Tuesday, November 21, 2017

LLOYD MARCUS - WHEN WILL WE FINALLY HOLD WICKED HILLARY ACCOUNTABLE?

Clearly, Hillary Clinton is a sociopath, willing to sacrifice any and everything to get what she wants.  Donna Brazile's book exposed how Hillary and her DNC minions stole the presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders.  A normal perso...

When Will We Finally Hold Wicked Hillary Accountable?



Clearly, Hillary Clinton is a sociopath, willing to sacrifice any and everything to get what she wants.  Donna Brazile's book exposed how Hillary and her DNC minions stole the presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders.  A normal person would run for cover, thankful he is not in jail.  But not Hillary.  This sick woman remains laser-focused, obsessed with plotting to reverse the election to steal Trump's presidency.
Hillary is acting exactly like the little girl in the movie The Bad Seed.  In the movie, seemingly perfect and adorable eight-year-old Rhoda assumed she would win the perfect penmanship medal.  Her classmate Claude won the medal.  Outraged, Rhoda cornered Claude and demanded that he give her his medal.  When Claude refused, Rhoda murdered Claude and stole it.
In the midst of a tsunami of details surfacing regarding Hillary's multiple character flaws, hypocrisy, and possibly facing thirteen criminal charges, Hillary remains defiant.  Still hell-bent on overturning the election, Hillary said, there are "lots of questions" about the legitimacy of Trump's election.  Incredible.
The same way nothing distracted Rhoda from stealing Claude's medal, Hillary will not be distracted from stealing Trump's seat in the Oval Office.  Hillary is truly a scary sociopath.
In the movie, Rhoda deceptively came across, prim, proper, well mannered, and lovely.  Over the years, it has been obnoxious watching the DNC and fake news media portraying wicked Hillary as our superior in terms of compassion for women and minorities.  This is the same woman who said it is okay for a mother to kill her baby even on the day of the child's birth.
More and more of Hillary's crimes are coming to light: getting rich from selling influencejeopardizing national security, and so on.  Rhoda's mom was devastated when she learned her daughter's history of taking out people who got in her way.  Hillary has a similar history of crushing little people on her money-green brick road to the White House.
As an attorney determined to win at any cost, Hillary destroyed the life of a twelve-year-old rape victim
Ambassador Chris Stevens feared a 9-11 anniversary Islamic terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Ambassador Stevens begged secretary of state Hillary Clinton for extra security.  Hillary denied Ambassador Stevens's request because it would undermine the Obama administration's lie that Obama ended terrorism.
Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were killed in a well planned, heavily armed Islamic terrorist attack.  Islamic terrorists paraded Ambassador Stevens's dead body through the streets as their trophy.  In essence, Hillary sacrificed four American lives for Obama's re-election, which helped her quest to become president.
Pat Smith's son, Sean, was one of the four American lives Hillary sacrificed in Benghazi.  Hillary looked the grieving mother in the eye and lied to her.  Hillary said Sean's death was due to an angry mob enraged by an anti-Muslim video.  Pat learned the truth: that the attack was planned, and Hillary denied extra security.  Pat told the public that Hillary lied to her.  Sociopath Hillary sought to brand the gold star mom a liar. 
Always focused on her political ambitions, Hillary put up with Bill's serial adultery.  When Bill ran for the presidency, Hillary managed his "Bimbo Eruption" team.  Hillary's team destroyed all the women who went public about their consensual and non-consensual sexual encounters with Bill Clinton.  Keep in mind, folks, that the DNC and fake news media have portrayed Hillary as a super-advocate for women.
We have also learned that Hillary paid for the production of the fake Trump dossier.  I find the fake dossier particularly disgusting because it purposely generates racial hate.  Hillary's fake dossier said Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. 
Over the years, numerous books and movies have been released exposing Hillary's sociopath mindset – Clinton Cash and Dinesh D'Souza's movie Hillary's America to name a few.
As I said, a normal person would be focused on staying out of jail.  Like Rhoda's obsession with owning Claude's perfect penmanship medal, Hillary remarkablyremains obsessed with overturning We the People's choice for president. 
How much longer will we, the American people, put up with Hillary's arrogance and sociopath antics and schemes?  It is time for Hillary to quietly slither away, or else we make orange Hillary's new black.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist
http://LloydMarcus.com



