Tuesday, August 8, 2017

PATRICK J. BUCHANAN - America's Road to Revolution Will Pass Through Trump Tower on the Way to Burn Wall Street Down

After the Coup, What Then?: That the Trump presidency is bedeviled is undeniable.

After the Coup, What Then?

Patrick J. Buchanan
 By Patrick J. Buchanan | August 8, 2017 | 8:25 AM EDT

(Wikimedia Commons Photo)
That the Trump presidency is bedeviled is undeniable.
As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.
The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.
Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.
Thanks to a media that savages him ceaselessly, Trump is down to 33 percent approval in a Quinnipiac University poll and below 40 percent in most of the rest.
Before Trump departed D.C., The Washington Post ran transcripts of his phone conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia.
Even Obama administration veterans were stunned.
So, it is time to ask: If this city brings Trump down, will the rest of America rejoice?
What will be the reaction out there in fly-over country, that land where the "deplorables" dwell who produce the soldiers to fight our wars? Will they toast the "free press" that brought down the president they elected, and in whom they had placed so much hope?
My guess: The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.
Our media preen and posture as the defenders of democracy, devoted to truth, who provide us round-the-clock protection from tyranny. But half the nation already sees the media as a propaganda arm of a liberal establishment that the people have rejected time and again.
Consider the Post's publication of the transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexico's president and Australia's prime minister.
When reporter Greg Miller got these transcripts, his editors, knowing they would damage Trump, plastered them on Page 1.
The Post was letting itself be used by a leaker engaged in disloyal and possibly criminal misconduct. Yet the Post agreed to provide confidentiality and to hide the Trump-hater's identity.
This is what we do, says the Post. People have a right to know if President Trump says one thing at rallies about Mexico paying for the wall and another to the president of Mexico. This is a story.
But there is a far larger story here, of which this Post piece is but an exhibit. It is the story of a concerted campaign, in which the anti-Trump media publish leaks, even criminal leaks, out of the FBI, CIA, NSA and NSC, to bring down a president whom the Beltway media and their deep-state collaborators both despise and wish to destroy.
Did Trump collude with Putin to defeat Clinton, the Beltway media demand to know, even as they daily collude with deep-state criminals to bring down the president of the United States.
And if there is an unfolding silent coup by the regime Americans repudiated in 2016 — to use security leaks and the lethal weapon of a special counsel to overturn the election results — is that not a story worth covering as much as what Trump said to Pena Nieto?
Do the people not have a right know who are the snakes collaborating with the Never-Trump press to bring down their head of state? Is not discovering the identities of deep-state felons a story that investigative reporters should be all over?
If Greg Miller is obligated to protect his source, fine. But why are other journalists not exposing his identity?
The answer suggests itself. This is a collaborative enterprise, where everyone protects everyone else's sources, because all have the same goal: the dumping of Trump. If that requires collusion with criminals, so be it.
The Justice Department is now running down the leaks, and the ACLU's Ben Wizner is apoplectic: "Every American should be concerned about the Trump administration's threat to step up its efforts against whistleblowers and journalists. A crackdown on leaks is a crackdown on the free press and on democracy."
That's one way to put it. Another is that some of these "whistleblowers" are political criminals who reject the verdict of the American electorate in 2016 and are out to overturn it. And the aforementioned "journalists" are their enablers and collaborators.
And if, as Wizner's asserts, protecting secrets is tantamount to a "crackdown on the free press and democracy," no wonder the free press and democracy are falling into disrepute all over the world.
By colluding, the mainstream media, deep state, and the special prosecutor's button men, with a license to roam, may bring down yet another president. So doing, they will validate John Adams's insight:
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

