Month: January 2019

Nancy Pelosi: Smarter Than Most Think

January 31, 2019

Have I lost my ever-loving mind? Most people feel that House Speaker Pelosi is the poster child for the term: “Duh!”  She has certainly embarrassed herself and her party on numerous occasions making some of the most absurd statements ever heard in D.C. I could give example after example of her doing so.

Most conservatives — especially the “experts” in media labeled as conservative — have watched as Pelosi and her Senate Democrat partner, Chuck Schumer, have so far turned a deaf ear to the far-left agenda being bandied about by the “New” Left of their party. Each of those declared presidential candidates seem to have bowed at the altar of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to get a list of the “acceptable” policy talking points to use to begin their campaigns. AOC seems to hold all the permission slips for policy positions for the Democrat Party right now. 

What’s going on?

The Leftist Landscape

“Medicare for All!”

This cry is being parroted by everyone on the Democrat extreme left who is so far running for President. But that cry is not new. Hillary Clinton put the idea of “Medicare for all” or “single-payer” healthcare into her husband’s first White House term. It was shot down then, primarily because her plan as described to the nation was hard to understand. But what Americans DID understand was the actual cost to the country and the damage such a plan would do to the economic health of the U.S. and to U.S. taxpayers. Little in Hillary’s plan has changed in today’s version — except for the addition of three zeroes. The price for “Hillary-Care” was in the billions. The price tag for the current “Medicare for All” adds at least three zeroes and four by some estimates and is in the trillions.

If one can get past the cost of such a plan, it is impossible to ignore the inevitable changes such a program would make to the actual healthcare system. Medical professionals in the tens of thousands would head for the door if Medicare-for-all was ever implemented. Why? Follow the money.

Here’s Medicare Costs in Dollars Paid to Healthcare Providers of all types in Fiscal Year 2017:

$709,386,000,000 (That’s $709+ Billion)

$122,331,000,000 ($122+ Billion) Medicare Premiums Paid into Medicare

$587,055,000,000 ($587+ Billion) Net: Cost of Medicare to the Federal Gov’t in Fiscal Year 2017

How does that compare with “Medicare-for-all?” Conservative estimates from several bi-partisan groups set the 10-year cost of the currently proposed “Medicare-for-all” at $70+ Trillion!

Just so you can get a grip on the viability of such a health program, the total U.S. Government revenue for 2019 is anticipated to be $3.422 Trillion. “If” the projected cost of Medicare-for-all hold true, the 10-year estimate would gobble up the entire U.S. Government gross income and still be short! Healthcare providers would be the first to get cutoff. And without good doctors, our amazing healthcare system is finished.

Free College Tuition and Cancellation of Current School Debt

The total 4-year cost for Title IV college tuition for the United States including 4-year college + 2-year college for fiscal year 2012:

$308,896,040,000 or $308+Billion

(Estimates are an annual cost increase of 6-9%)

Current Democrat declared Presidential candidates each call for such a program. You may remember that Bernie Sanders in his 2016 campaign called for free college tuition as did Senator Elizabeth Warren PLUS cancelling all secondary education student school debt. How much would that be?

$1,606,000,000,000 ($1.606 Trillion Dollars)

And who would payback that $1.606 Trillion? American taxpayers.

One state has already taken steps towards free tuition. New York just passed a bill that offers illegal immigrants free secondary education! New York of course assumes that other states and the federal government will follow suit.

In the New York plan, middle-class New York families who struggle by with only about $40,000 annual family income on average are NOT eligible even for tuition assistance of any sort for their children. But people who are in the U.S. illegally but live in New York for as little as just 3 days are eligible for free college tuition.

By the way, New York City’s mayor implemented a program for illegals who live in the Big Apple that gives them free healthcare. It is estimated that this program ecncompasses approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants — free healthcare provided. This while there are 76,000 LEGAL homeless people on the streets of New York with NO healthcare at all.

All of the declared Democrat presidential candidates are promoting taking care of both of these secondary education bills: government bailout of 100% of student loans and free secondary education going forward. Just like “Medicare-for-all,” none have offered a serious plan for paying for it.

The obvious solution they will all propose details of in coming days centers around one thing and one thing only: raising taxes. We’ll talk about that in coming days discussing what taxing options are there, which they are each considering, and paint the TRUE picture that shows how each of their proposed plans would directly impact Americans, the U.S. economy, and the pros and cons of each — “if” there are even any pros!

Nancy’s Leadership Positioning

Let’s be completely honest in this conversation: Nancy Pelosi is NOT stupid. She may be a bit vapid and incoherent from time to time; she may say some silly things that actually mean very little from time to time — like “We must pass the Obamacare plan so we can see what’s in the plan” — but know for certain all her hens are in the henhouse. And she’s not shooting from the hip.

Think about it: she is known as by far the best Democrat Party fund raiser of all time. And she’s not collaring ignorant donors to con them out of those millions in campaign donations. She meets with and communicates successfully with some of the biggest tycoons from America’s biggest companies. And they donate millions to various Democrat Party entities through Nancy. If Pelosi wasn’t all there, as much as these industry titans may like her, the Democrat Party, and as much as they dislike Donald Trump and his followers, few would drop a million or so to a liberal PAC just because Pelosi came calling. Nancy has clout. It may come from the fact that she knows where many skeletons are buried in a bunch of backyards, but she knows how to parlay that along with significant and credible arm-twisting to raise those millions.

So she certainly has something up her sleeve to allow the likes of Senators Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand to so far out from Democrat primaries start declaring these far-left socialist programs on which their campaigns are based. What could her reasoning be?

Pelosi knows the national electorate pretty well. Oh, she like most Democrats missed in 2016 just how disgusted a large portion of the electorate’s middle were with all the Democrat Party rhetoric and that Dems offered up Hillary Clinton as pretty much their only choice. Enough of those in the middle jumped ship and elected the most radical president in recent memory. She and other Democrat leaders feel they made a mistake. And she will not do that again.

She IS letting Harris and Gillibrand and Warren and whoever else declares in the next short period of time get out in front in the promising of socialist ideas that if ever passed by Congress would break the federal government and bankrupt all who live and work in the U.S. And Pelosi knows this congress (and any other) is  likely to pass few (if any) of these preposterous measures.

But Pelosi knows two things: (1) these are good far-left policy talking points. And Democrats need new and fresh ideas — ANY new and fresh ideas — to take voters’ minds off of Trump’s significant successes in his first two years. How else can one explain why no one on the left even mentions how successful are the Trump economic programs that have resulted in seldom seen (and certainly not seen in recent history) benefits of many kinds for Americans? There is no other explanation. And Democrats certainly want to keep voters from thinking about those good things happening and concentrating on all the evil in the Trump Administration.

(2) She knows the rising stars will only be around for a minute or two! That’s right: Nancy is certain those who raced to the front for the 2020 Democrat nomination will fail and fail miserably long before substantial and more middle-of-the-road Democrats get into the race. Let’s face it: the U.S. economy cannot possibly provide money for the two programs alone that Harris, Gillibrand, and Warren are already touting as things they certainly will implement if elected.

Pelosi know she doesn’t have to say one thing: the bright stars who are shining today by promising everybody a pot at the end of the rainbow will burn bright only so long. Reality will set-in before too long and then the not-so-new and shiny 2020 candidates will get into the race and pick-up where these fly-by-night stars burn out. THEN she will engage in campaigning at high speed.

By the way: Schumer is doing the exact same thing.

Summary

If President Trump or the Republican Party are confident of a 2020 victory just because of the wins by this administration so far, they are sadly mistaken. Democrats are smarter than their 2016 race showed. And they certainly have a strong and large field to pick from. If Hillary stays out of the race, there will be a substantial cross-section of choices for Americans that include some really strong candidates.

Additionally, the Deep State is still out there with all their ammunition taking constant shots at Donald Trump. We don’t know just how large the Deep State base is, but we DO know it is powerful and far-reaching and encompasses more than just the Democrat Party. Many of the establishment Republicans have been exposed as “in the tank” for anybody but Donald Trump.

Don’t forget the Mainstream Media no longer even tries to disguise their undying hatred for Donald Trump. Months ago they took marching orders from whomever sends them out and in unison showed their decision to simply abandon truth in reporting. They really have become the public dissemination of leftist propaganda through their reporting. And they don’t care who knows about it!

I know President Trump feels confident that Robert Mueller has no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part that would in anyway disqualify him to serve as President. But the President had better be careful: remember that innuendo in this “justice” climate is believed by more people in the U.S. than ever just because some news source delivers it. If CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Report, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS say it’s so, it is so. 

Have you noticed that Nancy is standing on the sidelines through all of this early political rhetoric from Democrats declaring their candidacy? I have not heard a thing in the news from her about any of this. She’s too smart to pipe up now.

Think about this too: what if Hillary decides to run? Their are key insiders from her 2016 organization who feel strongly that she will run. If so, how would that affect the campaign of others?

It would put Pelosi in a bad spot. Why? She would be forced to make a stand either for Hillary or against her running again. As powerful as Nancy is, I don’t think she wants to take on the Clinton dynasty. There surely are skeletons in THAT closet. But I am certain Pelosi has some skeletons in her backyard. And I guarantee that Bill and Hillary know where some Nancy’s skeletons are buried!

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Next Step for “The Wall”

January 29, 2019

I doubt there are many who have any conviction that Speaker Pelosi and/or Senate Minority Leader Schumer have any intention to honor the “perception” they gave that with the President opening the government they will assist in real border control. In fact, it is a virtual certainty that if/when they and other Democrats complete their seemingly never-ending victory dances over their “forcing” President Trump to open the government, NO border wall funding is in their future. And certainly not within the next few weeks.

So what can be done without House financial support?