Hillary: Corrupt, Clueless, Coddled


Hillary Clinton is not complex, not at all.  For her legion of personal problems -- her tone-deaf woodenness, her arrogance, her greed, her worst problem has been her Democratic Party Privilege.
Yep, that’s the fatal flaw.
It’s really her biggest problem.  She’s been coddled because of her party affiliation.  She’s been coddled by a media that refused to report her ugly side.  She’s been coddled by a base that has been fooled repeatedly.  She’s convinced them she’s highly moral, highly intelligent, highly principled, and somehow represents all women, minorities, and the average American.  
Nothing could be further from the truth.  She’s nothing but a propped-up caricature, propped by that Democratic privilege.  Because of that privilege, the average left-leaning voter knows little or nothing about what a reprobate she is.
So far.
I do think she’s about to be taken down, and thrown under the bus.  The Democratic Party and the media will have no choice in the next year or so to come to that realization.  But I digress.
The specifics:
A big issue is her part in enabling Bill with his sexual predations.  She not only looked the other way as he hit on anything with a skirt, she led the charge against all the women whom he used and abused.  She led the bimbo eruptions effort, destroying the women as being sluts or nuts while her husband ran rampant.  She led the media to defend the indefensible.   And try as they might to defend the Clintons now, in the new race to virtue signal, the media is finally admitting their mistake.
Her ill temper and horrifying personality behind the mask of being nice has been chronicled by one of her major Secret Service defenders and others.  She was censured long ago for being dishonest and mean spirited by her own chairman during the Watergate hearings long ago.   Her money lust and greed were there to see in her cattle futures gains.  Whitewater was a manifestation of this character flaw, gaining personally because of political connections.  Fast forward and you have the attempted heist of White House belongings.  You have them dangling the bait of their political influence to gain money from the second they left the White House.   
With the silence of the media, the Clintons amassed a fortune through speeches, books, and donations.  The threat of their power and the cloak of their privilege kept them riding high.  The final coup de gras was their Clinton Foundation.  That they took donations for Haiti that never got to the recipients was criminal.  That they got cover from the Bush family and the media was atrocious.  I think this was the signal that corrupted the GOP so deeply.  They saw they could get a piece as well.
Clinton Democratic Privilege.  It led to more and more influence peddling.  The hundreds of millions of dollars donated to their foundation and campaigns from illicit people simply continued.  Everyone turned a blind eye to the obvious quid pro quos, corruption, and aggrandizement of power.
Uranium One, with the direct huge speaking fee to Bill, and the well over one hundred million dollars sent to the Foundation by those who benefited from this transaction was despicable.  The irony of all this money coming from rewarding the dratted Russians, hiding behind “the Russian reset,” can’t help but be one of the best cons ever.   All ignored by the media and the Democratic Party.  As Sean Hannity has poignantly asked, who anywhere would think it was a good idea to sell control of 20% of our Uranium to a foreign adversary?  And of all people, to the Russians.
Greed, corruption, and as said before, it’s the Mother of All Scandals.  I’m betting it takes them down.  The hint to follow is that Mueller’s indictment of Manafort was going after the Podestas, and not Trump.
There’s so much more to say about her corruption.  The Democratic Party’s willingness to spy on others began with her successfully pilfering (illegally) secret FBI files long ago (“a bureaucratic snafu”).  Paying for the Russian Dossier, her rigging the Democratic Party primaries, and so much more of despicable her.
Moving from her greed to her ineptness is easy, because she has never accomplished anything good.  An empty suit if there ever were one.  Once again, ineptness hidden because of her Democratic Privilege. 
Examples:  Her decision to help Bill beat the sexual predator rap with Monica.  It continued with her carpet bagging win of her Senate seat, in itself just a bit tainted.  But it was the fact that she did nothing of consequence with that seat, had no signature legislation, and simply used her seat as a celebrity stepping stone to the power she really wanted: the first woman President.  Unfortunately for her, in the first run for the prize, she lost to someone who out-demagogued her, and out-flanked her in leftist identity politics.  As Bill Clinton so inartfully put it, she lost to a guy who should have been fetching their coffee.
Her experience as Secretary of State, as Trump so deftly noted, was totally without success.  Carly Fiorina boiled it down as follows: “Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe.  But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.” Hillary successfully helped destroy Iraq by watching as Obama pulled the troops early, and set the Arab world on fire with her horrific policies.  She almost destroyed Egypt by installing and giving billions to head that country with a Muslim Brotherhood leader.  They watched ISIS metastasize, sometimes helping.  Their failure at pulling out the Benghazi ambassador months earlier, as all other major countries did, was lethal.  Their non-response to Ambassador Stephens’s pleas for better security, was unprecedentedly stupid, despicable, and deadly.  Instead of owning up to it, she spread the lie that a video was at fault.  Lying to the nation and the victim families’ faces.
Her entire reign was a failure.  One after another.
Her campaign failure: Russia obviously suggesting she not campaign in the industrial Midwest.
“Now having said all this, why aren’t I up fifty points you might ask?” was her best imitation of the Wicked Witch of the West.   
Add that to her “deplorables” gaffe, and her disgusting inability to speak to her supporters the night of her election, and the mask should have come off for her true believer followers.
Her arrogance pushing the idea that everyone else was at fault for her loss is unprecedented in American politics.  Her egocentric fail at being unwilling to let it go was capped by Trump’s tweet this week.  He’s right, she’s good for the GOP.  Heck, she’s a huge problem for the Democratic Party.  A guest who stayed too long, drank too much, and wouldn’t leave.
A clueless guest.
As stated earlier, I think the Clintons are about to be thrown under the bus, and end up being the face of scandal for years to come.  The Democratic Party will feign ignorance.  The only thing in doubt is just how far the Clintons will fall, and how far the left will go to defend their scandals as they are all engulfed.
The final cluelessness of the obnoxious guest who wouldn’t leave:  Her Democratic privilege is ending, and she is still going around trying to blame everyone else for her shortcomings.  Along with their media enablers, the Clintons have no idea how bad they look.   When their privilege evaporates, and it will, they will be left without the drugs that have fueled them: power, money, and influence.
The first hint of their undoing:  The Podesta Group folding.  The second:  Donna Bazile.  The third:  The media is making up sob stories of how they shouldn’t have excused Bill’s sexual predations.
The next shoes are going to drop.  And drop and drop and drop.
They are toast.  The end is near.
I heard a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show recently upbraid him for saying the Clintons would skate once again.  The caller was right to upbraid him.
They are going down.  They are going to lose in every way.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that’s the saying.
That’s the story of Hillary.
Stripped of her privilege, she’s nothing but a corrupt, inept, and clueless felon.
This fall will be hard, long, and wide-ranging.
Watergate.  Meh.  Teapot Dome.  Meh.  This is a brave new world of fraudulent heroes tumbling over their clay feet, witnessed by a shocked world.

DAVID PRENTICE - THE FINAL FALL OF HILLARY CLINTON, AMERICA'S No. 1 TOP LOSER

Hillary Clinton is not complex, not at all.  For her legion of personal problems -- her tone-deaf woodenness, her arrogance, her greed, her worst problem has been her Democratic Party Privilege. Yep, that’s the fatal flaw. It’s...

