Friday, May 13, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Obama’s Awful Message To Graduates
Townhall.com ^ | March 12, 2016 | Derek Hunter
Resident Obama wants you to know you aren’t responsible for your actions, and your choices in life aren’t nearly as important as luck. If that sounds stupid, it’s only because it is. Yet that was the message the president told graduating students at Howard University last Saturday, and few things could be more damaging.
The president’s commencement address, widely praised by liberals, was riddled with typically divisive progressive messages and an unfortunate amount of absolution of personal responsibility.
“We can't walk by a homeless man without asking why a society as wealthy as ours allows that state of affairs to occur,” the president said. “We can't just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options.”
This is the point in the speech where he starts to go off the rails. I understand when the first black president addresses a historically black college’s graduating class that he might carry a message not meant for me, as unproductive as I may think it is. But what he’s doing starting at this point is laying the groundwork for avoiding personal responsibility.
As for that homeless man the president spoke of, not many people are homeless after playing by the rules, working hard and staying within the law. People like that who find themselves in dire straits tend to have friends or family members willing to take them in.
No, the homeless people who are not mentally ill tend to be addicts – drugs or alcohol – or ex-cons who’ve burned all their bridges. Those are the results of choices, freely made. No one shot them up against their will till they were addicted. No one poured alcohol down their throats. No one forced them into crime. Society didn’t “have it out for them” at all. They chose a different path, and their choices had consequences.
The next line, “We can't just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options,” is easy – bad parenting and progressive politicians who’ve told that kid his whole life the system is “rigged” against him.
How does it help to tell people the system is rigged against them? What will they do when it’s not the system against them but the normal adversity that arrives whenever people work hard for something important? Will they stay the course and try to overcome? Or will they fall on the excuse they’ve been given? Bad choices become easier in this situation, but they’re still bad choices.
“We have cousins and uncles and brothers and sisters who we remember were just as smart and just as talented as we were, but somehow got ground down by structures that are unfair and unjust,” the president continued.
Again, Obama is acting like the Pope here absolving people of the choices they made and the consequences of those choices. Those people, were “ground down” by racism, he says. Here’s a tip: If your life sucks, 99.99 times out of 100 it’s your fault. Society isn’t “unfair and unjust;” it doesn’t know or care you exist.
Next came the crux of the horrible message the president was selling. “And that means we have to not only question the world as it is, and stand up for those African Americans who haven't been so lucky -- because, yes, you've worked hard, but you've also been lucky. That's a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don't realize they've been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn't nothing you did. So don't have an attitude.”
No, Mr. President, it was something they did. These kids who worked their asses off to earn their degrees did, in fact, “build that.” Luck had nothing to do with it; choices did.
They chose to work hard in high school to get into a good college. They chose to resist the temptations available to everyone. They chose to set a goal and accomplish it.
Perhaps the president believes luck is the overriding factor in life because he’s been so lucky. Without seeing his sealed school records, it’s unclear how a member of the Choom Gang who dabbled in cocaine in high school got into (let alone paid for) some of the nation’s most prestigious universities, so maybe he was lucky. But luck, for most people, is a reflection of how hard they work.
It’s luck when you win money in a casino; it’s not luck when a series of good choices culminate in their intended end. To insult graduates with a “if the coin had come up tails, you’d be in prison or on the streets” mentality misses the point of effort and cheapens earning.
That’s the president’s real goal. He and his fellow progressives want people to view effort as a sucker’s bet and the concept of earning something worthy of contempt. Society used to admire those who sacrificed, risked and achieved; now they’re the object of scorn.
The truth is, however your life is right now, was in the past, and will be in the future is a direct result of the choices you make. Barring catastrophe, no one choice will make or break you, which is why it’s important to make the best one possible when presented to you. Luck matters in coin tosses, not life.
You will not find successful people claiming luck as the key to their achievements unless they’re attempting to be humble. You will find losers blaming a lack of luck for their shortcomings and accusing the successful of being lucky because the concept of hard work and smart choices paying off is resented. But their dislike of reality makes it no less so.
The president did the students of Howard a major disservice, the same disservice he and his political fellow travelers have done to millions of Americans over generations. In absolving them of personal responsibility he’s discouraging them from trying, from striving to achieve.
In that sense, when the most powerful man in the world is telling you the system is rigged against you, he might be right.
Resident Obama wants you to know you aren’t responsible for your actions, and your choices in life aren’t nearly as important as luck. If that sounds stupid, it’s only because it is. Yet that was the message the president told graduating students at Howard University last Saturday, and few things could be more damaging.
The president’s commencement address, widely praised by liberals, was riddled with typically divisive progressive messages and an unfortunate amount of absolution of personal responsibility.