Media Mania

Even knowing how possessed this media is and the consistency of their attacks on this president, it has been shocking to see and hear their coverage of the reopening of the government tied directly to the “win” against President Trump in it happening. Pelosi, Schumer, other leading Democrats and talking heads at every level in the U.S. are ecstatic! This is in total disregard of what’s at stake: the safety of the U.S. against what amounts to be an invasion of illegal activities and those who initiate them when crossing our southern border. Drugs, human trafficking, murders, and those who commit other serious crimes are crossing by the thousands every week. Yet the mainstream media and leftists ignore the threats those illegals bring to the U.S., and their cries for open-borders have gone far beyond fever-pitch to outright hysteria: “Let them in! Let them in! We Welcome them!”

At what cost?

Have you noticed how little is the reporting on the costs of illegal immigration by this media? They refuse to report numbers, discuss details of specific criminal acts of violence or their victims, or to even discuss the consideration of the economic and social costs of these open-border policies. The left are treating illegal immigration just like they are unresponsibly reporting in their discussions about “Medicare for All.” Both policies would bankrupt America, to begin with, yet alone how each would destroy life as we know it.

Do you know what’s amazing? Anyone can via the internet read hundreds of horror stories perpetrated on the people of Europe by illegal immigrants over just the last 2 years! And the U.S. media refuse to report them. And leading European countries are now relentlessly trying to find ways to stop illegal immigration in their futures while contemplating deportation procedures of millions of illegals who inhabit their countries if that is even possible. These include countries like The Netherlands, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, and even the U.K. Where’s the U.S. Media on telling any of those stories? 

We could easily fill these pages with not only stories documenting the gang rapes, murders, forced prostitution, sexual assault, theft, and home invasions perpetrated daily by these illegals on citizens of European nations, we could show hundreds and hundreds of pictures of these horrors that play out daily. But that is not OUR job — IT’S THE JOB OF AMERICAN MEDIA TO WARN AMERICA WHAT IS COMING TO OUR SHORES AND THROUGH THE SOUTHERN BORDER!

Have we all just gone to sleep? Or is it that we in America have some responsibility to knowingly allow people through our borders every day, many of who want nothing more than to find unimaginable ways to illegally and surreptitiously insert themselves into legal Americans lives while sucking the life right out of us?

Surely not. Americans are not that stupid. But before you embrace benign trust and acceptance for leftist Americans by self-convincing yourself that “they’re just hungry people looking for a better way of life,” there are several considerations you must ponder:

  • How many illegals are there and how much do they cost Americans in real dollars? With the vast resources available to billion dollar newspapers and television networks, isn’t it logical to expect one or several of those to put those research assets to work to find out and give to Americans what our costs of illegals really are? How about starting with just the number of illegals that are here? But, no: not only do none of them conduct such research, but they also spend their ink and airtime to blast the Administration. Here’s just one example:

“President Trump on Sunday asserted that the U.S. has already incurred nearly $19 billion in costs related to illegal immigration in 2019, and called it “ridiculous” that millions of immigrants are living in the U.S illegally. Trump claimed in a tweet that there are close to 26 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, casting doubt on the more commonly cited figure of 11 million.

The president typed “DHS” in his tweet, but did not provide a source for the figures he shared. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Asked about the tweet on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney defended the president’s broader point about the need for increased border security. “I’m not exactly sure where the president got that number this morning, but I think what you see him trying to do is point out how silly this debate is,” Mulvaney said. “This is not that much money in the greater scheme of things. “I think he was trying to draw attention to the fact that while the Democrats are sitting here dug in … that we’re spending so much money on other things,” he added. “It’s really quite absurd.”

Multiple news organizations have in recent months disputed Trump’s claims about the costs associated with illegal immigration. The Washington Post noted that the president has steadily increased the purported annual cost, stating on the campaign trail in 2015 that it was $130 billion, tweeting in December 2018 that it was more than $200 billion, and remarking at a White House event last month that the total was $275 billion per year.

NBC News reported that a number of groups have cast doubt on Trump’s figures. The conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated in 2013 the cost was roughly $54 billion per year, while the nonpartisan Cato Institute approximated in 2017 that the cost was as much as $15.6 billion annually.

News organizations have similarly pushed back on the president’s assertions about the number of people living in the U.S illegally. The Associated Press reported last month that while Trump claimed there were as many as 30 million in the country illegally, the most recent data available from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center put the figure at 11.3 million as of 2016. Mulvaney argued on “Face the Nation” that the 11 million figure was accurate “a couple years ago,” but that the number of people coming across the border on a monthly basis means the figure could be as high as “30 or 40 million.”

Notice that not one organization or news entity of any kind did anything but intimate the President was wrong in reporting these numbers! NONE GAVE US WHAT THE CORRECT NUMBERS ARE! Does anyone but me find that a bit brazen and amazingly hypocritical?

It isn’t going to get better, I fear. Theirs is a “one-task” issue: destroy President Trump and all those who support him. I doubt that ever before in U.S. history has the media in America so viciously attacked any previous president — even Richard Nixon. Their universal goal consistent in every presidential administration is to lift up and support Democrat presidents while attacking Republicans. And all the while the media maintain they know better than do Americans what elected officials do, why they do it, and what their actions mean. The media give Americans NO credit for understanding on their own. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

And, by the way, truth in reporting is immaterial today. But I’m sure you already know that!

Politics of Immigration: The Wall

In numerous reports at TruthNewsNetwork we have related facts, statistics, posted videos and news reports, and even have posted interviews with several federal elected officials regarding the U.S. immigration system. We will not go back into those today. But what we WILL do is set the stage for the upcoming red-letter day in U.S. immigration history: February 15, 2019. What is that day? The deadline was given by President Trump to Democrats to have crafted bipartisan legislation for border security that includes funding for a southern border wall/barrier.

“It ain’t gonna happen!”

Pelosi, Schumer, and other leading Democrats feel strongly they have won this battle with Donald Trump. What they have assumed is that the battle they won was the war of immigration reform. They miscalculated. The tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is NOT going away, nor are his demands for a southern border barrier. I assure you, this time he will NOT cave. And a battle is NOT a war. The battle is yet unresolved: but it WILL be!

So what will happen? What are the options?

Honestly, there are really only two in regards to options for border security: 1) legislatively Congress passes legislation that comprehensively closes the southern border with a combination of border barriers, manpower increases, electronic surveillance measures where capable, and significant funding increases to support border judges and staff sufficient to handle the outrageous backload of immigration cases that have spiraled out of control; 2) President Trump declares a National Security Threat at the southern border and invokes measures for funding and building that border barrier per border control experts and diverts federal dollars from federal and DHS discretionary funding to complete those measures.

So which will it be?

IF, Pelosi and Schumer refuse to bring meaningful and comprehensive legislation to the floor of both Houses and such legislation is not passed and sent to the President for signature, he will declare that National Emergency and initiate through Executive Order the security measures necessary to close the border.

But Democrats will Fight!

So? It would be surprising if they DIDN’T fight….and very odd!

They HATE President Trump; they HATE Trump supporters; they HATE ALL conservatives in the U.S. Nothing is going to change that anytime soon. But stopping the flood of illegals into the nation from the South, stemming the flow of billions of American tax dollars into Mexico and Central America, and stopping the hundreds of thousands of needless crimes committed annually by illegals in the U.S. are far more important than winning a political game of chess!

Can President Trump win the Immigration War?

He can. And HE will not be the victor — Americans will be the winners.

Many times in U.S. history have presidents used the power given to the Executive Branch to invoke government actions regarding national security issues. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was the first to do so when he suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. It is far from unusual for such measures to take place.

“But,” some will say, “those on the left will certainly file in a liberal court somewhere actions for a temporary restraining order to stop the President from doing so.” That certainly will happen. But this action is quite a bit different than others that have been stopped. Two very significant things weigh in favor of the Courts allowing these measures to proceed should President Trump initiate that action:

1) Congress granted the unilateral power for ANY president to take such actions when he or she alone is confident such actions are necessary for the purposes of national security. As long as a president can show just cause and that his/her efforts with that specific executive action were instigated only after attempts to obtain that necessary action through the legislative process have failed. Few would dare argue that this president has NOT sufficiently implored Congress to shut our border against an onslaught of illegal entries into the United States;

2.) Even if a liberal court steps in with a temporary restraining order, this administration has already jumped around the lengthy appeals process and pursued immediate relief directly from the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS has previously spurned such action from this and previous White Houses, certain of those appeals have been taken up. The conventional wisdom is that in this case, it would be simple to present the urgency of such immediate action to protect Americans and that the legislative process has totally failed to do so.

Summary

We WILL have a border barrier. President Trump will win this faceoff somehow.

How do I know that with such certainty? He never gives in and never gives up when he knows what he is doing is right and as Commander in Chief is necessary for the safety of Americans and the United States. There is NO quit in this president.

Folks, find an oddsmaker and win you some money in February! This is a safe bet!!!

 

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

How’s The Swamp Draining Going?

January 28, 2019

Although it seemed like the Mueller investigation had cooled down, apparently there are many moving parts at work behind the scenes. The very visible arrest of Roger Stone was obviously for more than anything Stone had to give the Meuller team. I wonder what and who that message was for?

Let’s face it: Stone received the arrest method normally reserved for terrorists or those who are about to be charged with serious crimes and that pose a danger. 29 FBI cars, and several dozen special agents stormed Stone’s Florida home before 6AM. Normally, the FBI would have called Stone’s lawyer and allowed them to show up at the federal courthouse later in the morning. No, that “attack” on Stone was crafted by Mueller’s attack dog Andrew Weismann. Weismann authored a very similar arrest process for Paul Manafort.  Remember that a large group of FBI agents who were dressed in riot gear carrying automatic weapons literally stormed Manafort’s house while he and his wife were asleep. There was a message attached to both arrests.