Hillary: Corrupt, Clueless, Coddled

Hillary Clinton is not complex, not at all.  For her legion of personal problems -- her tone-deaf woodenness, her arrogance, her greed, her worst problem has been her Democratic Party Privilege.
Yep, that’s the fatal flaw.
It’s really her biggest problem.  She’s been coddled because of her party affiliation.  She’s been coddled by a media that refused to report her ugly side.  She’s been coddled by a base that has been fooled repeatedly.  She’s convinced them she’s highly moral, highly intelligent, highly principled, and somehow represents all women, minorities, and the average American.  
Nothing could be further from the truth.  She’s nothing but a propped-up caricature, propped by that Democratic privilege.  Because of that privilege, the average left-leaning voter knows little or nothing about what a reprobate she is.
So far.
I do think she’s about to be taken down, and thrown under the bus.  The Democratic Party and the media will have no choice in the next year or so to come to that realization.  But I digress.
The specifics:
A big issue is her part in enabling Bill with his sexual predations.  She not only looked the other way as he hit on anything with a skirt, she led the charge against all the women whom he used and abused.  She led the bimbo eruptions effort, destroying the women as being sluts or nuts while her husband ran rampant.  She led the media to defend the indefensible.   And try as they might to defend the Clintons now, in the new race to virtue signal, the media is finally admitting their mistake.
Her ill temper and horrifying personality behind the mask of being nice has been chronicled by one of her major Secret Service defenders and others.  She was censured long ago for being dishonest and mean spirited by her own chairman during the Watergate hearings long ago.   Her money lust and greed were there to see in her cattle futures gains.  Whitewater was a manifestation of this character flaw, gaining personally because of political connections.  Fast forward and you have the attempted heist of White House belongings.  You have them dangling the bait of their political influence to gain money from the second they left the White House.   
With the silence of the media, the Clintons amassed a fortune through speeches, books, and donations.  The threat of their power and the cloak of their privilege kept them riding high.  The final coup de gras was their Clinton Foundation.  That they took donations for Haiti that never got to the recipients was criminal.  That they got cover from the Bush family and the media was atrocious.  I think this was the signal that corrupted the GOP so deeply.  They saw they could get a piece as well.
Clinton Democratic Privilege.  It led to more and more influence peddling.  The hundreds of millions of dollars donated to their foundation and campaigns from illicit people simply continued.  Everyone turned a blind eye to the obvious quid pro quos, corruption, and aggrandizement of power.
Uranium One, with the direct huge speaking fee to Bill, and the well over one hundred million dollars sent to the Foundation by those who benefited from this transaction was despicable.  The irony of all this money coming from rewarding the dratted Russians, hiding behind “the Russian reset,” can’t help but be one of the best cons ever.   All ignored by the media and the Democratic Party.  As Sean Hannity has poignantly asked, who anywhere would think it was a good idea to sell control of 20% of our Uranium to a foreign adversary?  And of all people, to the Russians.
Greed, corruption, and as said before, it’s the Mother of All Scandals.  I’m betting it takes them down.  The hint to follow is that Mueller’s indictment of Manafort was going after the Podestas, and not Trump.
There’s so much more to say about her corruption.  The Democratic Party’s willingness to spy on others began with her successfully pilfering (illegally) secret FBI files long ago (“a bureaucratic snafu”).  Paying for the Russian Dossier, her rigging the Democratic Party primaries, and so much more of despicable her.
Moving from her greed to her ineptness is easy, because she has never accomplished anything good.  An empty suit if there ever were one.  Once again, ineptness hidden because of her Democratic Privilege. 
Examples:  Her decision to help Bill beat the sexual predator rap with Monica.  It continued with her carpet bagging win of her Senate seat, in itself just a bit tainted.  But it was the fact that she did nothing of consequence with that seat, had no signature legislation, and simply used her seat as a celebrity stepping stone to the power she really wanted: the first woman President.  Unfortunately for her, in the first run for the prize, she lost to someone who out-demagogued her, and out-flanked her in leftist identity politics.  As Bill Clinton so inartfully put it, she lost to a guy who should have been fetching their coffee.
Her experience as Secretary of State, as Trump so deftly noted, was totally without success.  Carly Fiorina boiled it down as follows: “Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe.  But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.” Hillary successfully helped destroy Iraq by watching as Obama pulled the troops early, and set the Arab world on fire with her horrific policies.  She almost destroyed Egypt by installing and giving billions to head that country with a Muslim Brotherhood leader.  They watched ISIS metastasize, sometimes helping.  Their failure at pulling out the Benghazi ambassador months earlier, as all other major countries did, was lethal.  Their non-response to Ambassador Stephens’s pleas for better security, was unprecedentedly stupid, despicable, and deadly.  Instead of owning up to it, she spread the lie that a video was at fault.  Lying to the nation and the victim families’ faces.
Her entire reign was a failure.  One after another.
Her campaign failure: Russia obviously suggesting she not campaign in the industrial Midwest.
“Now having said all this, why aren’t I up fifty points you might ask?” was her best imitation of the Wicked Witch of the West.   
Add that to her “deplorables” gaffe, and her disgusting inability to speak to her supporters the night of her election, and the mask should have come off for her true believer followers.
Her arrogance pushing the idea that everyone else was at fault for her loss is unprecedented in American politics.  Her egocentric fail at being unwilling to let it go was capped by Trump’s tweet this week.  He’s right, she’s good for the GOP.  Heck, she’s a huge problem for the Democratic Party.  A guest who stayed too long, drank too much, and wouldn’t leave.
A clueless guest.
As stated earlier, I think the Clintons are about to be thrown under the bus, and end up being the face of scandal for years to come.  The Democratic Party will feign ignorance.  The only thing in doubt is just how far the Clintons will fall, and how far the left will go to defend their scandals as they are all engulfed.
The final cluelessness of the obnoxious guest who wouldn’t leave:  Her Democratic privilege is ending, and she is still going around trying to blame everyone else for her shortcomings.  Along with their media enablers, the Clintons have no idea how bad they look.   When their privilege evaporates, and it will, they will be left without the drugs that have fueled them: power, money, and influence.
The first hint of their undoing:  The Podesta Group folding.  The second:  Donna Bazile.  The third:  The media is making up sob stories of how they shouldn’t have excused Bill’s sexual predations.
The next shoes are going to drop.  And drop and drop and drop.
They are toast.  The end is near.
I heard a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show recently upbraid him for saying the Clintons would skate once again.  The caller was right to upbraid him.
They are going down.  They are going to lose in every way.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that’s the saying.
That’s the story of Hillary.
Stripped of her privilege, she’s nothing but a corrupt, inept, and clueless felon.
This fall will be hard, long, and wide-ranging.
Watergate.  Meh.  Teapot Dome.  Meh.  This is a brave new world of fraudulent heroes tumbling over their clay feet, witnessed by a shocked world.


When Will We Finally Hold Wicked Hillary Accountable?




Clearly, Hillary Clinton is a sociopath, willing to sacrifice any and everything to get what she wants.  Donna Brazile's book exposed how Hillary and her DNC minions stole the presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders.  A normal person would run for cover, thankful he is not in jail.  But not Hillary.  This sick woman remains laser-focused, obsessed with plotting to reverse the election to steal Trump's presidency.
Hillary is acting exactly like the little girl in the movie The Bad Seed.  In the movie, seemingly perfect and adorable eight-year-old Rhoda assumed she would win the perfect penmanship medal.  Her classmate Claude won the medal.  Outraged, Rhoda cornered Claude and demanded that he give her his medal.  When Claude refused, Rhoda murdered Claude and stole it.
In the midst of a tsunami of details surfacing regarding Hillary's multiple character flaws, hypocrisy, and possibly facing thirteen criminal charges, Hillary remains defiant.  Still hell-bent on overturning the election, Hillary said, there are "lots of questions" about the legitimacy of Trump's election.  Incredible.
The same way nothing distracted Rhoda from stealing Claude's medal, Hillary will not be distracted from stealing Trump's seat in the Oval Office.  Hillary is truly a scary sociopath.
In the movie, Rhoda deceptively came across, prim, proper, well mannered, and lovely.  Over the years, it has been obnoxious watching the DNC and fake news media portraying wicked Hillary as our superior in terms of compassion for women and minorities.  This is the same woman who said it is okay for a mother to kill her baby even on the day of the child's birth.
More and more of Hillary's crimes are coming to light: getting rich from selling influencejeopardizing national security, and so on.  Rhoda's mom was devastated when she learned her daughter's history of taking out people who got in her way.  Hillary has a similar history of crushing little people on her money-green brick road to the White House.
As an attorney determined to win at any cost, Hillary destroyed the life of a twelve-year-old rape victim
Ambassador Chris Stevens feared a 9-11 anniversary Islamic terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Ambassador Stevens begged secretary of state Hillary Clinton for extra security.  Hillary denied Ambassador Stevens's request because it would undermine the Obama administration's lie that Obama ended terrorism.
Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were killed in a well planned, heavily armed Islamic terrorist attack.  Islamic terrorists paraded Ambassador Stevens's dead body through the streets as their trophy.  In essence, Hillary sacrificed four American lives for Obama's re-election, which helped her quest to become president.
Pat Smith's son, Sean, was one of the four American lives Hillary sacrificed in Benghazi.  Hillary looked the grieving mother in the eye and lied to her.  Hillary said Sean's death was due to an angry mob enraged by an anti-Muslim video.  Pat learned the truth: that the attack was planned, and Hillary denied extra security.  Pat told the public that Hillary lied to her.  Sociopath Hillary sought to brand the gold star mom a liar. 
Always focused on her political ambitions, Hillary put up with Bill's serial adultery.  When Bill ran for the presidency, Hillary managed his "Bimbo Eruption" team.  Hillary's team destroyed all the women who went public about their consensual and non-consensual sexual encounters with Bill Clinton.  Keep in mind, folks, that the DNC and fake news media have portrayed Hillary as a super-advocate for women.
We have also learned that Hillary paid for the production of the fake Trump dossier.  I find the fake dossier particularly disgusting because it purposely generates racial hate.  Hillary's fake dossier said Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. 
Over the years, numerous books and movies have been released exposing Hillary's sociopath mindset – Clinton Cash and Dinesh D'Souza's movie Hillary's America to name a few.
As I said, a normal person would be focused on staying out of jail.  Like Rhoda's obsession with owning Claude's perfect penmanship medal, Hillary remarkablyremains obsessed with overturning We the People's choice for president. 
How much longer will we, the American people, put up with Hillary's arrogance and sociopath antics and schemes?  It is time for Hillary to quietly slither away, or else we make orange Hillary's new black.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist
http://LloydMarcus.co

PRINCETON SCHOLARS: OPIOID CRISIS, ALCOHOLISM, SUICIDE HITS AMERICA'S WHITE WORKING CLASS.... UNDER UNRELENTING ASSAULT FROM THE DEMOCRAT AND GOP PARTIES TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED

DESPITE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 



WELFARE AND "FREE" HEALTHCARE 


HANDED TO 


INVADING MEXICANS ALONG 


WITH MILLIONS OF OUR JOBS, THE 


DEMOCRAT PARTY AND GOP ARE NOW 


PARTNERED FOR AMNESTY,NO (real) 


WALL, NO E-VERIFY, NO ENFORCEMENT 


and no legal need apply!



SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA
"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty. 

WALL STREET TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
DIE YOUNG… so your company pension dies with you!

"The two researchers suggested that America’s white working class continues to have their institutions: family, church, and job, disappear. Case and Deaton speculated that white America’s crumbling institutions has led to rising opioid addiction, alcoholism, and suicide."

Princeton Scholars: Opioid Crisis, Alcoholism, Suicide to Blame for Rising White Working Class Mortality Rate


53

Economist Angus Deaton and Princeton University Professor Anne Case told the Wall Street Journal that the opioid crisis, alcoholism, and suicide continue to aggravate the American white working class mortality rate.

Dr. Deaton suggested that the country’s white community split into two camps: white Americans with bachelor’s degrees continue to thrive, while American whites without a bachelor’s degree face increasingly dire circumstances.
Dr. Case explained that America’s white working class continues to face higher mortality rates through suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholism.
Case told the Wall Street Journal:
I think there are several answers to that. Mortality rates for suicide, for drug overdose, for alcoholism are rising for people without a college degree. Those are the big increases that we’re seeing, and it isn’t just about the financial crisis. This started back as far as we can break out education in death certificates, which is 1990. It has been a slow, steady trend up in all three of those for people without a B.A.
Deaton then suggested that one of the reasons that the white working class mortality rate skyrocketed in recent years is that, compared to European countries, America has much looser control over opioids. Deaton said:
One of the immediate things is opioids. European countries have much tighter controls on the way opioids are distributed. There has been none of this mass prescribing of opioids that has happened in the U.S. We have to get that genie back in the bottle. That’s very important, but it isn’t all of it. Of the three [types of] deaths we’ve looked at, suicides, opioids, and alcoholic liver disease, the biggest single one is opioids. But the other two together are bigger than opioids.
“I think opioids made it a perfect storm. But it was the case that people were killing themselves slowly with alcohol or quickly with guns even before the opioid crisis started. OxyContin wasn’t even on the market until 1996. We also want people to understand that this [is affecting] women, as well as men,” Case added.
White House economists revealed in a report on Sunday that the opioid crisis cost the economy $504 billion in 2015. This figure represents 2.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) two years ago.
The two researchers suggested that America’s white working class continues to have their institutions: family, church, and job, disappear. Case and Deaton speculated that white America’s crumbling institutions has led to rising opioid addiction, alcoholism, and suicide.
Case said:
Having a job with a ladder up, with on-the-job training, with benefits. Having a job where you could actually ask a woman to marry you and she would marry you. Now, marriage rates among working-class people are way down. She doesn’t want to marry him if he doesn’t have a good job.
Cohabitation is way up. But unlike in Europe, where those cohabitations are quite stable, in the U.S., they are fragile. Neither of them has a good job. They aren’t married, so they don’t have that stability. And they’ve moved away from what we call legacy churches, the Catholic and Protestant churches, toward evangelical churches, which focus on the individual. It’s my personal relationship with my savior, rather than it being about us as a community.
So those pillars of life—church, family, job—have disappeared for the white working class in a way that it hasn’t really been the case for blacks.
Case concluded that American working class whites continue to have the “pillars that held up their lives beginning to crumble.”

Time to Give Thanks to White Males



While every other demographic group is coddled by the media, it is still PC to ridicule white males, partly because they are a benign majority who don’t complain much. This Thanksgiving seems an opportune time to give them thanks for forging a country that beckons the world’s tired, huddled masses, and to appreciate their overall magnanimity in sharing our abundance.
The loony left, forever futile in foisting the discredited socialist tenet of equal outcomes upon unequal contributors, purports that white privilege explains discrepancies in achievement.  Actually, through their invention, brilliance, and industry, whites wrestled comfort and plenty from nature’s tight grasp.  Guilt-ridden apologists, effete elites, and the race-hustling grievance industry may discredit Western Civilization and rewrite American history, but through our beneficence America’s poor are comfortable, compared to the most of the earth’s population. Our bottom 99 percent comes “surprisingly close” to being in the top 1 percent of household incomes worldwide. 
Consider that in thirteen states welfare pays more than $15 (tax-free) an hour. Staggeringly, in a majority of states welfare payments exceed 2017-level minimum wages. And the purportedly privileged are disproportionally paying the taxes -- over 45% of households paid no income tax in 2015.  The other 55% of households deserve our thanks for footing the bills.  Instead of disparaging white males, we should appreciate their largesse; for example, in formulating the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC has been described as “the most effective federal antipoverty program for working age households,” by the Tax Policy Center. 
Assuredly, we are trying to expand the workforce and broaden the tax base. Underpinned by affirmative action and adherence to disparate impact to rectify neutral policies that occasionally result in unintentional discrimination, we often choose minority candidates even if they are only “qualified for training.” Meanwhile, white males who are already qualified succumb to diversity quotas. Where’s the gratitude for their sacrifice?   
Clearly, white males are mostly – mostly -- a bighearted bunch who deserve our thanks for reaching out to minorities in a way few other countries bother.  Even President Trump wants the Department of Energy to commit a formidable $200 million every year to expand racial and gender diversity in computer science curricula. 
Of course, the ruling class, such as it exists, will protect its self-interest, and no one likes it when underperforming companies dish out huge payments to failed CEOs, or provide golden parachutes to executives before going belly-up.  But that’s more the exception than the rule, and no justification to manufacture mayhem while Occupying Wall Street.  The vast majority of Americans like to roll up their sleeves and get to work, as substantiated in the report “All Work, No Pay: The Impact of Forfeited Time Off” (pdf) by Oxford Economics.  A survey conducted by Harris Interactive for a careers website presents even starker figures:  U.S. workers only use 51% of their eligible paid vacation and paid time off.
Far from privileged, then, America’s silent majority are work martyrs. The American Dream has to be earned, even by white males, and one would be an ingrate to begrudge them -- or anyone -- the fruits of their labor.  Opportunities exist for all who take personal responsibility instead of interminable government handouts which inevitably atrophy their skills and undermine self-esteem. The main encumbrance to success is laziness and immersion in entitlement, not outmoded notions of privilege from a bygone era. In every facet of our society, including housing, education, employment, and voting rights, equal opportunity has been inexorably expanded. Indeed, minorities exercised their ultimate civic power by voting at higher rates than whites in several recent elections. Though African-American voting rates dropped in 2016 when Obama wasn’t on the ballot, voting among other minority groups was lively.  
While we’re being gracious this Thanksgiving, let’s also express gratitude to our law enforcement community for what is generally a thankless job (for our amazing veterans we are eternally indebted).  According to Peter Kirsanow (himself a minority) of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, African-Americans are killed more frequently by police officers, but far, far less than the data would predict given they are much, much more likely to commit crimes.  The narrative -- probably accurate 30 years ago -- that African-Americans are stilldisproportionately targeted by cops is now demonstrably false.  Kirsanow’s assertions are well founded in Department of Justice data.  And there’s more evidence that black cops are more likely to shoot black suspects than white cops. 
All in all, you see, America is a salutary environment to be a minority.  Maybe there are a few -- though rapidly dwindling -- remnants of privilege, but it pales compared to the classism or tribalism in many of our ancestral homelands.  Even as many nations sitting on vast natural resources contrive to flounder under endemic corruption, a generous America gives mountains of aid at home and abroad.  One can argue it took too long, but rather than retroactively impose today’s sensibilities on yesteryear, rather than dwell on historical misjudgments for a crutch, we should respect America’s ultimate altruism. 
This Thanksgiving, civility compels us to give thanks that American white males, admittedly spurred on by once-relevant Civil Rights groups, nevertheless helped lead us to the broad, sunlit uplands of equal opportunity.  The bitter left, engulfed in misappropriated white guilt for not bucking the prevailing standards of the time, and the malicious media may mock us, but thanks to our preponderance of compassion America remains the last great hope of earth.  Period.
Happy Thanksgiving, pilgrims.   