Devastating toll of hunger on US school children

By Patrick Martin 

8 August 2017
Hunger is a growing problem for US children and increasingly affects their performance in school, making it more difficult for them to focus on their classes or do homework. It also contributes to behavior and discipline problems.
This was the finding of a report issued last week by the anti-hunger charity Share Our Strength, based on a survey of 500 low-income parents and their teenage children in public schools. Some 325 teachers were also interviewed. “Low-income” was defined as at or below 185 percent of the official poverty line, or $45,417 a year for a family of four.
Among children in low-income families, 59 percent said they had gone to school hungry. In the richest country in the world, with the largest concentration of billionaires, one in six children faces hunger, some 13 million in all.
The survey found that 59 percent of the parents reported that their food ran out before they could buy more; 48 percent couldn’t afford to buy enough food each month; and 23 percent had been forced to cut the size of their children’s meals because of a lack of money.
Children were under increasing stress from hunger. Some 55 percent of children knew their parents were worried about running out of money for food, while 35 percent shared their parents’ fear. Among those teenagers in low-income families, 42 percent experienced sadness caused by hunger and 41 percent experienced anger for the same reason. Many teenagers reported deliberately going hungry to make sure that younger siblings could have enough to eat.
One 15-year-old told the survey, “I feel like real hungry is different. It’s like when your stomach growls. It’s like when your stomach is almost in pain for me. That’s what real hungry is.” A 16-year-old said, “My focus is different when I’m hungry. I’m gonna be thinking about which one of my classmates has food. I’m gonna be thinking about which one of them might share.”
Among low-income families, 92 percent had at least one adult in the household working full-time, part-time or in multiple jobs. Hunger is thus the byproduct not only of poverty, but of the precarious and contingent character of so many jobs and the lack of any meaningful social safety net. Among low-income parents, 64 percent said that a single unexpected large bill—a $1,500 car repair or medical expense—would make it difficult to feed their children.
Hunger is an increasingly serious obstacle to learning. Among teachers questioned in the survey, 92 percent said that hunger had an impact on their students’ learning, 80 percent saw loss of concentration, 62 percent saw behavior problems, and 47 percent saw students suffering additional health problems.
Nearly three out of four teachers regularly saw students come to school hungry, and nearly two-thirds of teachers reported regularly buying food for students who were not getting enough to eat at home, spending an average of $300 a year of their own money.
Children had an overwhelmingly positive response to their schools providing breakfasts and lunches. Three quarters said school meals helped them feel better, pay more attention, behave in the classroom and get better grades.
Brian Minter, a spokesman for Share Our Strength’s “No Kid Hungry” campaign, said, “Hunger exists in nearly every community in America today. It’s an urban problem, it’s a rural problem, and it has come to our suburbs. It is also a solvable problem.”
He noted that programs like food stamps, school meals and WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) had a major impact in alleviating hunger. But these programs are targeted for severe cuts, if not outright destruction, in the budget proposals of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.
According to a report published Thursday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the House Republican budget plan, scheduled for a vote in early September, would slash $2.9 trillion from programs for low-income and moderate-income families over the next ten years.
This includes a cut of $150 billion from food stamps alone, a reduction of 40 percent. According to the CBPP, “A funding reduction of this magnitude would end food assistance for millions of low-income families, reduce benefits for tens of millions of such families, or some combination of the two.”
State governments would be enlisted to do the dirty work, by transferring to them the authority to reduce benefits and increase eligibility standards. The budget would also limit “community eligibility,” which allows schools in high-poverty areas to provide free school meals to all students without documenting the income of each individual student’s family. Cuts in low-income entitlement and discretionary programs account for half of all the cuts in nonmilitary programs proposed by the House Budget Committee, although these programs make up only one quarter of the federal budget.
The CBPP estimated that the Republican budget would cut the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to social spending for low-income and moderate-income families from 2.1 percent to only 1.0 percent in 2027, the lowest percentage figure since 1966, when the Johnson administration launched its so-called “War on Poverty.”
While the Trump administration and the congressional Republicans propose to deal with the deepening poverty and social misery by deliberately making the conditions worse, the Democratic Party offers no alternative. The Democrats are not demanding hearings over hunger or the impact of the proposed budget cuts.
During the month-long legislative recess, when senators and representatives sponsor political events in their states and districts to highlight issues of concern, the Democrats are focusing on allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections and alleged collusion by the Trump campaign as part of a broader effort to whip up a war fever directed against targets of the Pentagon and CIA, in the first instance Russia.
There are no events spotlighting the dire conditions of life for tens of millions of working people. As for the Democrats’ latest political offering, the so-called “Better Deal” program unveiled last week, it makes no mention of poverty, hunger, homelessness or even unemployment, proposing to use the power of the federal government to boost the interests of “small business and entrepreneurs” and defend “Main Street” against “Wall Street”—i.e., favor one section of business against another.