”There’s something in the Air” is a hit song from the 70’s sung by Thunderclap Newman. We can say that fits today’s D.C. “Investigatory Climate” for sure. Robert Mueller is either in the process of preparing a blockbuster or two regarding the investigation of the Trump Campaign, or he’s winding down and in preparation to complete his final report to give to the Justice Department. There are very learned people who weigh-in on both sides of that conversation. I have at times leaned heavily in either direction. But today, I feel stronger than ever, Mueller has an axe to grind, and to that end, is hellbent on the destruction of this presidency and in doing so, destroying Donald Trump. His venture to drain the Swamp called Washington D.C. is at least putting some of the evil sectors that continually bleed our government on notice.

Mueller Probe Side Benefits

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, supposedly into collusion between President Trump’s election campaign and Russia, is casting light into dark corners of the Washington swamp where powerful political figures become highly paid agents of foreign governments. 

The prominent Americans Mueller has indicted are all foreign agents. That is, they work as lobbyists or consultants for foreign governments, who paid them handsomely. This includes retired Gen. Michael Flynn, GOP operative Paul Manafort, and his consulting partner Rick Gates. None of these men were indicted or convicted for activities on the Trump campaign. The charge sheet against Manafort was generally for crimes allegedly committed in his lucrative work in the transnational, revolving-door lobbying industry centered on the federal capital. 

George Papadopoulos, another Trump-world conviction by Mueller, was reportedly suspected of being an unregistered agent for Israel. 

We learned recently that Special Counsel Robert Mueller referred a handful of American lobbyists and consultants to federal prosecutors in New York for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. These reportedly include President Barack Obama’s former White House counsel, Greg Craig, who became an agent for Ukrainian politicians who supported Russia’s tyrant, President Vladimir Putin. Tony Podesta, a former Democratic congressional staffer and hugely successful lobbyist and fundraiser is also said to be among those sent by Mueller to New York prosecutors. He seems to have failed to register his work ties to Putin. 

Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman and a senior adviser to GOP candidates, was another alpha lobbyist reportedly referred to federal prosecutors for investigation. 

It’s cheering that federal prosecutors are getting serious about FARA. Lobbyist registration, foreign and domestic, has long been required by law, but not enforced. Lobbyists who abide by the law gripe privately about this, and about nonenforcement of the Lobbyist Disclosure Act and the fact that many avoided Obama’s scorn by simply deregistering while continuing to lobby. The Obama administration put its stamp of approval on this deception by accepting donations from such lobbyists. 

Podesta and Craig haven’t been accused of breaking the law, Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted on non-FARA crimes, and Manafort has been convicted of breach of FARA and primarily tax violations. But verdicts and indictments aren’t needed to say these men all played in a corrupt game. 

Flynn monetized his military service by putting his name and his rank to work for foreign governments including Turkey and Ukraine. American policymakers, journalists, and the public all trusted him because the U.S. Army made him a ranger and then a lieutenant general. He sold that hard-earned authority to people whose purposes were, in our opinion, incompatible with this country’s interests. 

Craig served in the inner circles of the Obama White House. Podesta was the Democrats’ most important campaign finance bundler. Manafort pretended to work for Trump when in truth he was serving the foreign governments who were the clients. Trump was the product he was selling. 

Weber was a public servant who cashed out to K Street and also served as a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney while he was working for Ukrainian interests.

Some or all of the above was legal. That’s an important part of the problem. It’s pretty common in Washington. There’s little or no stigma to becoming a lobbyist for a foreign government. There should be. 

No American politician ought to take the trust Americans place in him and parlay it into an enriching gig advancing the interests of another country. Every revolving-door lawmaker-turned-lobbyist should get the message that if he comes knocking on behalf of some foreign potentate, he’ll get the curb. 

Regardless of what federal prosecutors do, Congress should begin investigating foreign agents and pass stricter laws to provide at least better transparency on this shady business. Current FARA reporting is opaque. The Republican Congress should have taken up reforms before the midterm elections. It would have been a fitting way to wrap up the first two years of a president who promised to drain the swamp. 

It would also have given a real purpose to Mueller’s investigation if Republicans responded by draining a swamp that is far deeper than Trump perhaps suspected and spans oceans.

Summary

I as well as many others would love it if Mueller’s intentions and his findings so far were more public. Their NOT being public is by design. Of course those on the Mueller side who protect this special counsel and the federal statute that allows such maintain secrecy is mandatory while these investigations are underway. I am certain that was the original intent when that statute was drafted. But if that really was the operating method used by Mueller, why have so many pieces of the investigation been “leaked” to the press and others at conspicuous times and for seemingly specific reasons? Mueller is using the system.

I’m not certain if Mueller is grandstanding as this investigation is likely his last — at least formally. If not that, maybe it is his intention through this investigation to regain some of the public perception of his being a stellar senior law enforcement figure that he has lost over the past decade or so as details of some of his botched investigations have come to light. In either case, Americans have had about enough. It’s time for a conclusion.

Yes, it is wonderful that some suspected of wrongdoing have been confronted and are paying the prices for that wrongdoing. But it is beyond unfortunate that dozens of Americans who may have done something wrong but nothing that rises to the high levels of serious and damaging evils have seen their entire lives’ accomplishment banished by just allegations and innuendo during this probe. It has exposed that Special Counsel law as egregious, political, and grossly unethical in my view. ROBERT MUELLER IS ARGUABLY THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TODAY, AND HE ANSWERS AND IS ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE!

That’s NOT what our founding fathers expected would be part of the Justice Department. And I’m certain the Congress that drafted and put that statute in place did not envision a scenario where even THEY had no authority to rein-in a Counsel who had become an attack dog and was needlessly destroying people’s lives.

That’s what Special Counsel Mueller is all about. And far too many Americans are paying a senseless price for a senseless investigation that could have been accomplished by the Justice Department with its own investigators.

But wait a minute: that would require an ETHICAL DOJ with non-partisan investigators. Let’s call roll at the DOJ to find one of those investigators:

“Bueller….Bueller….Ferris Bueller?……….”

There aren’t ANY!

Historical Tragedy

January 26, 2019

This will forever be known as a “Black Day” in New York. And it’s NOT the fall of the World Trade Center Twin Towers in lower Manhattan. It’s the signing of the “Reproductive Health Act” by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The governor called it “a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values” on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. But New York Catholic bishops slammed him for the move just days after he touted his Catholic faith during the State of the State address.“Your advocacy of extreme abortion legislation is completely contrary to the teachings of our pope and our Church,” Albany Bishop Rev. Edward B. Scharfenberger wrote in an open letter.

Under the Reproductive Health Act, non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions and the procedure could be done until the mother’s due date if the woman’s health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable. The previous law only allowed abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman’s life was at risk.

Conditions that Would Trigger This Process

There have long been precedents cited for instigating abortions at various points during pregnancy. One that is commonly pointed to is included in this law: this procedure can be initiated “if the woman’s health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable.” Rather than this writer pontificate on the whys and why not’s of that which would  be purely from a layman’s perspective, a thought from a true medical professional would be appropriate at this point:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice what this professional had to say: “There’s not a single fetal or material condition that requires third-trimester abortion. Not one. Deliver, yes. Abortion, no.”

That does NOT come from a novice, a politician, or any political hack trying to convince voters about something: a medical doctor. So why would a government entity — in this case, the state of New York — create a law that would allow such to not only happen but be protected by law?

“Follow the money.”

Historical Tragedy Part I

Remember this post from October of 2018?

“In her works Woman and the New Race, Pivot of Civilization, and My Fight for Birth Control, Margaret Sanger offers a range of justifications for killing “unwanted children.” This is no surprise considering how she reacts when she witnesses an act of violence against an infant: “I saw a sickly baby in the arms of a terrified woman whose drunken husband had thrown the wailing, naked infant into the snow,” she recounts, and “I remember having keen sympathy with that man!” His wife had given birth to eleven children, six of them living, and the last “evidently had eczema” and “whined night and day,” so the situation was just “too much” for the father, and “out of the door into the snow the nuisance went!” The justification Sanger offers is purely subjective: “desperate for want of sleep and quiet,” the father’s “nerves overcame him.”

Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” This passage demonstrates Sanger’s pitiless view of nascent life and shows how fitting it is that she should be the founder of Planned Parenthood, today the chief purveyor of abortions in the United States. In another place she remarks, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

That comes directly from the mouth of the founder of Planned Parenthood: Margaret Sanger. Of course in the United States, infanticide is murder. But now, just minutes or hours before a baby is born, it can be killed legally in New York.

The New York law does not allow infanticide. But it does allow the next best thing: abortion of a full-term baby.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Historical Tragedy Part II

In September of 2018, TruthNewsNetwork introduced the world to Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Pittsburgh. Shortly after our story, Hollywood released a documentary showing the tragedies committed by Dr. Gosnell at his Pennsylvania abortion clinic against women and babies alike. Thankfully, Gosnell was convicted of multiple crimes and is currently spending his life in prison. How bad was Dr. Gosnell? In that September story, we printed the exact testimony of the prosecuting Pittsburgh District Attorney detailing exactly what and how Gosnell committed these horrors. I will refer you to the story posted September 6, 2018, to see or hear the complete details. But here is the partial explanation by the District Attorney:

Gosnell’s approach, whenever possible, was to force full labor and delivery of premature infants on ill-informed women. The women would check in during the day, make payment, and take labor-inducing drugs. The doctor wouldn’t appear until evening, often 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00 p.m., and only then deal with any of the women who were ready to deliver. Many of them gave birth before he even got there. By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, he minimized the work, and cost, for himself and his staff. The policy, in effect, was labor without labor. There remained, however, a final difficulty. When you perform late-term “abortions” by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the [clinic] was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.”