America Can’t Lower Child-Poverty Rates





FROM THE MAGAZINE

Why America Can’t Lower Child-Poverty Rates

Allowing millions of low-skilled immigrants into the U.S. every year swells the ranks of the poor.
Autumn 2017



https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-america-cant-lower-child-poverty-rates-15498.html?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=f1f2013976-



Articles about America’s high levels of child poverty are a media evergreen. Here’s a typical entry, courtesy of the New York Times’s Eduardo Porter: “The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.” That’s right: Russia.
Outrageous as they seem, the assertions are true—at least in the sense that they line up with official statistics from government agencies and reputable nongovernmental organizations like the OECD and UNICEF. International comparisons of the sort that Porter makes, though, should be accompanied by a forest of asterisks. Data limitations, varying definitions of poverty, and other wonky problems are rampant in these discussions.
The lousy child-poverty numbers should come with another qualifying asterisk, pointing to a very American reality. Before Europe’s recent migration crisis, the United States was the only developed country consistently to import millions of very poor, low-skilled families, from some of the most destitute places on earth—especially from undeveloped areas of Latin America—into its communities, schools, and hospitals. Let’s just say that Russia doesn’t care to do this—and, until recently, Norway and the Netherlands didn’t, either. Both policymakers and pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty, and it’s easy to see why. The subject pushes us headlong into the sort of wrenching trade-offs that politicians and advocates prefer to avoid. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: you can allow mass low-skilled immigration, which many on the left and the right—and probably most poverty mavens—consider humane and quintessentially American. But if you do, pursuing the equally humane goal of substantially reducing child poverty becomes a lot harder.
In 1964, the federal government settled on a standard definition of poverty: an income less than three times the value of a hypothetical basic food basket. (That approach has its flaws, but it’s the measure used in the United States, so we’ll stick with it.) Back then, close to 23 percent of American kids were poor. With the important exception of the years between 1999 and 2007—following the introduction of welfare reform in 1996—when it declined to 16 percent, child poverty has bounced within three points of 20 percent since 1980. Currently, about 18 percent of kids are below the poverty line, amounting to 13,250,000 children. Other Anglo countries have lower child-poverty rates: the OECD puts Canada’s at 15 percent, with the United Kingdom and Australia lower still, between 11 percent and 13 percent. The lowest levels of all—under 10 percent—are found in the Nordic countries: Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Finland.
How does immigration affect those post-1964 American child-poverty figures? Until 1980, it didn’t. The 1924 Immigration Act sharply reduced the number of immigrants from poorer Eastern European and southern countries, and it altogether banned Asians. (Mexicans, who had come to the U.S. as temporary agricultural workers and generally returned to their home country, weren’t imagined as potential citizens and thus were not subject to restrictive quotas.) The relatively small number of immigrants settling in the U.S. tended to be from affluent nations and had commensurate skills. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 1970, immigrant children were less likely to be poor than were the children of native-born Americans.
By 1980, chiefly because of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the situation had reversed: immigrant kids were now poorer than native-born ones. That 1965 law, overturning the 1924 restrictions, made “family preference” a cornerstone of immigration policy—and, as it turned out, that meant a growing number of new Americans hailing from less-developed countries and lacking skills. The income gap between immigrant and native children widened. As of 1990, immigrant kids had poverty rates 50 percent higher than their native counterparts. At the turn of the millennium, more than one-fifth of immigrant children, compared with just 9 percent of non-Hispanic white kids, were classified as poor. Today, according to Center for Immigration Studies estimates, 31.1 percent of the poor under 18 are either immigrants or the American-born kids of immigrant parents.
Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth about these figures, and surely one reason they don’t often show up in media accounts, is that a large majority of America’s poor immigrant children—and, at this point, a large fraction of all its poor children—are Hispanic (see chart below). The U.S. started collecting separate poverty data on Hispanics in 1972. That year, 22.8 percent of those originally from Spanish-language countries of Latin America were poor. The percentage hasn’t risen that dramatically since then; it’s now at 25.6 percent. But because the Hispanic population in America quintupled during those years, these immigrants substantially expanded the nation’s poverty rolls. Hispanics are now the largest U.S. immigrant group by far—and the lowest-skilled. Pew estimates that Hispanics accounted for more than half the 22-million-person rise in the official poverty numbers between 1972 and 2012. Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post found that, between 1990 and 2016, Hispanics drove nearly three-quarters of the increase in the nation’s poverty population from 33.6 million to 40.6 million.




Graph by Alberto Mena
Graph by Alberto Mena

Ironically, then, at the same time that America’s War on Poverty was putting a spotlight on poor children, the new immigration system was steadily making the problem worse. In 1980, only 9 percent of American children were Hispanic. By 2009, that number had climbed to 22 percent. Almost two-thirds of these children were first- or second-generation immigrants, most of whose parents were needy. Nowadays, 31 percent of the country’s Hispanic children are in poverty. That percentage remains somewhat lower than the 36 percent of black children who are poor, true; but because the raw number of poor Hispanic kids—5.1 million—is so much higher (poor black children number 3.7 million), they make up by far the largest group in the child-poverty statistics. As of 2016, Hispanic children account for more than one-third of America’s poor children. Between 1999 and 2008 alone, the U.S. added 1.8 million children to the poverty rolls; the Center for Immigration Studies reports that immigrants accounted for 45 percent of them.
Let’s be clear: Hispanic immigration isn’t the only reason that the U.S. has such troubling child-poverty rates. Other immigrant groups, such as North Africans and Laotians, add to the ranks of the under-18 poor. And American Indians have the highest rates of child poverty of all ethnic and racial groups. These are relatively small populations, however; combine Indians and Laotians, and you get fewer than a half-million poor children—a small chunk of the 14-plus million total.
Even if we were following the immigration quotas set in 1924, the U.S. would be something of a child-poverty outlier. The nation’s biggest embarrassment is the alarming percentage of black children living in impoverished homes. Unsurprisingly, before the civil rights movement, the numbers were higher; in 1966, almost 42 percent of black kids were poor. But those percentages started to improve in the later 1960s and in the 1970s. Then they soared again. By the 1980s and early 1990s, black child poverty was hovering miserably between 42 percent and almost 47 percent. Researchers attribute the lack of progress to the explosion in single-parent black families and welfare use. The current percentage of black kids living with a single mother—66 percent—far surpasses that of any other demographic group. The 1996 welfare-reform bill and a strong economy helped bring black child poverty below 40 percent, a public-policy success—but the numbers remain far too high.