“We can't walk by a homeless man without asking why a society as wealthy as ours allows that state of affairs to occur,” the president said. “We can't just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options.”
This is the point in the speech where he starts to go off the rails. I understand when the first black president addresses a historically black college’s graduating class that he might carry a message not meant for me, as unproductive as I may think it is. But what he’s doing starting at this point is laying the groundwork for avoiding personal responsibility.
As for that homeless man the president spoke of, not many people are homeless after playing by the rules, working hard and staying within the law. People like that who find themselves in dire straits tend to have friends or family members willing to take them in.
No, the homeless people who are not mentally ill tend to be addicts – drugs or alcohol – or ex-cons who’ve burned all their bridges. Those are the results of choices, freely made. No one shot them up against their will till they were addicted. No one poured alcohol down their throats. No one forced them into crime. Society didn’t “have it out for them” at all. They chose a different path, and their choices had consequences.
The next line, “We can't just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options,” is easy – bad parenting and progressive politicians who’ve told that kid his whole life the system is “rigged” against him.
How does it help to tell people the system is rigged against them? What will they do when it’s not the system against them but the normal adversity that arrives whenever people work hard for something important? Will they stay the course and try to overcome? Or will they fall on the excuse they’ve been given? Bad choices become easier in this situation, but they’re still bad choices.
“We have cousins and uncles and brothers and sisters who we remember were just as smart and just as talented as we were, but somehow got ground down by structures that are unfair and unjust,” the president continued.
Again, Obama is acting like the Pope here absolving people of the choices they made and the consequences of those choices. Those people, were “ground down” by racism, he says. Here’s a tip: If your life sucks, 99.99 times out of 100 it’s your fault. Society isn’t “unfair and unjust;” it doesn’t know or care you exist.
Next came the crux of the horrible message the president was selling. “And that means we have to not only question the world as it is, and stand up for those African Americans who haven't been so lucky -- because, yes, you've worked hard, but you've also been lucky. That's a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don't realize they've been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn't nothing you did. So don't have an attitude.”
No, Mr. President, it was something they did. These kids who worked their asses off to earn their degrees did, in fact, “build that.” Luck had nothing to do with it; choices did.
They chose to work hard in high school to get into a good college. They chose to resist the temptations available to everyone. They chose to set a goal and accomplish it.
Perhaps the president believes luck is the overriding factor in life because he’s been so lucky. Without seeing his sealed school records, it’s unclear how a member of the Choom Gang who dabbled in cocaine in high school got into (let alone paid for) some of the nation’s most prestigious universities, so maybe he was lucky. But luck, for most people, is a reflection of how hard they work.
It’s luck when you win money in a casino; it’s not luck when a series of good choices culminate in their intended end. To insult graduates with a “if the coin had come up tails, you’d be in prison or on the streets” mentality misses the point of effort and cheapens earning.
That’s the president’s real goal. He and his fellow progressives want people to view effort as a sucker’s bet and the concept of earning something worthy of contempt. Society used to admire those who sacrificed, risked and achieved; now they’re the object of scorn.
The truth is, however your life is right now, was in the past, and will be in the future is a direct result of the choices you make. Barring catastrophe, no one choice will make or break you, which is why it’s important to make the best one possible when presented to you. Luck matters in coin tosses, not life.
You will not find successful people claiming luck as the key to their achievements unless they’re attempting to be humble. You will find losers blaming a lack of luck for their shortcomings and accusing the successful of being lucky because the concept of hard work and smart choices paying off is resented. But their dislike of reality makes it no less so.
The president did the students of Howard a major disservice, the same disservice he and his political fellow travelers have done to millions of Americans over generations. In absolving them of personal responsibility he’s discouraging them from trying, from striving to achieve.
In that sense, when the most powerful man in the world is telling you the system is rigged against you, he might be right.
What Government Can't Do
Let's
call this the most unsurprising headline of the year so far: "Marriage
Increases the Odds of Surviving Cancer, Studies Find." Next thing you know
they'll be discovering that salt makes you thirsty. I'm not actually belittling
the science, more the opposite. Even the most cursory glance at social science
data accumulated over the past, oh, 150 years provides copious evidence that we
humans do better pair-bonded for life. And if data doesn't convince you,
there's also literature, anecdote, tradition and intuition. But let's stick
with science for now.
Two studies published in the journal Cancer found that among 800,000 adults diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2009, those who were married survived the disease at higher rates than single people -- much higher rates. Especially men. The death rate among unmarried women was 19 percent higher than for married women, and for unmarried men the rate was 27 percent higher. The researchers controlled for factors such as income, health insurance status, race, and more but still found that marriage was a key variable. Scarlett Lin Gomez of the Cancer Prevention Institute, one of the authors, told The Washington Post that money does not explain her results but that "social support" is a "key factor."