Summary

We could in this summary go on and on about abortion statistics, options to abortions, Planned Parenthood, New York Governor Cuomo, and many others. That would simply be wasting our writing space, your listening space and time. There is no better way to sidestep the emotion of all this and let those speak who really know what’s going on and that see it every day:

It always makes better sense to me when amateurs like me sit and let professionals like this doctor and Dr. Omar Hamada in his tweet shown above give facts of any matter.

As a final note: in those New York procedures when a “clinician” (legally the procedure no longer must be performed by a physician in New York) makes the decision to terminate a full-term pregnancy by killing the baby, how does the procedure actually happen? Few have or will think the process through:

The baby cannot be birthed, so its life must be terminated prior to birth. How? Immediately before birth, snip the baby’s spinal cord while its still in the birth canal.

Then the dead baby must be birthed by the woman. The only difference? The birth will be legally termed as a “stillborn.”

In retrospect, consider this: in this new set of abortion circumstances as compared to the rampant infanticide (the killing of babies) committed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Pittsburgh: the only difference in New York is a few minutes. In Pittsburgh, if Gosnell had operated under the New York law, he could have snipped that spinal cord one minute before he committed premeditated murder and been in the clear.

Think about that…

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

We Have Gridlock

January 25, 2019

In politics, gridlock or deadlock or political stalemate refers to a situation when there is difficulty passing laws that satisfy the needs of the people. A government is gridlocked when the ratio between bills passed and the agenda of the legislature decreases. Laws may be considered as the supply and the legislative agenda as demand. Gridlock can occur when two legislative houses, or the executive branch and the legislature are controlled by different political parties, or otherwise cannot agree.

With that thought in mind, if the fix for gridlock in Congressional matters was simple, we would not have seen it during the first two years of the Trump presidency: Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, AND the White House. Using the above definition of “gridlock” means there certainly should have been none in those years. Yet, in comparison to previous Congresses, very little was sent to the President’s desk regarding passed legislation for his signature.

The same held true in Obama’s first two years in office — 2009 and 2010. Though Democrats controlled the House and Senate with him in the White House, several meaningful and certainly critical pieces of legislation could not clear both houses of Congress.

And it’s not getting better! Today, the U.S. Senate considered two versions of legislation that would have funded the government and reopened it after 34 days of 800,000 workers being off. But, as usual, both bills failed to pass: one was proposed by Democrats, one by Republicans. What is at fault for the government remaining closed? 

GRIDLOCK!

“If I sponsor a bill declaring apple pie American, it might fall victim to partisan politics,” declared Barack Obama when he struggled with a Republican controlled Congress. His statement came in a speech on the border crisis, (yes, there was a border crisis then and still is!) but could have been made about any number of issues. From the federal shutdown to gun control, stalemate is America’s political norm. Congress is more interested in playing politics than solving problems. Even discussions about congressional gridlock have come to resemble the gridlock itself: tired. Language, like politics, goes NOWHERE.

In a study for the Brookings Institution, a research project sought to place the discussion on firmer “factual” ground. The study examined America’s history of legislative logjams in order to put in context the modern congressional stalemate. Part of the challenge involves measuring legislative success: what’s the baseline against which to compare finished legislation? At what point does a system designed to encourage healthy checks and balances become hopelessly deadlocked?

To get a look at legislative gridlock minus the emotions that swarm around it, let’s look at the system from a historical perspective so we can fairly compare.

Let’s look at the productivity of Congress from 1947 to 2012 by looking at the ratio of failed measures to all major issues on Washington’s agenda. (For an issue to be “major,” it needed to inspire at least four New York Times editorials in a given Congress. I know: you can’t believe I’d use that as a source for comparison!) By this comparison, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society Congress holds up as the most productive post-war session—just 27% of major legislative issues remained unresolved. By contrast, three-quarters of the major issues on Obama’s 2012 legislative agenda went nowhere. Even during the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in 2009-2010, proposals to address big issues, such as education, campaign finance, climate change, immigration and gun control, stalled in legislative limbo.

That same study found that the Obama stalemate fits a well-established pattern: when elections yield more polarised parties and chambers—as they did during Bill Clinton’s second turn and Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive era and the current D.C. mix—bargaining becomes strained and compromise is out of reach.

The data confirms that gridlock has gotten worse and worse over the past half-century. Between 1947 and 2000, for instance, conference agreements averaged about 100 per congress. Between 2001 and 2012, however, the number was just over 20. This number plummeted even further during the 112th Congress, from 2011 to 2013, when only seven final agreements were reached via conference committee.

During the Trump presidency, even with a Republican controlled House and Senate, legislation virtually squeaked to a crawl regarding major issues. It is obvious that politicians can’t quite even agree on what constitutes a “major” issue — like illegal immigration which is burning up Congressional debate and in the American public.

Remember this? When Clinton pushed for health care reform in 1993-1994, the GOP insisted there was no health-care crisis. Today, the parties disagree about whether budget deficits are problematic, whether the minimum wage needs to be raised, and whether campaign-finance reform is needed. At times they even argue about basic facts! Both parties have specific talking points and ideas, and Hell will freeze over before either bends through compromise!

What Has Changed Since the 1960s?

Findings in the study point to the nature of electoral change. Before President Johnson passed civil-rights legislation in 1964, the South was Democratic and the parties were politically diverse. There were liberal and conservative Republicans and liberal and conservative Democrats. It was easier for legislators to find common ground because there wasn’t the same ideological gulf. But the passage of the Civil Rights Act changed partisan politics in the South: the Republican Party gained a foothold and lost many moderates. Liberal Republicans are pretty much GONE, and centrists are becoming an endangered breed. Liberals are now aligned with the Democrats and conservatives are with Republicans—and never the two shall meet!

Americans have grown accustomed to this “us” versus “them” mentality. And there is no indication that current levels of partisanship will diminish soon. In fact, the Brookings study shows that the policy distance between the parties has returned to differences  not seen since the end of the 19th century.

Because control of the House and Senate now swings back and forth, parties see no need to compromise. Politicians know they can simply wait till their party is back in charge, and seem to stop lawmaking just waiting for the change of the guard. Example: After losing the White House in 2008, the Republican party shifted towards the right. This political divide gets worse each time a party finds itself in minority status; it’s easy to oppose everything when you’re not in charge of governing. They don’t think the public will hold them accountable—so they can get away with being unco-operative.

Can such a system correct itself? It might help if negotiations were taken out of the public eye. Legislators in the spotlight feel pressure to stay true to their base, but behind closed doors they might have an easier time coming up with solutions. Take immigration reform. Republicans want border security; Democrats want a path to citizenship. A deal could put each party’s demands together, but legislators hold-out—particularly before an election as we saw in 2018—because they don’t want to risk being portrayed as disloyal by the public. And we ALL know the Leftist media would destroy Republicans just as Conservative media would do to Democrats.

Some think the answer might lie in the power of a strong personality—as happened in the case of Teddy Roosevelt, who was able to push Congress from its standoff. When Barack Obama was first elected president, many had hoped that he, too, could push through partisanship and get more cooperation. But he made no real effort to do that. Remember his “uniting” proclamation: “Elections have consequences.” In other words, he put Republicans on notice that all he needed was his pen and his cellphone.

Summary

At its basic level, politics can be a very personal game, requiring trust and mutual respect, much of which seems missing from today’s political scene. “Nobody knows anybody up here,” observed Joe Manchin, a moderate West Virginia Senator. “There just aren’t enough real relationships.”

If trust and mutual respect are necessary for Congressional action to discuss and pass meaningful legislation, I think we are in for a long wait. As we have seen in the current environment in D.C., nobody in Congress or the White House is jumping to embrace compromise of any kind. That’s sad, because the very nature of tackling major issues in Congress demands meaningful and honest discussion of the ideas of each side. I think that may be being done. But, infortunately, it seems gridlock jumps in right at that point. To get to an answer, each side must understand and accept that in negotiations, nobody can get everything they think is right and that they want. Both sides MUST give a little to find consensus.

Regarding this President, Donald Trump has a pretty convincing background in making deals in business. But even he as the great deal-maker that he is struggles to find consensus with those in Congress with different ideas. He’s shown flexibility in negotiations — often more than those in Congress with whom he negotiates.

But just as President Trump finds himself negotiating with very resolute and political lawmakers, those same lawmakers find themselves negotiating with the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal. They don’t yet show that they understand holding out in negotiations is part of the success in accomplishing resolution.

Lost in all this are those in the American public who can do nothing but stand and watch. That includes 800,000 federal workers who will now miss their second paycheck. It is sad that those innocent workers find themselves in the bullseye of Gridlock through no fault of their own. But it is even sadder that the very ones who could have taken actions to prevent the shutdown in the first place still are feeding the logjam.

It is ironic to hear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer say again and again, “Trump could stop this shutdown and reopen the government in one day. We passed a bill in the House that will fund the government. It’s a shame that he will not put the welfare of Americans over his demands for an immoral border wall.”

Where’s the irony? They are telling Americans that Trump giving up and relenting on southern border safety measures that a majority of Americans want is the ONLY way to make government funding happen. They never mention the OTHER action that could do the exact same thing in one day: Democrats could fund and reopen the government in one day as well. How? Fund the bill that insures border security and funds the wall. They have all over and over in numerous interviews and speeches demanded those same measures themselves — including the Wall!

Why won’t they? Political expediency is more important than the financial welfare of those 800,000 workers and their families. THAT is the sad part of this debacle.

 

The Face of the Democrat Party

January 24, 2019

From 2008 through 2016, the Democrat Party face was that of former President Barack Obama. Though many of his policy positions changed during his 8 years, it was certainly obvious “when” he made those changes and “where” specific changes ended up. In today’s Democrat Party, not only is the determination of who is the face of the party impossible, so is the determination of the Democrat Party platform. Let’s see if maybe we can narrow the options for those determinations.