Policymakers and pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty.

Immigrant poverty, though usually lumped within a single “child-poverty” number, belongs in a different category from black or Native American poverty. After all, immigrants voluntarily came to the United States, usually seeking opportunity. And immigrants of the past often found it. The reality of American upward mobility helps explain why, despite real hardships, poor immigrant childhood became such a powerful theme in American life and literature. Think of classic coming-of-age novels like Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (about Irish immigrants), Henry Roth’s Call It Sleep (Jewish immigrants), and Paule Marshall’s Brown Girl, Brownstones (West Indians), all set in the first decades of the twentieth century. With low pay, miserable work conditions, and unreliable hours, the immigrant groups that such novels depicted so realistically were as poor as—and arguably more openly discriminated against than—today’s Mexicans or Bangladeshis.
Their children, though, didn’t need a ton of education to leave the hard-knocks life behind. While schools of that era were doubtless more committed to assimilating young newcomers than are today’s diversity-celebrating institutions, sky-high dropout rates limited their impact. At the turn of the twentieth century, only 5 percent of the total population graduated from high school; the rate among immigrants would have been even lower. That doesn’t mean that education brought no advantages. Though economist George Borjas notes that endemic truancy and interrupted studies had ripple effects on incomes into following generations, the pre–World War II industrial economy offered a “range of blue collar opportunities” for immigrant children, as sociologists Roger Waldinger and Joel Perlman observe, and it required “only modest educations to move a notch or two above their parents.” It may have taken more than one generation, but most immigrant families could expect, if not Horatio Alger–style ascents, at least middle-class stability over time.
America’s economy has transformed in ways that have blocked many of the avenues to upward mobility available to the immigrant families of the past. The kind of middle-skilled jobs that once fed the aspirations of low-income strivers are withering. “Modest educations” will no longer raise poor immigrant children above their parents’ station. Drop out of high school, and you’ll be lucky to be making sandwiches at a local deli or cleaning rooms at a Motel 6. Even a high school diploma can be a dead end, unless supplemented by the right kind of technical training. Get a college degree, however, and it is a different, happier, story.
Yes, some immigrant groups known for their obsessional devotion to their children’s educational attainment (Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants come to mind) still have a good shot at middle-class stability, even though the parents typically arrive in America with little skill or education and, working in low-wage occupations, add to poverty numbers in the short term. But researchers have followed several generations of Hispanics—again, by far the largest immigrant group—and what they’ve found is much less encouraging. Hispanic immigrants start off okay. Raised in the U.S., the second generation graduates high school and goes to college at higher rates than its parents, and it also earns more, though it continues to lag significantly behind native-born and other immigrant groups in these outcomes. Unfortunately, the third generation either stalls, or worse, takes what the Urban Institute calls a “U-turn.” Between the second and third generation, Hispanic high school dropout rates go up and college-going declines. The third generation is more often disconnected—that is, neither attending school nor employed. Its income declines; its health, including obesity levels, looks worse. Most disturbing, as we look to the future, a third-generation Hispanic is more likely to be born to a single mother than were his first- or second-generation predecessors. The children of single mothers not only have high poverty rates, regardless of ethnic or racial background; they’re also less likely to experience upward mobility, as a mountain of data shows.
The Hispanic “U-turn” probably has many causes. Like most parents these days, Hispanics say that they believe that education is essential for their children’s success. Cultural norms that prize family and tradition over achievement and independence often stand in the way. According to a study in the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Hispanic parents don’t talk and read to their young children as much as typical middle-class parents, who tend to applaud their children’s attempts at self-expression, do; differences in verbal ability show up as early as age two. Hispanic parents of low-achieving students, most of whom also voiced high academic hopes for their kids, were still “happy with their children’s test scores even when the children performed poorly.” Their children tended to be similarly satisfied. Unlike many other aspiring parents, Hispanics are more reluctant to see their children travel to magnet schools and to college. They also become parents at younger ages. Though Hispanic teen birthrates have fallen—as they have for all groups, apart from American Indians—they remain the highest in the nation.
The sheer size of the Hispanic population hinders the assimilation that might moderate some of these preferences. Immigrants have always moved into ethnic enclaves in the United States when they could, but schools and workplaces and street life inevitably meant mixing with other kinds, even when they couldn’t speak the same language. In many parts of the country, though, Hispanics are easily able to stick to their own. In fact, Generations of Exclusion, a longitudinal study of several generations of Mexican-Americans, found that a majority of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans live in Hispanic neighborhoods and marry other Hispanics.
Other affluent countries have lots of immigrants struggling to make it in a postindustrial economy. Those countries have lower child-poverty rates than we do—some much lower. But the background of the immigrants they accept is very different. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are probably the best points of comparison. Like the United States, they are part of the Anglosphere and historically multicultural, with large numbers of foreign-born residents. However, unlike the U.S., they all use a points system that considers education levels and English ability, among other skills, to determine who gets immigration visas. The Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project calculates that, while 30 percent of American immigrants have a low level of education—meaning less than a high school diploma—and 35 percent have a college degree or higher, only 22 percent of Canadian immigrants lack a high school diploma, while more than 46 percent have gone to college. (Canada tightened its points system after a government study found that a rise in poverty and inequality during the 1980s and 1990s could be almost entirely attributed to an influx of poorer immigrants.) Australia and New Zealand also have a considerably more favorable ratio of college-educated immigrants than does the United States. The same goes for the U.K.
The immigration ecosystem of the famously egalitarian Nordic countries also differs from the U.S.’s in ways that have kept their poverty numbers low. Historically, the Nordics didn’t welcome large numbers of greenhorns. As of 1940, for instance, only 1 percent of Sweden’s population was foreign-born, compared with almost 8.8 percent of Americans. After World War II, Nordic immigration numbers began rising, with most of the newcomers arriving from developed countries, as was the case in the U.S. until 1965. In Finland and Iceland, for instance, the plurality of immigrants today is Swedish and Polish, respectively. In Norway, the majority of immigrants come from Poland and Lithuania. Note that these groups have low poverty rates in the U.S., too.
Sweden presents the most interesting case, since it has been the most welcoming of the Nordic countries—and it has one of the most generous welfare states, providing numerous benefits for its immigrants. For a long time, the large majority of Sweden’s immigrants were from Finland, a country with a similar culture and economy. By the 1990s, the immigrant population began to change, though, as refugees arrived from the former Yugoslavia, Iran, and Iraq—populations with little in common culturally with Sweden and far more likely to be unskilled than immigrants from the European Union. By 2011, Sweden, like other European countries, was seeing an explosion in the number of asylum applicants from Syria, Afghanistan, and Africa; in 2015 and 2016, there was another spike. Sweden’s percentage of foreign-born has swelled to 17 percent—higher than the approximately 13 percent in the United States.
How has Sweden handled its growing diversity? We don’t have much reliable data from the most recent surge, but numbers from earlier this decade suggest the limits of relying on copious state benefits to acclimate cultural outsiders. In the U.S., immigrants are still more likely to be employed than are the native-born. In Sweden, the opposite holds. More than 26 percent of Swedish newcomers have remained unemployed long-term (for more than a year). Immigrants tend to be poorer than natives and more likely to fall back into poverty if they do surmount it. In fact, Sweden has one of the highest poverty rates among immigrants relative to native-born in the European Union. Most strikingly, a majority of children living in Sweden classified as poor in 2010 were immigrants.
Despite its resolute antipoverty efforts, Sweden has, if anything, been less successful than the U.S. at bringing its second-generation immigrants up to speed. According to the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey, Sweden has “declined over the past decade [between 2005 and 2015] from around average to significantly below average . . . . No other country taking part in PISA has seen a steeper fall.” The Swedish Education Agency reports that immigrant kids were responsible for 85 percent of a decline in school performance.
Outcomes like these suggest that immigration optimists have underestimated the difficulty of integrating the less-educated from undeveloped countries, and their children, into advanced economies. A more honest accounting raises tough questions. Should the United States, as the Trump administration is proposing, and as is already the case in Canada and Australia, pursue a policy favoring higher-skilled immigration? Or do we accept higher levels of child poverty and lower social mobility as a cost of giving refuge and opportunity to people with none? If we accept such costs, does it even make sense to compare our child-poverty numbers with those of countries like Denmark or Sweden, which have only recently begun to take in large numbers of low-skilled immigrants?
Recent events in Denmark and Sweden put another question in stark relief. How many newcomers—especially from very different cultures—can a country successfully absorb, and on what timetable? A surge of asylum seekers beginning in 2015 forced both countries to introduce controls at their borders and limits to asylum acceptances. Their existing social services proved unable to cope with the swelling ranks of the needy; there was not enough housing, and, well, citizens weren’t always as welcoming as political leaders might have wished. The growing power of anti-immigrant political parties has shocked these legendarily tolerant cultures.
And yet one more question: How long can generous welfare policies survive large-scale low-skilled immigration? The beneficent Nordic countries are not the only ones that need to wonder. The National Academies of Sciences finds that immigration to America has an overall positive impact on the fiscal health of the federal government, but not so for the states and localities that must pay for education, libraries, some social services, and a good chunk of Medicaid. Fifty-five percent of California’s immigrant families use some kind of means-tested benefits; for natives, it’s 30 percent. The centrist Hamilton Project observes that high-immigrant states—California, New York, New Jersey, among others—“may be burdened with costs that will only be recouped over a number of years, or, if children move elsewhere within the United States, may never fully be recovered.”
In short, confronting honestly the question of child-poverty rates in the United States—and, increasingly, such rates in other advanced countries—means acknowledging the reality that a newcomer’s background plays a vital role in immigrant success. Alternatively, of course, one can always fall back on damning worries about our current immigration system as evidence of racism. Remember November 8, 2016, if you want to know how that will play out.