It's interesting about the men, isn't it? Marriage confers many benefits on women (though the early feminists were venomously anti-marriage), but study after study has found that when it comes to health and longevity, men benefit even more than women from tying the knot (and keeping it tied).
The Harvard Men's Health Watch, for example, cites a report from the Framingham Offspring Study that evaluated 3,682 adults over a 10-year period for heart-related conditions. Even after taking into account major risk factors such as age, body fat percentage, smoking, blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol, married men had a 46 percent lower rate of death than unmarried men.
Other studies cited by Harvard have found that married men have lower levels of depression, reduced incidence of Alzheimer's disease, improved blood sugar levels, and, as in the studies mentioned above, lower levels of cancer and better survival rates after diagnosis.
When examined through the marriage lens, other differentials in American life can be understood as flowing from this most basic of human relationships. Marriage confers not just health and longevity, but wealth, life satisfaction, community engagement and other social goods. There is a large income gap between white and black Americans. But the marriage rate among African-Americans has been significantly below that of others for several generations (though the white and Hispanic rates of unmarried parenting are sharply increasing). According to 2010 Census data, African-American two-earner married couples had mean incomes above the national average for married couples.
Unfortunately, married couples are the minority in the black community. Sixty-six percent of black children are raised in single parent homes, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The rate for Hispanics is 42 percent and for non-Hispanic whites, 25 percent. In 2013, half of all mothers aged 30 and younger were unwed.
The results of the retreat from marriage have been evident in the black community for some time -- but were co-morbid with other things. Were the high crime rates and poor school performance the result of the collapse of marriage or the residue of slavery and Jim Crow? Were the higher rates of diseases such as diabetes and heart disease in the African-American community related to family structure or poverty, and if the latter, was the poverty the cause or the effect of family structure?
With the Hispanic and white populations now retreating from marriage as well, many of the pathologies that had been politely called "inner city" woes -- widespread drug abuse, joblessness, mental illness and school failure -- are on the upswing among whites. And now there is no comparable history of discrimination to cloud the picture.
Last year, Anne Case and Angus Deaton of Princeton published a much-discussed paper showing that the death rate among middle-aged non-Hispanic whites was increasing and that the rise was attributable to behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse and suicide. I wrote to Deaton asking whether he and his wife had analyzed the data for marriage. He said no, but someone should.
In 1989, Irving Kristol declined to embrace fully any triumphalism about our victory over the communist world in the Cold War. The cultural cold war, Kristol wrote, was not won but lost. Our political crises are to a very considerable degree downstream of our cultural ones.
Two studies published in the journal Cancer found that among 800,000 adults diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2009, those who were married survived the disease at higher rates than single people -- much higher rates. Especially men. The death rate among unmarried women was 19 percent higher than for married women, and for unmarried men the rate was 27 percent higher. The researchers controlled for factors such as income, health insurance status, race, and more but still found that marriage was a key variable. Scarlett Lin Gomez of the Cancer Prevention Institute, one of the authors, told The Washington Post that money does not explain her results but that "social support" is a "key factor."
It's interesting about the men, isn't it? Marriage confers many benefits on women (though the early feminists were venomously anti-marriage), but study after study has found that when it comes to health and longevity, men benefit even more than women from tying the knot (and keeping it tied).
The Harvard Men's Health Watch, for example, cites a report from the Framingham Offspring Study that evaluated 3,682 adults over a 10-year period for heart-related conditions. Even after taking into account major risk factors such as age, body fat percentage, smoking, blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol, married men had a 46 percent lower rate of death than unmarried men.
Other studies cited by Harvard have found that married men have lower levels of depression, reduced incidence of Alzheimer's disease, improved blood sugar levels, and, as in the studies mentioned above, lower levels of cancer and better survival rates after diagnosis.
When examined through the marriage lens, other differentials in American life can be understood as flowing from this most basic of human relationships. Marriage confers not just health and longevity, but wealth, life satisfaction, community engagement and other social goods. There is a large income gap between white and black Americans. But the marriage rate among African-Americans has been significantly below that of others for several generations (though the white and Hispanic rates of unmarried parenting are sharply increasing). According to 2010 Census data, African-American two-earner married couples had mean incomes above the national average for married couples.
Unfortunately, married couples are the minority in the black community. Sixty-six percent of black children are raised in single parent homes, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The rate for Hispanics is 42 percent and for non-Hispanic whites, 25 percent. In 2013, half of all mothers aged 30 and younger were unwed.