The DNC

So who is the Democrat Party’s leader? Is it House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Or is it new Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Are Democrats looking to get governing ideas from the left-leaning, aging, yet experienced and powerful California Speaker, or from the young, energetic, Socialist from New York? Here we are two years after Obama gave the White House keys to Donald Trump and we still don’t know who is leading his party. Rank and file Democrats don’t even know!

Consider this: they made it through the 2018 midterm elections and fared very well. But the question that many Americans are asking today is “Can the Democrat Party not just survive the 2020 election, but can they wrestle control of the Senate and the White House away from Republicans? I don’t have a crystal ball, but if history plays a role here, it is doubtful Dems will gain control of both while maintaining their House majority. And that should weigh heavily in their decisions regarding legislation and how the House operates in the next two years. And, quite honestly, they’re not getting off to a good start.

The House

Oh, the House of Representatives is in session? Few know that answer with certainty. All we seem to hear (because all the mainstream media want to “report”) is “Trump’s government shutdown.” They forget that the President has put four different offers for resolution on the table to which Pelosi and Schumer have not only declined but refuse to make counter offers. Maybe that’s the way the House Democrats feel they can win control of the entire government!

Yes, there ARE things happening in the House of Representatives — but nothing substantive. They have offered at least 6 bills passed by the Democrat majority for government funding. But they did so purely symbolically, knowing there was nothing going to happen across the Hall. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear weeks ago that the Senate would not waste time considering those bills or any that the President would not sign into law — and that was NOT going to happen for any legislation that did not contain funding for the southern border wall. If we rely on what’s happening now in the House, there is NO party leadership at all.

House Speaker Pelosi is back in charge. She wielded her substantive power and apparently cut deals with those Democrats in the House that opposed her return. But she is known as by far the best campaign fundraiser for Democrats in House history. For that, they needed her in their corner.

But is she the best “Face” for the Democrat Party? Who can forget this:

Remember that statement? She was referring to what history will probably show as the most expensive law in U.S. history: The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Remember this: the Speaker of the House — Nancy Pelosi — told EVERYONE she did NOT know what was in the bill nor did any other Democrat in the House or Senate. But we needed it passed so we could “find out what was in the bill.”

You can’t fix stupid. And that statement was and is stupid.

The Senate

Over there sits Chuck Schumer — New York’s “Obstructor in chief.” If you look up the definition of “Obstructor,” you’ll see Chuck’s picture!  He forgets there is YouTube that documents EVERYTHING we say and do. Here’s a collage of Schumer’s very obvious flip-flops on a myriad of policies:

Cabinet appointments, policy questions, judge and other position appointment confirmations: ALL — at least according to Schumer — should be handled in the Senate whatever way DEMOCRATS say they should! His hypocrisy in these videos is actually hilarious. Why? BECAUSE HE RIGHT NOW IS ONE OF THE DEFACTO LEADERS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY! It would be funny if it was not for the fact we need someone in HIS position who is really ready-enough to deal with legislation strictly on the grounds of what is best for the country. And in Schumer’s own words: “How can any President not get confirmations for the appointments he makes. Good God, he’s the President!”

Oops…it seems that Chuck only believed that when Obama was in office. He planned on that working the same way during a Hillary Clinton two-term stint at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But the American people thought otherwise.

So who is running the Democrat Party? Let’s go BACK to the House of Representatives:

AOC: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The new member of Congress from the New York suburbs has set the political world on fire. She’s young, she’s energetic, AND SHE’S A SOCIALIST! But let’s correct that: she’s really not a Socialist — she’s a “Communist-light.” As she speaks more and more in the public in interviews, rallies, and appears on television and radio talk shows — basically everytime she opens her mouth — she proves just how virtually incoherent she is discussing “facts” about all things American. Putting it mildly, she doesn’t have a clue:

Let’s put this freshman member of Congress and her political views in perspective: she has shared her ideas and ideals throughout her campaign to many who live and work in New York, fellow members of Congress since her election, on all these talk shows on television and radio, and still the Mainstream Media are fawning over her simply because she’s young and attractive, speaks well, and is a minority Congressional member of the House of Representatives! Apparently, those are the only traits necessary to be considered a potential leader of the Democrat Party.

Do Americans really support that concept?

  • 60% of Americans polled support AOC’s plan to assess a 70% federal income tax rate on wealthy Americans;
  • She stated that the very existence of billionaires is evil and that no one in the United States should be a billionaire;
  • While appearing on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show following President Trump’s address to the nation on the crisis at the U.S. Southern border, she attacked Americans opposed to illegal immigration and glossed over the recent murder of a legal immigrant police officer Cpl. Ronil Singh;
  • A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey found that, if the 2020 presidential race was between Trump and Ocasio-Cortez, 43% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for Trump, while 40% would vote for Ocasio-Cortez. A sizable 17% are undecided;
  • And then there’s this:

Summary

In AOC’s own words, “Call me a radical.” I remember Americans pretty much saying the same thing about that junior Senator from Chicago when he ran for President. Democrats (and enough “other” Americans) felt the U.S. needed a president that would bring radical new ideas to the nation. Obama’s views were radical when compared to the mainstream. And for eight years, he did his best to fulfill his promise to “lead the nation in fundamental change.” Unfortunately for the U.S., his leadership drove us in economic devastation and eroded almost all of our international credibility while killing our military might.

Are Democrats ready for new “radical” leadership? Are U.S. citizens ready for that including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents? Thankfully, the New York radical is not old enough to make a bid for the White House. But, the leadership of the Democrat Party is in her sights. And mind-dumb Millennial and Generation Z-ers are enough in number to probably see that happen.

70% Tax Rates: hopefully we will NEVER see that — at least not in my lifetime!

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“Politism”

January 23, 2019

Like never before in American history we find ourselves standing on a precipice looking across a massive hole in the Earth to see other Americans standing on the other side looking down into the same abyss. To the dismay of both groups of people, that abyss keeps widening while getting deeper and deeper, even as they watch.

Who’s digging that chasm? Who are the people looking in? What’s in the void between the two groups? We’ll get to those answers in detail, even though I’m pretty sure most already know them. But for this conversation, let’s try to back into the answers.

“Politism”

There IS such a word as “politism,” but not in the English language. There is a Twitter site named “Politism.” But in the first tweet, you’ll read confirmation there is no such word as “politism.” So let’s make it ours.

“Politism:” the state in which one decides to live, regardless of realities. In doing so, that person determines a combination of beliefs — “their” combination of beliefs — is the correct combination that all people should adopt. That combination most often includes their personal perspectives of religion, U.S. law as it applies to persons and entities, social and economic “allowables” and norms, and politics. To hold politism together in one package, it is wrapped with the undying right to personally determine when and how to unleash their politism throughout their world, and that all who interact with them must receive the politismist’s permission to co-exist in their universe. Anyone who lives outside their World is unqualified and unworthy to do so. And those outside are the scum of the Earth, no matter who they really are.

Wait a minute — I thought the World is divided into racial groups, ethnic, political, and gender groups AND those people who self-identify with others of the same social ilk. But by the definition above, Politism appears to be the “ultra” identifier of all. How so?

Today

Who can possibly argue that the U.S. today looks little like the U.S. of the 1900s or even the early 2000s? Americans are fragmented in so many ways that few if any can even identify the various groups who wrestle for space, yet alone determine eligibilities to identify qualified membership in the “right” group. But we are going to try.

Politics

For many years American political parties have been few in number and philosophy. Democrats and Republicans have pretty much dominated. There are other political parties that pop up from time to time. But Dems and the G.O.P. have held on the reins of politics. Libertarians, those in the Green Party, even Socialists are there. But in each election cycle, it seems the fastest growing political group are none of these and is not even a party: Independents. These are Americans who may hold political ideas that lean Conservative and Liberal, but not enough to identify with either major political party. In elections, they normally vote based on the positions taken by candidates on issues most important to those voters. So they vote for the candidate and not the candidate’s party.

Democrats have over the last 60 years watched as their party has skewed farther and farther to the liberal end of politics. John F. Kennedy was a Democrat, but most of his political ideas would today identify more with those of Republicans than Dems. Republicans still are faithful to the conservative side of the political spectrum. As it pertains to Politism, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a lock on being “THE” ones who own that moniker. There are politismists in both.

Politism in politics is not quiet, is not secretive, rather an “in your face” way to operate. It is most obviously used by those who lean to the extreme side of their party: Republican politismists lean far right in their party while Democrat poltismists lean extreme left. And we are seeing it played out on the world stage of politics in a greater fashion than ever before. In fact, many are just now discovering that politism even exists and what it is.

I’ve often wondered how there could be such vast differences between the two major parties. Republicans are quieter, more deliberative, seem more factual, and far more conservative than Democrats. Republicans are horrible in their messaging. Democrats have found ways to dominate political messaging and most often on major issues make Republicans look slow.

We will not waste any time to point out examples of these: all see them every day. But what we WILL discuss today is WHY the messaging process is so different between parties and how Democrats have launched what seems to be an all-out war on Conservatism that is relentless.

Messaging

Conservative talk radio shows and television almost daily list example after example of how Democrats are running amuck with their attacks on conservatives and conservatism. Most of all, their attack of all things Donald Trump is mind-boggling. But if you look at polling numbers today — especially those of Millennials and Generation Z-ers, those young people that comprise those two generations, Democrats are really effective. And they know that! So what do they do? They ramp their efforts up to a fever pitch!

How do they do it?

Militarization

Just like a nation needs an active military to attack that nation’s enemies and protect the nation from all outside enemies, Democrats have found a way to use militarization to attack and seize the political narrative of the day. Just as did Hitler during the decade before World War II, the American media has become the attack dogs of not the government, but of the Democrat Party. The Mainstream Media has now proudly accepted the brand of being that military arm of the Party.

What has been put front and center over the last decade is a heretofore no so obvious weaponizing of the American media. Have you asked yourself how those in news can get so many stories wrong? After all, journalists have always been the ones who get it right by telling us the truth in every story.

The media’s number one weapon? Politism.

There is a generation today that have benignly adopted Politism without even knowing it or even what it is: “the state in which one decides to live, regardless of realities.” The Mainstream Media have effectively (on behalf of their partners: the Democrat Party) convinced Millenials and Generation Z-ers of the correct political perspective of the day — EACH DAY.

How have they accomplished this? By the “frog in the boiling water” example: Put a frog in a pot of cold water and the frog is happy. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and the frog immediately jumps out. But gradually turn the heat up on that pot of cold water, and the frog will swim around it disregarding the water getting hotter and hotter — until he dies.

Purveying the Democrat Party’s messages to those who are obviously the primary targets of the Left has been and is Mainstream Media’s #1 objective. And it’s working!

How is it working?

  • How else would so many Americans constantly demand facts of what’s going in D.C. and instead accept what the Media tells them AS THE FACTS WITH NO QUESTION?
  • How could Socialism, in the wake of the obvious failed Socialist nation horrors that fill the news like that in Venezuela and Cuba, be an actual possible solution to many Americans as portrayed by the Media?
  • How could someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez be elected to Congress from New York? Her claims regarding global warming destroying Earth in the next 12 years, her lack of understanding of American jobs and employment, foreign policy, and the economy that have no basis in fact, yet alone in reality! Yet a recent poll shows that 60% of Americans polled would actually consider voting for her for president if she was old enough to run: Politism.

Politism!

Hitler used the German media to confuse German citizens. Their media for years “reported” stories that were fed by the Nazi government to every German newspaper every day regarding important issues to the German people, but were skewed toward the Nazi politism. The truth did not matter to Hitler. And the German people after hearing it over and over and over again began to assume what they were hearing and reading were all facts.

Want a current American example of Poltism?

ANTIFA

Antifa, or Anti Fascists, are making headlines around the country…particularly in Berkley, Portland, and other far left strongholds. They are initiating violent protests, counter-protests, and rioting on college campuses and in the streets of major U.S. cities. For many Americans, they appear to be a new organization, one which has sprung to life to protest President Trump’s election. In reality, Antifa is nearly 100 years old and has roots that go directly back to Joseph Stalin and post WWI Europe.

What is new about the current Antifa movement is their target. They are no longer attacking fascists to springboard a communist revolution in Europe. Their current target is the political rift between Conservatives and Liberals in the U.S. Their goal is to create the conditions for a Communist takeover of the Democrat party and the eventual subversion of our constitutional republic. To this end, they are attacking everyone who holds a conservative viewpoint–and for political cover, they are labeling conservatives as fascists while hiding their own communist ideology.

And the Mainstream Media have refused to denigrate Antifa or to even expose Antifa’s objectives as the group has destroyed millions of dollars worth of property in the name of protecting Free Speech while in essence attacking those who are practicing Free Speech! The MSM has made Antifa in America an acceptable Politism!

Other examples of the Politism of the Media are Identity Politics, Islamaphobia, Homophobia, Xenophobia, Racism, and Nationalism. While those actually exist, the MSM has weaponized not the act of standing against any of these or speaking out against them, but have crafted REAL attacks against all those who express any anti-politistic opinion against any of these. And those Media attacks have NO factual basis or truth. Their only support is Politism.

Summary

We must be honest. We must open our minds to learn exactly how the political perspective of this nation could possibly spiral into an abyss of Leftist politism so quickly. It seems like only yesterday this nation united around a conservative president who launched an all-out offensive against Iraq when the Twin Towers in Manhattan fell killing 3000 Americans. Every American was in lock-step with that effort.

The rift between American political philosophies began to rapidly devolve into politism when the Obama Administration was birthed and with his promise to lead “fundamental change of America.”

Obama didn’t invent Politism: he simply gave it a shove into the world of the Mainstream Media along with his permission to use to turn the nation hard left. And it is working.

Remember this: any time you hear, read, or see any member of the media present facts that you KNOW are not facts, follow the perspective of that reporter to find the source of what is presented. More often than not you will find it rooted in a specific tenet of Politism.

Doing so is not evil as we are told everytime we disagree with those on the left. It’s what Americans were given the right to do. That right comes from the U.S. Constitution. And those rights — OUR rights — are being trampled as the Media is now ignoring the First Amendment that without saying it, guaranteed Americans to see and hear and speak the truth with total freedom. The Mainstream Media parrot that anytime they are questioned about their politistic “news” and its factual basis.

Unfortunately, even though they are the ones that should be the keepers of the Truth and the last hope for the Truth for Americans, they have fallen into Politism and all its trappings. Their bosses are using politism to turn the heads and hearts of millions of Americans. And it’s not getting better.

 

 

 

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Why Not Just Go Ahead with Dems Immigration Plans?

January 21, 2019

Everyone sees and hears the same thing day after day after day after day: “Why doesn’t President Trump just agree to one of the bills passed by the House of Representatives that fully funds the federal government and let government employees go back to work. The closing was strictly for political purposes — his border wall — which is a waste of $5 Billion taxpayer dollars, will not work, and is immoral. And those 800,000 federal employees are being penalized in the name of his stupid Wall.” Has anyone heard any or all of that? It’s EVERYWHERE!

Certainly, it would be much easier for a lot of folks if President Trump went ahead and caved to Pelosi and Schumer and did just that: call those workers back. But if he did, he would be betraying 63+ million Americans who he promised while campaigning that he would build that wall, close the southern border, and stop the flood of illegal immigrants from coming across that border. That would stop the flood of illegal drug, stop the sex traffickers, stop multiple felony offenders, and see to it that immigration laws in place are enforced until the portions of those laws that are outdated, unreasonable, and ineffective are terminated, fixed, or replaced with new legislation from Congress.

I am stepping aside of objectivity for just one moment and say this: Why would ANY American — member of Congress or anyone else for that matter — want so desperately for the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants that numbered among them are gang members, drug and human traffickers, and thousands of others that have already been deported for lawbreaking to be allowed into the United States illegally? They are willing for this to happen in spite of no one knowing who those illegals are, which are good people just looking for better lives, and which are illegals who prey on legal Americans by committing against them everything from petty larceny to rape and murder? Until someone in a position of authority is willing to explain their willingness to continue to allow that to happen, please stop the outrageously ridiculous cries to do so.

To kick off a real discussion about this today, let’s address the argument that is thrown in our faces almost daily: Ronald Reagan gave citizenship to millions of illegals in 1986. He was the Republican hero that all point to as the conservative example for all to follow. If he did that, what is wrong for doing it again?

Yes, that was 33 years ago — a LONG time ago. But that law and surrounding circumstances are worth taking a look at. So let’s (in brief) take a look:

Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Law

President Reagan had a heart for immigrants. As a former California governor, he knew first-hand the benefits that immigrants were to the California agriculture industry. He was pressured by most of the leaders in California’s agriculture industry to find a way to legalize all those workers that were necessary to California Agriculture operation. They made it clear that without those illegals available to work in their fields, vineyards, and on their farms, California’s leading economic industry was doomed. That was the place that Reagan birthed the idea of addressing the growing illegal migrant population in America.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) is the legal name of the law. In a very brief fashion, here were the immigration issues addressed in the law:

  • required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status;
  • made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
  • legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
  • legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt.
  • candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

At the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.

So what did the law actually do?

I’ll refer to an article from the Washington Post who better than I could list its provisions:

What did the 1986 immigration law do? Two big things. First, there was the “amnesty” bit. Any unauthorized immigrants who had already been living in the United States continuously since 1982 became eligible for temporary legal status, after paying a $185 fee and demonstrating “good moral character.” After 18 months, they could then become eligible for green cards, provided they learned to speak English.

Second, there was the enforcement bit. The law aimed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border against illegal crossings with new surveillance technology and a bigger staff. The bill also, for the first time in history, imposed penalties on businesses that knowingly hired or employed unauthorized immigrants.

How many immigrants took advantage of amnesty? The law awarded green cards to about 2.7 million immigrants, all told — including about 1 million farm workers. It was the largest legalization program in U.S. history.

When the bill passed, at the signing ceremony, President Reagan was obviously pleased with the accomplishments. Listen closely to the things he says at the signing:

Has it Worked?

  • The 1986 amnesty legalized approximately 2.7 million illegal immigrants, a much smaller number than the 11 million estimated today. Washington approved 90 percent of the 1.3 million agricultural workers who sought legal status despite detecting fraud in nearly a third of the applications.
  • The amnesty was supposed to be balanced with stronger enforcement measures, such as employer sanctions for those who hire illegal immigrants. This remains a major selling point of the “comprehensive” approach to immigration today.
  • This enforcement turned out to be a bait and switch, like when spending cuts are promised in exchange for tax increases. The amnesty happened and is irreversible. The enforcement has been spotty and in some cases never materialized.
  • What did materialize was more illegal immigration. By one estimate, illegal immigration increased by 44 percent between 1987 and 1989, from the start of amnesty to its peak. The Congressional Research Service reports that the illegal immigrant population swelled from 3.2 million in 1986 to 12.4 million in 2007, “before leveling off at 11.1 million in 2011.”
  • Some analysts believe the number of illegal immigrants reached as high as 20 million. The author of a Bear Stearns report arriving at the figure later told the Wall Street Journal, “The assumption that illegal people will fill out a census form is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard of.”
  • It’s also worth noting that four years after amnesty became law, President George H.W. Bush signed a bill increasing legal immigration by 40 percent. Legal immigration has also been higher than in the mid-1980s and illegal immigration still increased.

Many Republicans who want to repeat the Reagan amnesty hope this will improve the party’s standing among Hispanics. But the actual Republican Hispanic vote share decreased between 1984, before amnesty, and 1988, after. It is noteworthy that since December of 2018, the statistics showing support among Hispanics for President Trump’s stand against illegal migrants has climbed from 31% to 59%.