A young girl eats at a Salvation Army Thanksgiving dinner in Santa Ana, California. (ALLEN J. SCHABEN/LOS ANGELES TIMES/GETTY IMAGES)

Why does the U.S. have such an outlier child poverty rate? Our immigration system has a lot to do with it

Immigrant children from El Salvador and Guatemala who entered the country illegally board a bus after they were released from a family detention center in San Antonio, Texas on July 7, 2015. (Eric Gay / Associated Press)
Kay S. Hymowitz
Articles about America’s high levels of child poverty are a media evergreen. Here’s a typical entry, courtesy of the New York Times’s Eduardo Porter: “The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.” That’s right: Russia.
Outrageous as they seem, the assertions are true — at least in the sense that they line up with official statistics. Comparisons of the sort that Porter makes, though, should be accompanied by an asterisk pointing to a very American reality. Before Europe’s recent migration crisis, the United States was the only developed country to routinely import millions of very poor, low-skilled families, from some of the most destitute places on Earth — especially from undeveloped areas of Latin America — into its communities, schools and hospitals. Let’s just say that Russia doesn’t care to do this — and, until recently, Norway and the Netherlands didn’t, either.
Pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty, and it’s easy to see why. The subject pushes us into the sort of wrenching trade-offs that politicians and advocates prefer to avoid. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: You can allow mass low-skilled immigration, which many consider humane. But if you do, it becomes a lot harder to pursue the equally humane goal of reducing child poverty in this country.
::
In 1964, the federal government settled on a standard definition of poverty: an annual income less than three times the amount required to feed a family (size dependent) over that period of time. Back then, close to 23% of American kids were poor. Today, about 18% of kids are below the poverty line, amounting to 13,250,000 children.
A large majority of America’s poor immigrant children — and, at this point, a large fraction of all its poor children — are Latino.
At first, immigration did not affect child-poverty figures. The 1924 Immigration Act sharply reduced the number of immigrants from poorer Eastern European and southern countries, and it altogether banned Asians. The relatively small number of immigrants settling in the United States tended to be from affluent nations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 1970, immigrant children were less likely to be poor than were the children of native-born Americans.
By 1980, the situation had reversed: immigrant kids were now poorer than native-born ones. Why? The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act overturned the 1924 restrictions and made “family preference” a cornerstone of immigration policy. In consequence of that move, as well as large-scale illegal immigration, a growing number of new Americans hailed from less-developed countries. As of 1990, immigrant kids had poverty rates 50% higher than their native counterparts. At the turn of the millennium, more than one-fifth of immigrant children were classified as poor.
Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth about these statistics is that a large majority of America’s poor immigrant children — and, at this point, a large fraction of all its poor children — are Latino.
The United States started collecting separate poverty data on Latinos in 1972. That year, 22.8% of those originally from Spanish-language countries of Latin America were poor. The percentage hasn’t risen dramatically since then; it’s now at 25.6%. But because the Latino population in America quintupled during those years, these immigrants substantially expanded the nation’s poverty rolls. Latinos are now the largest U.S. immigrant group by far — and the lowest-skilled. Pew estimates that Latinos accounted for more than half the 22-million-person rise in the official poverty numbers between 1972 and 2012.
At the same time, then, that America’s War on Poverty was putting a spotlight on poor children, the immigration system was steadily making the problem worse. Between 1999 and 2008 alone, the United States added 1.8 million children to the poverty total; the Center for Immigration Studies reports that immigrants accounted for 45% of them.
Latino immigration is of course not the only reason that the United States has such troubling child-poverty rates. Other immigrant groups, such as North Africans and Laotians, add to the ranks of the under-18 poor. And even if we were following the immigration quotas set in 1924, the United States would be something of an outlier. Perhaps the nation’s biggest embarrassment is the alarming number of black children living in impoverished homes, about 3.7 million (compared to 5.1 million poor Latino kids).
But immigrant poverty belongs in a different category from black poverty. After all, immigrants voluntarily come to the United States, usually seeking opportunity. These days, they don’t always find it.
Yes, some immigrant groups known for their devotion to their children’s educational attainment (Chinese immigrants come to mind) have a good shot at middle-class stability, even if the parents arrive in America with little skill or education. Researchers, however, have followed several generations of Latinos — again, by far the largest immigrant group — and what they’ve discovered is not encouraging.
Latino immigrants start off OK. Raised in the United States, second-generation Latinos go to college at higher rates than their parents, and they also earn more. Unfortunately, the third generation either stalls or takes what the Urban Institute calls a “U-turn.” Between the second and third generation, Latino high school dropout rates go up and college-going declines. Third-generation Latinos are more often disconnected — that is, they neither attend school nor find employment.
::
Other affluent countries have lots of immigrants struggling to make it in a postindustrial economy. Those countries have lower child-poverty rates than we do — some much lower. But the background of the immigrants they accept is very different. Canada is probably the best comparison. Like the United States, it’s part of the Anglosphere and is historically multicultural. Unlike the United States, it uses a points system that considers education levels and English ability, among other skills, to determine who gets a visa. The Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project calculates that 30% of American immigrants have less than a high school diploma, while 35% have a college degree or higher. Only 22% of Canadian immigrants lack a high school diploma, while more than 46% have gone to college.
Sweden presents another illuminating case. For a long time, the large majority of Sweden’s immigrants were from Finland, a country with a similar culture and economy. By the 1990s, the immigrant population began to change as refugees arrived from the former Yugoslavia, Iran and Iraq — populations far more likely to be unskilled than immigrants from the European Union. By 2011, Sweden was seeing an explosion in the number of asylum applicants from Syria, Afghanistan and Africa; in 2015 and 2016, there was another spike. Sweden’s percentage of foreign-born has swelled to 17% — higher than the approximately 13% in the United States.
How has Sweden handled its growing diversity? Numbers from earlier this decade suggest that immigrants tend to be poorer than natives and more likely to fall back into poverty if they do surmount it. In fact, Sweden has one of the highest poverty rates among immigrants relative to native-born in the European Union. Most striking, a majority of children living in Sweden classified as poor in 2010 were immigrants.
Outcomes like these suggest that immigration optimists have underestimated the difficulty of integrating the less-educated from undeveloped countries, and their children, into advanced economies. A more honest accounting raises tough questions. Should the United States favor higher-skilled immigration? Or do we accept higher levels of child poverty and lower social mobility as a cost of giving opportunity to people with none? If we accept such costs, does it make sense to compare our child-poverty numbers with those of countries such as Sweden, which have only recently begun to take in large numbers of low-skilled immigrants?
Alternatively, we can fall back on shouting “racism” every time someone expresses concern about our immigration system. Remember Nov. 8, 2016, if you want to know how that will play out.
Kay S. Hymowitz is the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal, from which this essay was adapted.