The results of the retreat from marriage have been evident in the black community for some time -- but were co-morbid with other things. Were the high crime rates and poor school performance the result of the collapse of marriage or the residue of slavery and Jim Crow? Were the higher rates of diseases such as diabetes and heart disease in the African-American community related to family structure or poverty, and if the latter, was the poverty the cause or the effect of family structure?
With the Hispanic and white populations now retreating from marriage as well, many of the pathologies that had been politely called "inner city" woes -- widespread drug abuse, joblessness, mental illness and school failure -- are on the upswing among whites. And now there is no comparable history of discrimination to cloud the picture.
Last year, Anne Case and Angus Deaton of Princeton published a much-discussed paper showing that the death rate among middle-aged non-Hispanic whites was increasing and that the rise was attributable to behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse and suicide. I wrote to Deaton asking whether he and his wife had analyzed the data for marriage. He said no, but someone should.
In 1989, Irving Kristol declined to embrace fully any triumphalism about our victory over the communist world in the Cold War. The cultural cold war, Kristol wrote, was not won but lost. Our political crises are to a very considerable degree downstream of our cultural ones.
Monday, May 9, 2016
The Hill: Obama ‘Itches for Trump Fight’
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
From The Hill:
President Obama can’t wait to take on Donald Trump.Obama has been largely sidelined in the presidential contest, a last-year officeholder with high approval ratings who has repeatedly shown he likes to spar with political foes.
With Bernie Sanders continuing to slug it out with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Obama largely has to choose his openings to talk 2016.
So on Friday, when the White House announced Obama would make a statement about the economy, the president knew he’d get asked about Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
And when he did, Obama was ready.
“We are in serious times, and this is a really serious job,” Obama said. “This is not entertainment; this is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States.”
The remarks previewed a part of the Obama-Clinton strategy against Trump: that he is untested and not ready for the White House, and that the GOP and media have fallen down on the job by failing to properly vet him.
Read the rest of the story here.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
Guess which three cities account for a two year spike in murder rates in the USA?
Hotair ^ | 04/25/2016 | Jazz Shaw
While you couldn’t tell it from most of the headlines over the past 18 months, there’s actually some good news on the law enforcement front. Violent crime rates continued to drop over the past two years on a national per capita basis, including the murder rate. The motto of if it bleeds, it leads likely keeps the focus of many news media consumers on some regularly occurring violence, but overall we’re still experiencing record low levels of the worst violence in the modern era, as was described this past winter by the Washington Post.
Sadly, that doesn’t apply everywhere. There’s been an uptick in both the murder and other violent crime rates which have halted that good progress on a national level and it’s localized in a few specific areas. The hot spots for homicide probably won’t startle anyone who’s been following the news. (Washington Free Beacon, emphasis added)
The second factor is the one which the Left and the media (though I repeat myself) are less eager to discuss. These are all cities which have been governed by Democrats and liberals for generations, choosing more “progressive” policies when it comes to dealing with crime and a firm belief that if we simply keep pouring more and more tax money into failing systems they will somehow right themselves. Almost entirely unmentioned in these public discussions is The Ferguson Effect, and the fact that it’s even harder to keep a lid on violent crime when you begin treating your police officers like the enemy.
You can have this debate on MSNBC and CNN every day of the week, folks, but the numbers speak for themselves. A couple years worth of data is now available and it’s telling a story which at some point will have to be examined. After more than twenty years of progress we are now losing ground to the worst, most violent criminals in some of the most at-risk communities. What we do about it is in the hands of the leaders these cities keep returning to office.
Who was it again who coined the phrase about the definition of madness being, doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results?
In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.Most of that decrease obviously was the result of a national reset in our approach to law enforcement in the early to mid nineties, including Bill Clinton’s much maligned crime bill (which his wife now claims was a mistake) but local efforts in cities along the same lines contributed as well. Believe it or not, that trend continued through 2014 and 2015 across the nation as a whole. Murder and other gun related violent crimes have continued to dip or at least remain flat at levels not seen in the living memory of the majority of voters.
Sadly, that doesn’t apply everywhere. There’s been an uptick in both the murder and other violent crime rates which have halted that good progress on a national level and it’s localized in a few specific areas. The hot spots for homicide probably won’t startle anyone who’s been following the news. (Washington Free Beacon, emphasis added)
Three major cities accounted for more than half of the rise in the national murder rate between 2014 and 2015, a new report shows.There are five cities on the two combined lists, with Baltimore winning the prize as the one to achieve a significant increase in bothcategories of violence. And for the most part they have a few things in common. The first factor – and the one which both liberals and conservatives are likely to agree on – is that these cities are the epicenters for chronic poverty and high unemployment, particularly among minorities. Drug abuse and its associated “business structure” contribute to widespread depression, gang activity and violence. The lack of wealth (aside from government infusions of cash) contributes to structural decay, failing schools and a host of other factors which result in a socioeconomic death spiral, both figuratively and literally.
Though overall crime rates were stagnant in America’s 30 largest cities the murder rate rose 13.3 percent, according to a reportfrom the Brennan Center for Justice. The violent crime rate also rose by 3.1% in those major cities, lead by increases in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Charlotte.
Three cities were also mainly responsible for the rise in murders. “Final data confirm that three cities (Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.) account for more than half (244) of the national increase in murders,” the report said.
The second factor is the one which the Left and the media (though I repeat myself) are less eager to discuss. These are all cities which have been governed by Democrats and liberals for generations, choosing more “progressive” policies when it comes to dealing with crime and a firm belief that if we simply keep pouring more and more tax money into failing systems they will somehow right themselves. Almost entirely unmentioned in these public discussions is The Ferguson Effect, and the fact that it’s even harder to keep a lid on violent crime when you begin treating your police officers like the enemy.
You can have this debate on MSNBC and CNN every day of the week, folks, but the numbers speak for themselves. A couple years worth of data is now available and it’s telling a story which at some point will have to be examined. After more than twenty years of progress we are now losing ground to the worst, most violent criminals in some of the most at-risk communities. What we do about it is in the hands of the leaders these cities keep returning to office.
Who was it again who coined the phrase about the definition of madness being, doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results?
Friday, April 15, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Annual costs of illegal aliens in the US
by Rennes Templar
WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the readers gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify At: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
2. $22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food Assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify At: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify At: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on Primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify At: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt...0.HTML
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for Education for the American-born Children of illegal aliens, known as Anchor babies.
Verify At http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML"
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison Inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at: https://owa.slugger.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on Illegal aliens for Welfare & social Services by the American taxpayers.
Verify At: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal Aliens.
Verify At: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI
13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their Countries of origin.
Verify At: http://rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes committed By Illegal Immigrants In The United States .
The total cost is a whopping:
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Are we all really THAT ignorant?
YES, If we continue to ALLOW THOSE IN THE U.S. . CONGRESS TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THIS YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!
WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the readers gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify At: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
2. $22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food Assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify At: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify At: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on Primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify At: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt...0.HTML
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for Education for the American-born Children of illegal aliens, known as Anchor babies.
Verify At http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML"
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison Inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at: https://owa.slugger.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on Illegal aliens for Welfare & social Services by the American taxpayers.
Verify At: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal Aliens.
Verify At: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI
13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their Countries of origin.
Verify At: http://rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes committed By Illegal Immigrants In The United States .
The total cost is a whopping:
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Are we all really THAT ignorant?
YES, If we continue to ALLOW THOSE IN THE U.S. . CONGRESS TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THIS YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!
Donald Trump is right: The Republican nominating process is a scam!
Business Insider ^ | Josh Barro
If Donald Trump arrives at the Republican National Convention with less than a majority of delegates bound to him, his message will be simple: I got way more votes than anyone else, and party insiders are conspiring against me to give the nomination to somebody else.
This complaint will be true, it will be valid, and anti-Trump Republicans will dismiss it at their peril.
There has been a weird epidemic of short-sighted schadenfreude among Republican insiders over the last week, as they have watched Trump's campaign blunder through the intricacies of delegate selection.
It is true that Trump's campaign is doing badly at the small stuff, and it's costing him delegates. Trump failed to organize for Colorado's complex delegate conventions, in which voters never got to express a direct preference for a candidate. He has just started the process of selecting hundreds of delegate candidates in California. He has failed to stack relevant convention committees with his allies.
If Donald Trump arrives at the Republican National Convention with less than a majority of delegates bound to him, his message will be simple: I got way more votes than anyone else, and party insiders are conspiring against me to give the nomination to somebody else.
This complaint will be true, it will be valid, and anti-Trump Republicans will dismiss it at their peril.
There has been a weird epidemic of short-sighted schadenfreude among Republican insiders over the last week, as they have watched Trump's campaign blunder through the intricacies of delegate selection.
It is true that Trump's campaign is doing badly at the small stuff, and it's costing him delegates. Trump failed to organize for Colorado's complex delegate conventions, in which voters never got to express a direct preference for a candidate. He has just started the process of selecting hundreds of delegate candidates in California. He has failed to stack relevant convention committees with his allies.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