"La Voz de Aztlan has produced a video in honor of the millions of babies that have been born as US citizens to Mexican undocumented parents. These babies are destined to transform America. The nativist CNN reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are over 200,000 (dated) "Anchor Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000 (dated) . La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is approximately 500,000 (dated)  "Anchor Babies" born every year."

 The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.2

As city officials pontificate on the virtues of illegal immigration and vow to defy the sanctuary city warnings from Washington, follow the money. A few days ago, Fox News ran an exclusive about how illegal aliens cost the county of Los Angeles&nb...

August 8, 2017

As sanctuary cities fight Trump, follow the money




As city officials pontificate on the virtues of illegal immigration and vow to defy the sanctuary city warnings from Washington, follow the money.
A few days ago, Fox News ran an exclusive about how illegal aliens cost the county of Los Angeles $1.3 billion in handouts from the taxpayers over two years.
Illegal immigrant families received nearly $1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-​quarter of the amount spent on the county's entire needy population, according to data obtained by Fox News.
The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services – which is responsible for doling out the benefits – and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.
The sanctuary county of Los Angeles is an illegal immigration epicenter, with the largest concentration of any county ​in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. ​The county also allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.
To say the least, it's a huge amount, and it points to the extent that Los Angeles has made itself a magnet for illegal aliens.
County officials and leaders often babble on about how everyone is welcome and the county serves people "no matter where they came from," as the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, more or less put it the other day.  In other words, they do it because they are virtuous.  They do it out of the goodness of their hearts.  They do it because they are nice people.
A more astute observation from the right is that they do it to win the Latino vote, which generally goes Democrat.
But more importantly, they do it for money.
Going back to Los Angeles and its $1.3-billion fork-out to illegals, it's important to note where the lion's share of that money is actually ending up as illegals claim their benefits.
In the state of California, of which Los Angeles is a large part, most payouts to illegals go first to educate them, and then to jail them after they commit crimes, and then to pay for their medical care as they clog up emergency rooms and help themselves to Medi-Cal benefits from funds they never paid into.  Welfare itself rates a distant fourth.  The Los Angeles Times analyzes it this way:
Q: What about illegal immigrants? Could the state fix its deficit problem by cutting benefits to illegal residents?
No. State officials have estimated that services which go to California's illegal population add between $4 billion and $6 billion to state spending. The lion's share of that money goes to provide public education to children who are here illegally. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states must provide public school education to all children, regardless of citizenship, and the state has no option but to abide by that decision. The second-largest cost is for imprisoning convicts who are illegal immigrants. The budget-balancer includes an option for trying to save money by shifting those prisoners to federal custody, although past attempts to do that have failed. The third-largest cost is for medical care in emergency rooms, a portion of which is paid by the state. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of citizenship. The state also provides welfare benefits to some U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. In 2009, state officials estimated that denying those benefits would save about $640 million, but state lawyers said the move would probably be illegal because the U.S.-born children are U.S. citizens.
That said, the welfare benefits, at $640 million (the Times figure is a few years old), or $1.3 billion over two years, in Los Angeles County today alone, are not insignificant.  Supervisor Mike Antonovich, the rare right-winger found in those parts, has decried the welfare handouts to illegals that constrain the county's budget.
If the money is going to illegals for education, jailing, medical care, and welfare, each and every one of those handouts has a bureaucrat or other county employee behind it – many, in fact, administering and delivering services.  Los Angeles County's employees are among the highest paid in the nation, and the highest payouts go to medical and prison (sheriff) officials, as this chart shows here.  More illegals, more welfare, more bureaucrats employed.  So don't imagine that cities aren't making money off the misery of illegals  as they act to succor them.  The name of the game is drawing more of them in.
What's more, federal funding is often tied to how much a county spends on whatever it spends to deliver a service.  More services, more federal funds.  As the Times describes it:
The federal government pays up to 80% of the cost of some health and welfare programs, but in return sets minimum levels of state payments. If the state cuts below those minimums, it loses federal money. Other federal laws require the state to spend money on everything from prisons to universities.
The budget has some built in assumptions about the amount of money the state government will receive from Washington. If federal aid comes in above or below that assumed amount, that will alter the deficit projection. And most importantly, the deficit fluctuates with changes in the economy. California government depends heavily on income tax receipts from upper-income residents, and those tend to be volatile. State officials will release an official update on the deficit in May, but even before then, any of those factors could shift the projections by several billion dollars although not by enough to avoid either deep spending cuts or revenue increases.
What's needed now is a comprehensive study on how much money directly and indirectly counties make on illegal immigration.  It would explain why Los Angeles and Chicago are working so hard to attract illegals, and it's not the goodness of their leaders' hearts – it's money, big money, big government expansion, rolling federal dollars, and votes for Democrats.  Think of that next time you hear some mayor, bishop, or sheriff pontificate on the virtues of succoring illegal immigration at your expense.

LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years

By Tori Richards
·        Illegal immigrant families received nearly 
$1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare 

money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-​quarter of the 

amount spent on the county’s entire needy 

population, according to data obtained by Fox 


The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.
The sanctuary county of Los Angeles is an illegal immigration epicenter, with the largest concentration of any county ​in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. ​The county also allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.
Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who has written extensive studies on poverty and illegal immigration, said the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.” 
He said the costs of education, police and fire, medical, and subsidized housing can total $24,000 per year in government spending per family, much more than would be paid in taxes.
“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said.
The Trump presidency’s hardline immigration policies, though, may be playing some role in curtailing the population seeking welfare payments in recent months.
The same stats show Los Angeles County is expected to dole out $200 million less this year than in 2016, and several thousand fewer families are collecting benefits.
“The number of entrants nationwide is going down. The population is static if not shrinking,” Rector said.  
The welfare benefit data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services shows:
·         More than 58,000 families received a total of $602 million in benefits in 2015.
·         More than 64,000 families received a total of $675 million in 2016.
·         During the first five months of 2017, more than 60,000 families received a total of $181 million.
·         Welfare and food stamp costs for the county’s entire population were $3.1 billion in 2015, $2.9 billion in 2016 and $1.5 billion so far in 2017.
Roughly a quarter of California’s 4 million illegal immigrants reside in Los Angeles County.
In 2013, California spent a total of $25.3 billion on illegal immigrants – or $2,370 per U.S. citizen household, according to a 2013 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Texas and New York were second and third, at $12.1 billion and $9.5 billion, respectively. 
Former state Republican Party Chairman Shawn Steel blasted Los Angeles policies but credited Immigration and Customs Enforcement with stepping up deportations.
“The amazing thing is that everyone was expecting a big wall to stop [illegal immigration],” he said. “The decrease has been enhanced dramatically by ICE agents just doing their job.”
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a proponent of the city’s sanctuary status, is a driving factor behind expanding immigrant benefits. He founded the Office of Immigrant Affairs shortly after taking office in 2013 to help immigrants navigate the maze of government benefits.
“Immigration is at the heart of LA’s story,” he said in a written statement. “LA’s become one of the world’s great cities by embracing immigration and diversity and we’ll continue supporting anyone who wants to work hard and invest in our future – no matter who they are, where they came from or what language they speak.”

Tori Richards is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

No comments: