions "and their past promises to end their nuclear programs."

Kim responded saying: "As we expected, (the) U.S. has taken issue with self-defensive nuclear deterrent of the DPRK, and not only to justify their anti-DPRK aggressive war racket but also to create atmosphere for sanctions against DPRK at any cost."

He said the United States "is wholly to blame for pushing the situation on the Korean Peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war by staging the largest-ever joint aggression military drills against the DPRK for the past two months" and deploying "nuclear strategic assets" to South Korea.
While the United States once talked about nuclear disarmament, Kim said it is spending a trillion dollars "in a bid to secure a nuclear edge" - and he said this issue should be addressed "before tabling the denuclearization of the DPRK."

"The nuclear force of the DPRK just serves as a treasured sword of justice and creditable war deterrent to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the country and global peace from the U.S. threat to ignite a nuclear war," Kim said.



Image result for North Korea test-fires a ballistic missile 4/28/2017
North Korea launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan on Friday, two U.S. officials have confirmed to Fox News. 
The missile has been assessed to be a KN-17, a former Scud missile that officials believe is being tested to one day target ships.  
The missile flew roughly 25 miles and was in the air for about 15 minutes, officials tell Fox News. The KN-17 was launched from Pukchang. 
It is not immediately clear if this missile launch was successful. The U.S. Pacific Command and US Strategic command is still assessing.
“The only way a Scud gets a new designation is if it is substantially different,” said Jeffrey Lewis, a scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.
The KN-17 is a single-stage, liquid-fueled missile -- not the three-stage, solid-fuel missile that North Korea successfully tested back in February, which caused more concern among Pentagon officials.
North Korea routinely test-fires a variety of ballistic missiles, despite United Nations prohibitions, as part of its push to develop a long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting U.S. shores.
Monday, the Pentagon announced it was conducting a new nuclear posture review, two days after North Korea failed to launch a new type of ballistic missile, which exploded four seconds after launch.
The latest failed test over the weekend occurred hours before Vice President Pence touched down in Seoul. On Monday, he visited the Demilitarized Zone on the border between North and South and warned the rogue communist regime against conducting further tests.
Today's launch comes at a time when the Trump administration is considering how to deal with the threat from North Korea. Several administration officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, have said that the era of "strategic patience" with North Korea is now over. 
On Friday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the United Nations to take new sanctions against North Korea.
Last year, Pyongyang attempted to launch a Musudan missile on April 15, an auspicious date on which millions celebrate Kim II Sung's birthday. The secretive, isolated regime has already had several missile launch tests this year. 
Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Spooked by the POWER of Words, Words, Words

Demonstrators sharing opposing views argue during a rally Thursday, April 27, 2017, in Berkeley, Calif. Demonstrators gathered near the University of California, Berkeley campus amid a strong police presence and rallied to show support for free speech and condemn the views of Ann Coulter and her supporters. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Wesley Pruden

The only thing anyone is allowed to hear on campus is a slogan. Thinking is so 20th century (and early 20th century at that). The adults paid to be in charge have retreated to a safe place, where never is heard an encouraging word and the skies are cloudy all day.
The First Amendment has been under the latest assault for months, and this week Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and onetime chairman of the Democratic Party, finally said out loud what certain prominent Democrats have hinted at and alluded to, that free speech does not necessarily include extending it to anyone who disagrees with them.
This poison spread, like so much of the toxic stuff polluting the body politic, from the campuses of the elite. Particularly the University of California at Berkeley, where visiting speakers with something to say can’t say it because it might offend the sophomore class. Cowardice rules in the university president’s office and ignorance rules in Sproul Plaza. A speech by Ann Coulter, the firebrand columnist, was canceled because everyone was afraid of what she might say.
Miss Coulter, a slender woman who might weigh 90 pounds stepping out of a shower, was eager to take her chances facing down the mob to say her piece, whatever that piece might have been, but the Berkeley cops, the university administration, the sponsoring Young America’s Foundation and the College Republicans, all trembled, looked one way and then the other, and took a powder lest the hooded brownshirts — dressed in black with robbers’ masks, actually — disrupt the tranquility of the campus.
The editors of National Review magazine observed with a bit of acid that Janet Napolitano, the president of the University of California System, was Barack Obama’s Director of Homeland Security and was responsible for keeping al Qaeda out of New York and Washington, but she can’t secure a lecture hall on a California college campus.
But even in defending free speech and all that free speech means, the editors prefaced their condemnation of cowardice and outrage at Berkeley with something of an apology for defending Miss Coulter: “We have had our differences with Ann Coulter over the years, differences that led to our eventually declining to continue publishing her work. She is charming and funny and sometimes brilliant. She is also a glib and irresponsible self-promoter. We suspect that she will not like having that written about her. We suspect that she might write something in reply.” But the editors think it is nevertheless wrong, or at least inappropriate, to chase her off the campus. Probably.
Howard Dean likes free speech and the First Amendment well enough, but with appropriate edits and the proper emendations. He looked at the work of the Founding Fathers with a physician’s eye and saw that the guarantee was not absolute, as the Founding Fathers thought it was. The amendment does not protect “hate speech,” which he thinks is anything unpleasant for a good fellow like him to hear.
The Founding Fathers thought they succeeded in writing the guarantee in stark, plain English — so plain and so clear, in fact, that even a lawyer could understand it: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” No ifs, ands, or buts, and not a single whereas. Nothing there about hate speech, exclusions, preclusions or exceptions.
This gives some people palpitations. It’s no mystery why such people are invariably at the likes of Berkeley and Yale and Middlebury. You’re not as likely to see or hear proposed footnotes to the First Amendment at the likes of Southeast North Dakota State, Utah A&M or Ouachita Baptist College.
“In First Amendment law,” says Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the distinguished professor of constitutional law at the University of Tennessee, “the term ‘hate speech’ is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether it’s hateful or cheerful. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist, sexist or in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories — like ‘true threats,’ which have to address a specific individual, or ‘incitement,’ which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action — it’s protected.”
There’s a reason why the Founders put the First Amendment first. It’s the most important part of the Constitution, and as important as the rest of the Bill of Rights is, the First Amendment is the most important. With free speech, the people are armed to protect all other rights. Without it, the people are disarmed, and tyrants, the vile and ignorant like the students on certain campuses among us, rule. We allow that at our deadly peril.

'We're NOT Going to STAND for Trump' We Have RIGHTS?

Image result for 'We're Not Going to Stand for Trump': Activist Spars With Tucker Over Illegal Immigrant Rights

Activist Spars With Tucker Over Illegal Immigrant Rights

Tucker Carlson debated a California activist planning another 'Day Without Immigrants' in protest of President Trump's proposed border wall and crackdown on illegal immigration.
Roberto Hernandez, who is planning a "May Day" protest next month, said undocumented farm workers are the hardest-working people on Earth and should be given refuge.
Carlson said he respects farm workers but that Hernandez is ignoring the fact some came to the United States illegally.
Hernandez said that most arguments against illegal immigration are moot because all people that are not Native Americans are immigrants.
Carlson said what Hernandez is advocating for is a "place without a government."
"We [will] rise up and we're not going to stand for having the Trump administration... build a wall and deport 11 million people," Hernandez said.
He asked Carlson again whether undocumented farm workers who labor in California's breadbasket have a right to a voice in the government.
"No," Carlson said.