As illegal immigration increased, enforcement decreased. Audits of employers of illegal immigrants dropped 77 percent between fiscal years 1990 and 2003. Warnings fell 62 percent. Notices of intent to fine illegal employers plummeted 82 percent.

Summary

So here’s the answer to the question asked in the first paragraph above: The reason President Trump has not agreed to the immigration plans given to him by Democrats is illustrated perfectly by the Washington Post  — which few would disagree that doesn’t support the President in any way — the promises of Democrats that were even included in the law were NOT and still are NOT being kept in the wake of the blanket amnesty given to 2.7 million illegals. And the population of other illegals, as a result, has climbed to what the most recent non-partisan report states is now over 20 million.

How could any thinking, breathing human being expect this president — ANY president — to flatly agree to any promises made by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? Why shouldn’t he go ahead and open the government? If he does, several things will happen:

  • Obviously, all those federal workers go back on the job. That’s a good thing;
  • Nancy Pelosi said plainly in their last meeting when the President asked she and Chuck: “If I go ahead and re-open the government, will you agree to negotiate over the next 30-days to fund border protection measures that include the wall?” Nancy stated they would not;
  • In doing so, he would break a campaign promise that was the justification for millions of Americans to vote for him for President. For that, he certainly would lose the White House in 2020.

Let’s stipulate the wall, other types of border security, and closing the border WERE Trump campaign promises. But Americans should NOT have to argue in any way about the need for Congress and other parts of our government to enforce the laws of the United States! Not doing so accepts anarchy as a legitimate and acceptable government operation!

Here’s what I suggest: everytime you have a conversation with anyone who supports keeping immigration policies just as they are and wants the government open without making any commitments for real immigration law enforcement, ask them this question: “What is an acceptable number to you of legal Americans to be killed by illegal migrants before you would demand total illegal immigration law enforcement?”

And if they give you a number — any number — ask them this: “Are you O.K. if included in that number is your wife, husband, or child?”

That may seem harsh or cruel. But if we continue down this open-border road on which we are traveling, the odds of having an immediate family member having that happen become more and more real everyday.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Desperation

January 19, 2019

Do you like me sometimes reach a moment of desperation? Have you ever looked at life’s circumstances as they pertain to you and think, “I do NOT understand what’s happening. I do NOT know why this is happening to me. I do NOT know what to do about all this.”

If you have ever felt this way (or feel that way right now) you are certainly not alone. In fact, if you NEVER felt that way, you certainly ARE alone! Let’s face facts: life circumstances that sometimes overwhelm not only are normal, for most it is usual. Experiences beyond our control that surface in our lives fairly often is a normal occurrence.

Desperation

When do these uncontrollable circumstances morph into Desperation? Webster defines desperation as “loss of hope and surrender to despair.” OK, so what is “despair?” Webster defines “despair” as: “the utter loss of hope.”

This is getting a bit confusing! “Loss of hope” is the common denominator of these definitions. I’ll bite: What is “hope?”

Hope is (according to Webster) “to cherish a desire with anticipation: to want something to happen or be true.” Now we’re getting somewhere.

“Hope” is the first of these feelings — “desperation,” “despair,” “the utter loss of hope” — that WE control!

Hmmm…

We’ve all heard the word “faith” used in multiple frames of reference in our lives: maybe in your wedding vows used this way — “faithful.” It may have been  about your favorite NFL team’s pending ballgame outcome: “I have faith the Saints will beat the Rams!”

We’ve all heard the word, we’ve all said the word. But what does the word “faith” mean? Let’s not go to Webster for the definition. Let’s go to the Bible.

(Wait a minute! We can’t talk religion in this story. How do you get away with that? BECAUSE IT’S MY BLOG!)

Faith

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1, New International Version) The same verse from the King James version says this: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things HOPED for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”

Now we’re getting somewhere.

In most instances, when we get desperate, we’ve lost faith in a situation getting better — we’ve given up. It may be a problem with a child that just seems to achieve no resolution no matter how hard we try. Maybe it’s in a relationship with a spouse, a friend or fellow worker. Sometimes desperation sets in when a close friend or family member with whom we have a close bond find themselves in circumstances that are too intense for them. And we are so close to them, we feel their desperation and make that feeling our own.

By way of clarity: I am not a medical mental health expert. But at my age, my life is full of experiences with many people from many places who have diverse life circumstances. Throughout my 6+ decades, I’ve seen much desperation surface with many different faces in some of those. One does not need to be a professional to see the differences of reactions by people to determine which “escapes” from desperation are successful and which fail. I’ve seen miraculous escapes from desperation from a multitude of common and strange circumstances, to examples of total failure and even suicide. But in certainty, we can say the results of actions taken by anyone to end desperation that result in DEEPER desperation are NEVER the correct ones.

It has been my almost universal experience with desperation that there is one way out and one way only: Faith — faith in an answer, faith in some source of that answer, and ultimately faith in God.

If you routinely attend church you certainly have heard messages about faith. But hearing messages about faith that one can turn into faith are two different things. To use faith to dump desperation, getting a grasp of what faith is and how to obtain it to use in those desperate circumstances, often create a conundrum.

So how do we get our arms around Faith?

There’s no magic in that process. There’s no secret formula for faith — seldom are there lightning flashes or thunder when faith shows up.

I don’t want to trivialize its importance. The Bible even makes it clear how critical faith is to our well being in Romans 14: “Everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

Don’t get confused: put the two verses together and you’ll be able to better understand what faith is and its importance. By its definition, it is just a little piece of what we hope for — whether literally if we’re looking for tangible and material results, or even if our desired results are intangible. What we are hoping for is NOT visible to us at that time. But we CAN get results when we trust that that “little piece” we see is, in fact, proof that we WILL see the final results.

Does that make sense?

Let’s try this example:

Bubba finds beautiful young Judy at high school and falls in love with her. She is gorgeous! And because of her beauty, every boy in school wants to date her. Bubba one day sheepishly runs into Judy in the hallway and he says “Hello.” To Bubba’s surprise, she smiles back. So, Bubba introduces himself. Judy immediately quips, “I know who you are. I’ve been watching you!”

Things begin to gel between the pair and they start dating. They become inseparable, together all the time each has from other responsibilities. It doesn’t take long for Bubba to determine that Judy’s the one for him for life.

After graduation, he decides to pop the big question. And to his surprise, Judy agrees to marry him! They are officially engaged. They set a wedding date 10 months down the road.

Judy is STILL beautiful, still desirous to other guys who want to date her, but she’s now engaged to Bubba. Judy “promised” to marry him. But Bubba must make a decision about their relationship: should he trust Judy’s commitment to spend the rest of her life with him, or should Bubba worry about “outside” influences? He wants her by his side for life. And he’s committed for life to her and only her. Though she made the same commitment to him, what should he do to make sure she fulfills her commitment?

The answer is simple: Bubba can go down that road of care and concern about Judy and her commitment. That ultimately leads to worry and concern, and sometimes that results in desperation. So that is obviously not the REAL answer Bubba needs.

There is an alternative: FAITH. You cannot see faith, you cannot touch faith. But it is necessary for us to make it through life’s circumstances of which we HAVE NO CONTROL. We MUST have faith to get to that wedding date in one piece.

How did Bubba do that? How do WE do that? FAITH.

Bubba’s faith came from the fact he nurtured a personal relationship with Judy during the one year. By knowing her, he received through that the “substance” of her commitment to a lifetime with him. The evidence of what Bubba was hoping for — marriage — the trust he garnered during that year from the relationship that developed during that year. That is an example of faith that we all should be able to grasp.

There’s actually a funny faith example that may seem ridiculous, but it also illustrates faith:

A couple had two sons, Billy and Tommy. Tommy was the eternal optimist. He seldom cried or even frowned. He stayed happy all the time. Billy seemed to be like all other children. One would think parents would be thrilled with a childlike Tommy, but both worried that he would not grow up knowing the harsh realities that life can bring. Billy seemed to be a realist, so their parents were not concerned about him.

One Christmas, the father had an idea: “We need to shock Tommy into reality. All we will give Tommy for Christmas is a bag of animal poop. That will teach him what reality is.” That’s what they did.

Christmas morning both boys joined their parents to open presents. Billy had 3 or 4 neat gifts that he unwrapped. Tommy waited until Billy was through and then opened his only gift: the bag of poop. The moment he saw the present’s contents, he jumped up and started running around the house from room to room, slamming doors, squealing all the while.

His Dad followed him, stopped him from running, and said this to son: “Tommy, you just got a bag of poop for Christmas and nothing else. Why would you possibly be so excited?” Tommy pushed past his Dad headed out to the garage and shouted to his Dad as he opened the garage door: “I got a bag of poop. I’m going to find my pony!”

You get it, don’t you? When Tommy saw the poop, he knew he held the evidence of what he hoped for. He wanted a pony and had dreamed of getting one for Christmas. That poop was the substance of the hoped-for pony and the evidence there was one, he just had to find it.

Summary

Every time we face a crisis in our lives, we have just two choices to make: do we take it head on, knowing that no matter how bad those circumstances are, sometimes bad things happen to good people? Do we in desperation fall to pieces crying “Woe is me,” or do we make the other choice, to believe that whatever the situation is, there is or are solutions to this crisis that will be available to me that I don’t know right now, but I WILL find them and get this taken care of.

Faith is critical for those circumstances in which we know we have no solution: serious illness, financial crisis, etc. We have those two choices and two only.

So when they show up at your house, I encourage you to turn away from the temptation to embrace desperation and opt for grabbing and holding on to faith to get through those happenings. It’s always a choice: our choice.

By the way: Bubba and Judy remain happily married 43 years later. Actually, on Valentines Day it will be 44 years. That’s a true story.

