Thursday, February 11, 2016

Californians Are Voting With Their Feet

RCM ^ | 02/11/2016 | Carson Bruno 

California has something of a migration problem. Yes, the state's population growth rate has been hovering just under 1% for a few years with natural increases and international net migration staying just strong enough for the state to continue growing, but California's consistent net domestic out-migration should be concerning to Sacramento as it develops state policy. As the adage goes, people vote with their feet and one thing is clear, more people are choosing to leave California than come.
First, a note about population growth. A state's population grows (or shrinks) based on two major components: one, natural increase - i.e. the difference between births and deaths - and two, net migration - i.e. difference between people moving in and out of the state. Within the migration category is domestic migration and immigration (i.e. international migration). Unfortunately for California, most of the categories are trending in the wrong direction for the state. While remaining positive, natural increases have been trending downward over the last decade-plus. Moreover, the state's domestic migration has consistently been negative. And even international migration, again while still positive, has been stagnant for some time.
By understanding who these net domestic out-migrants are, we can get a better sense as to why more people are leaving California than coming to the Golden State. Using the Census Bureau's March Supplemental Current Population Survey, we can get an approximation of just that. Between 2004 and 2015, roughly 930,000 more people left California than moved to the Golden State -just three years saw net domestic in-migration. The biggest beneficiaries of California's net loss are Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
California is bleeding working young professional families. Approximately 18% of net domestic out-migrants are children (ages 0 to 17), while another 36% are those between ages of 40 and 54.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

State Department: exposing top-secret info on unsecured e-mail chains is “a serious matter”

Hot Air ^ | February 11,2016 | ED MORRISSEY 

Well, that’s good to know. Almost a year after the revelation about Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized home-brew e-server and months of State Department blather about “overclassification” being the real issue, their spokesman finally admits that passing top-secret information through it is “a serious matter.” Better (seven years) late than never, I suppose
It’s enough for retired Defense Intelligence Agency chief Gen. Michael Flynn, who served in that role for President Barack Obama, to call for Hillary to withdraw from the presidential race:
Flynn and other high-ranking former intelligence officials told TheDCNF they are alarmed that some of the nation’s most highly classified documents contained in a secretive program called the Special Access Program (SAP) were transferred to Clinton’s unclassified home server.
The documents “had to be moved off electronically or removed out of the secure site physically, then it had to be put onto an unclassified email system,” Flynn said. “Someone who does this is completely irresponsible, but totally unaccountable and shows a streak of arrogance to the American public that is unworthy of anyone thinking they can run for President of the United States.”
“This is unbelievable,” Flynn said. “I don’t think anybody should be talking about her being potentially the next President of the United States.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Who is Donald Trump [interesting read] ^ | Jan 31, 2016 

"Who is Donald Trump?" The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?" The answer? A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment?
Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the "Republicans In Name Only." They know there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.
Ben Carson is not an "establishment" candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson; and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides - lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened (the nation elected an[islamo-]Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)
Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seI'ven them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why?
Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.
No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation's major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire. [Article is dated 1/31/16.]
Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:
- Anyone named Bush
- Anyone named Clinton
- Anyone who's held political office
- Political correctness
- Illegal immigration
- Massive unemployment
- Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures
- Welfare waste and fraud
- People faking disabilities to go on the dole
- VA waiting lists
- TSA airport groping
- ObamaCare
- The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes
- Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
- Michelle Obama's vacations
- Michelle Obama's food police
- Barack Obama's golf
- Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures
- Barack Obama's criticism/hatred of America
- Valerie Jarrett
- "Holiday trees"
- Hollywood hypocrites
- Global warming nonsense
- Cop killers
- Gun confiscation threats
- Stagnant wages
- Boys in girls' bathrooms
- Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century...
and that's just the short list.
Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, "Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!" The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. All the others argue that the voters will eventually "come to their senses" and support an establishment candidate.)
But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts - and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it. Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won't hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.
"How dare they revolt!" the "elites" are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it. "But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!" That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved "Maverick" McCain down GOP throats in 2008 - knowing he would lose to Obama. But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America's greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both - and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.
Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wander[ing] through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world's glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig.
Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city's water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions. Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don't care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations. While Attorney General Loretta Lynch's greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed [islamic] lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.
The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much.
You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, ... [their] cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we've seen before. The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush's Karl Rove or Clinton's John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little. If the establishment wins, America loses.

Will they Cruzify Ted?

The Spectator ^ | 2/11/16 | David Flint 

The progressive elites will try to do to Cruz what they did to Abbott
The American mainstream media, the Republican Party establishment and the Democratic Party are determined that Ted Cruz not be sworn in as the 45th president.
Anyone with that opposition must be formidable.
That he is. Campaigning against Federal ethanol subsidies in Iowa, a major corn producing state, and against all poll predictions, Cruz defeated the media's favourite, Donald Trump, receiving more votes than any Republican candidate ever had. Cruz is the candidate most motivated by his attachment to traditional American principles. For his opponents, these are principles to which lip service only should be accorded these days. But the principles under which a Cruz administration would operate are the very ones on which the American Republic was founded.
Cruz does not merely mouth the proposition that all men have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, he lives by this. As Texas Solicitor General he had been one of America's most successful public constitutional lawyers, with a string of successes in the Supreme Court. Having memorised it while still a schoolboy, the Constitution remains his guide to the good governance of the Union. By this he means the Constitution according to the original intention of the Founding Fathers, not that fictional 'living organism' which is the tool of activist judges who claim it means whatever they want it to mean.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...









Elect Me!








The source


Her shadow