I’m Bubba!

 

 

 

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Money, Money Money

January 18, 2019

Ever wonder what happens to the money illegal migrants make while working in the U.S.? It is common knowledge that, for decades, the primary reason for illegals entering the U.S. is to find better employment than that available to them in their home countries — especially Mexico. Having the ability to almost at will cross the U.S. southern border, it is common for illegals to find mostly blue collar jobs that pay far more than the available jobs in Mexico. Unfortunately, many employers in the U.S. find it tempting to take advantage of those workers AND U.S. law by paying those migrants lower than normal wages and paying many in cash. Doing so saves companies millions in required Medicare, Social Security, and federal unemployment employer matching fees. Cash payments allow migrants to get these jobs AND employers to bypass federal and state employment laws by not enrolling these workers in the system.

A large majority of these illegals send a portion of their earnings back to Mexico to family members. It is shocking to know how many U.S. dollars head to Mexico in this fashion every year. It’s BILLIONS!

How much is it?

Mexicans sent home $26.1 billion from January to November 2017, according to figures released Tuesday by the central bank of Mexico. That’s the most ever recorded and better than the $24.1 billion sent in 2016 over the same period. Most of the cash sent to Mexico by Mexicans living in the U.S. is transferred by “undocumented” workers. A survey by Inter-American Dialogue of remittances to Mexico found that 67 percent were sent by these individuals living in the U.S.

Of all of the remittances sent to 11 countries in Latin America from the U.S., Mexico received the largest share by far at 36 percent – four times more than the closest competitor, Guatemala, at 9 percent, the survey found.

Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), which exceed US$70 billion dollars, are playing a key role in the region’s economic development,” according to the institute’s recent “Remittances scorecard.”

The majority of remittances to Mexico, 88.2 percent, are sent using the services of companies like MoneyGram and Western Union, the institute found. It said the cash transfer industry has “expanded dramatically,” and now helps migrants in the U.S. pay their bills in Latin America.

But while services have expanded, the cost of sending money to Latin America and the Caribbean has dropped to below 5 percent of the transfer amount. Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, says the cash transfers reveal a “hidden cost of illegal immigration because you have millions of dollars being taken out of local communities.” “Remittances being sent out of the country represent a substantial economic impact on local communities because that money is not circulating in those communities,” Mehlman said. “On top of that, a lot of the people generating this money are working off the books and there are no payroll taxes being taken,” he added.

Data gathered by the Mexican government and BBVA Research shows nearly one-third (29.6 percent) of all of the remittances sent from the U.S. to Mexico originated in California. Just over 14 percent was sent from Texas, and 5.1 percent from Illinois. Recently obtained numbers show that remittances sent to Mexico totaled 2.3 percent of the country’s GDP. Forbes has reported that the money sent from the U.S. to Mexico by migrants “replaced oil revenues as Mexico’s number one source of foreign income.”

Some 90 percent of all remittances sent worldwide are in cash, rather than by electronic or bank transfer, according to Alix Murphy, director of mobile partnerships at the remittances company WorldRemit, which operates in 47 states of the U.S. She said the market for money transfer services in the U.S. was “very diversified.” “We’re talking hundreds of companies that are regulated by the states.” Individuals using cash transfer services are required to show identification, but not immigration status. Foreign-issued IDs, however, can be used, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

The Remittance Status Verification Act, introduced by then-Senator David Vitter (R-La.) in 2014 but never passed into law, would have fined senders of international cash transfers seven percent of the transfer amount if they could not show “proof of status under U.S. immigration laws.” If enacted, such a law could slow the flow of remittances considerably, according to David Landsman, executive director of the National Money Transmitters Association.

In remarks published in the “Remittance Industry Observatory” newsletter, Landsman said that “forcing remittance companies to be immigration enforcement agents would make remittance volumes plummet in the best of times. Their transactions would then go through more informal methods, and become completely opaque to law enforcement.”

Details

We have known for years that most migrants slip into the U.S. illegally for job opportunities. Jobs that offer real futures to natives of Mexico are slim. And most Mexicans lack really good education because of dollars and cents. No reasonable person fails to understand the desperation that drives those from Mexico and all of Central America to the U.S. southern border. It’s all about income.

Additionally, it is unquestionable that the families of those illegals are dependent in part — and often totally dependent — on income sent back to Mexico from employed illegals in the U.S. That being said, those $26.1 billion taken out of the U.S. economy hurt the U.S. How?

No one knows an exact number if there is one, but experts state payroll dollars roll over 5 times in the markets where spent. As an example: Joe the Worker is married with 4 kids and makes $2000 a month. Joe takes home $1600 of that. Joe pays $600 rent, $100 in utilities, $400 in food, $200 for auto expense, $100 for clothing, $100 for prescription drugs, and $100 for miscellaneous expenses. Jose the worker is married with 4 kids and makes $2000 a month. Jose takes home $2000 in cash. Jose and his family share a house with his brother and they each pay $300 in rent. Jose pays $400 for food, shares the car with his brother and pays $100 for gas, $100 for clothing, $100 for drugs, and sends $1000 to his mother in Mexico.

Of Joe’s $2000, $400 is deducted for federal and state income tax and his share of Social Security and Medicare which are matched by his employer. Jose pays none of that. Both Joe and Jose’s rent money goes to their landlord as does cash for food, gas, and drugs. The federal and state government have $400 that goes to pay on government infrastructure for roads on which Joe drives, hospitals, and the schools which his children attend. The stores where he buys food and clothes and the utility company have money he pays them for THEM to spend paying their employees who in turn spend their checks in the town. Joe’s paycheck is spent 100% on goods and services from the federal and his state and local governments. Jose’s $2000 — with the exception of what he pays for rent, utilities, gas, and food — are paid to those in Mexico rather than being spent in his U.S. town. Just a small percentage of the portion of his local payments support government and public services he and his family use: roads, schools, medical facilities, etc. Yet he sends money home to Mexico that is paid into the economy there instead of the U.S.

If as economists claim payroll dollars roll over 5 times in the markets wherein employees work and live, Joe’s $2000 makes a $10,000 economic impact on his town and state. Of Jose’s $2000, only $1000 goes into that “rollover” cycle. The impact of his pay is just half of Joe’s, or $5000.

What’s wrong with that picture?

  • Being in the U.S. without permission is a crime. I struggle to even in conversation get beyond that point. And it is stupefying that such illegalities are even allowed to occur every day in the U.S.! But they are. Many in our federal government simply turn their backs on the rule of law in this instance purely for political purposes;
  • Illegals eat up the U.S. infrastructure with very little contribution for doing so while law-abiding Americans foot the bill. The two primary targets of their consumption without any (or very little) economic input on their part are medical facilities and public schools. The added weight of Spanish-speaking-only children in U.S. schools impacts how schools can even operate. It forces bilingual teachers to be provided which comes at additional taxpayer expense. And often children of illegals are significantly deficient in their level of education when enrolling in U.S. public schools. This forces schools to adjust curriculum and age/grade participation processes that impact U.S. children in major ways;
  • We cannot forget one major consideration in this issue: Jose takes a job that would be available for an American who is abiding by all the rules and whose income is spent totally in the United States. Yes, there are those who maintain that Mexican illegals perform in jobs that Americans will not. There is no factual basis for that premise though there certainly are some of those positions to which it is pertinent. But even if 50% of those jobs end up with illegals, 50% could have gone to legal American citizens.

What’s The Fix?

  1. Stop illegal immigration! There’s no substitute for that. Many conflate the issues purposely. It certainly is true that millions of people — not just from Mexico, but from almost every other country on Earth — want to live in the U.S., primarily for economic opportunity. The U.S. legally accepts 1 million immigrants annually into the U.S. legally. And that is more than do all the other countries on Earth combined! The U.S. really cares for the poor and needy. But the U.S. infrastructure cannot survive under the weight of those who soak up its resources with little if any economic contribution. That doesn’t even consider the social and criminal justice illegals bring to the U.S.
  2. Stop giving financial incentives to those who come here. U.S. employers are just as guilty in many cases as the illegals. If they would not hire workers that are illegal, the incentive for their coming would be severely limited. Many of those employers do so to dodge paying payroll taxes, (they are paid in tax) and they are able to hire illegals at a much lower wage than they pay legal immigrants and Americans. Why? Illegals are not in the U.S. system as are legal immigrants and Americans, sho those employers can get away with shortcuts at not only the government’s expense but by not paying into benefits for illegals as they do for legal workers.
  3. Minimize the massive amounts of dollars that leave the U.S. from these workers sending large portions of their pay back to Mexico. That could easily be accomplished by limiting the legal ways for them to do so. Several of those companies that process such payments internationally are listed above. Congress could easily pass legislation that would force these companies and all banking institutions to require full identity verification for all those who transfer money out of the U.S. AND could charge a percentage transfer fee for every transfer. Do the math: Of the $26 billion transferred each year, assess a 5% fee that would help make up the cost to America’s infrastructure used every day by these illegals that so far have been provided free. (Hey, that could even be applied to the cost of President Trump’s wall!)

This is all just a piece of the big problem America’s federal government keeps dancing around: illegal immigration. There’s no need for us to discuss details further. We all know them. But it certainly is time to right the ship of immigration and takes our country back to the rule of law. Everyone who lives and visits the U.S. should abide by EVERY law in place in every city, state, and anywhere in the U.S. And those who violate laws should pay the legal penalty for doing so.

Short of doing that, the U.S. is headed toward certain anarchy. How long will law-abiding American citizens continue to standby and watch our federal government allow illegal migrants to soak up our tax dollars and break our laws with impunity? We have not reached a tipping point yet. But in American history, there are examples of Americans saying, “Enough is enough!” and doing something about government wrongdoing.

Let’s don’t go there. Let’s fix the problem…NOW!

 

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download