 More than 52 million Americans live in economically distressed communities

By Sandy English
28 September 2017
A new analysis of Census data shows that the so-called economic recovery under the Obama administration was an unmitigated catastrophe for the 20 percent of the American population that live in the poorest areas of the United States and that gains of jobs and income have gone overwhelming to the top 20 percent richest areas.
The 2017 Distressed Communities Report,” published by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG), analyzes the census data for 2011-2015 for people living in each of the nearly 7,500 American zip codes according to several criteria.
The EIG’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) considers the percentage of the population without a high school diploma, the percentage of housing vacancies, the percentage of adults working, the percentage of the population in poverty, the median income ratio (the percentage of median income that a zip code has for its state), the change in employment from 2011 to 2015, and the change in the number of businesses in the same period.
The report divides the findings for zip codes into five quintiles based on these indicators, rated from worst- to best-performing: distressed, at risk, mid-tier, comfortable, and prosperous.
The results show that distressed communities—52.3 million people or 17 percent of the American population—experienced an average 6 percent drop in the number of adults working and a 6.3 percent average drop in the number of business establishments.
“Far from achieving even anemic growth from 2011 to 2015,” the report notes, “distressed communities instead experienced what amounts to a deep ongoing recession.”
Further, “fully one third of the approximately 44 million Americans receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) and other cash public assistance benefits (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)) live in distressed communities.” The report notes that most distressed communities have seen zero net job growth since 2000.
Residents in these zip codes are five times more likely to die than those in prosperous zip codes. Deaths from cancer, pregnancy complications, suicide, and violence are even higher. “Mental and substance abuse disorders are 64 percent higher in distressed counties than prosperous ones, with major clusters in Appalachia and Native American communities where rates exceed four or five times the national average,” the report continues.
One other important and alarming fact which the report highlights is that over a third of the distressed zip codes contain so-called “brownfield” sites—areas which are polluted or contaminated in some way. Not only do these have impacts on real estate and business development, they present a whole array of health hazards to the very poorest Americans.
Distressed communities can be found all over the United States but are concentrated in the South: 43 percent of Mississippi’s zip codes are distressed, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana. According to the report, [the South] “is home to a staggering 52 percent of all Americans living in distressed zip codes—far above its 37.5 percent share of the country’s total population.”
After this, the Southwest and Great Lakes region have the largest share. In the Northeast, most distressed communities tend to be found in urban areas and in the South, primarily in rural areas.
The biggest cities with the largest numbers of distressed zip codes are Cleveland, Ohio, Newark, New Jersey, Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. Mid-sized cities with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Youngstown, Ohio, Trenton, New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, Hartford, Connecticut and Flint, Michigan.
Urban counties with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Cook County in Illinois, with Chicago at its center, Los Angeles County in California, Harris County in Texas, with Houston at its center, and Wayne County in Michigan, encompassing Detroit. Most of these urban areas were once industrial centers and home to the industrial working class.
Distressed zip codes that have a majority of minorities living in them are more than twice as likely to be distressed as zip codes that are majority white. “In total,” the report notes, “45 percent of the country’s majority-minority zip codes are distressed and only 7 percent of them are prosperous.” At the same time there are numerous distressed communities that are almost completely white. A quarter of the total distressed population is under 18.
The report found that the economic benefits of the recovery after the 2008 recessions have gone to the top quintile of zip codes, where the wealthier layers of the population live, including not only the very rich but also the upper middle class.
These areas, which the DCI terms prosperous, and make up roughly 85 million Americans or 27 percent of the US population, have for the most part the economic wherewithal to finance higher levels of education, have the lowest housing vacancy, highest percentage of working adults, and have had the lion’s share of job and business expansion.
“The job growth rate in the top quintile was 2.6 times higher than nationally from 2011 to 2015, and business establishments proliferated three times faster than they did at the national level,” the report notes. “Prosperous zip codes stand worlds apart from their distressed counterparts, seemingly insulated from many of the challenges with which other communities must grapple. The poverty rate is more than 20 points lower in the average prosperous community than it is in the average distressed one.”
The report makes much less of an analysis of the other three, middle quintiles, the at risk, mid-tier, and comfortable categories, but it does note some trends that address the overall trends nation-wide. “A remarkably small proportion of places fuel national increases in jobs and businesses in today’s economy. High growth in these local economic powerhouses buoys national numbers while obscuring stagnant or declining economic activity in other parts of the country.”
One of the more telling aspects of the report is that extreme poverty in the US is presided over by both capitalist parties: Democratic and Republic politicians have equal numbers of distressed communities in their constituencies. Democrats, in fact, “represent six of the 10 most distressed congressional districts.”
Another observation from the voting data, and one of the few that looks at conditions beyond the bottom and top quintiles, is worth quoting in full:
“President Trump accumulated a 3.5 million vote lead in counties that fell into the bottom three quintiles of well-being (equivalent to 9.4 percent of all votes cast in these counties). A vast array of factors determined voting patterns in the 2016 election, but it stands that the ‘continuity’ candidate performed better in the places benefiting most from the status quo, while the ‘change’ candidate performed better in the places one would expect to find more dissatisfaction.”
Broader figures and the historical view of wealth distribution in the US—that one percent of the population control 40 percent of the wealth or the decades-long decline in the percentage of the national income that goes to the working class—is not brought out in the report but the data add to a complete picture of social conditions across the United States, the character and geographical distribution of social and economic conditions in a country of more than 320 million.
The portrait provided by the EIG report is not simply one of increasing misery and poverty for the bottom 20 percent, and not only one in which only a minority of Americans are achieving anything like “prosperity,” but of growing and explosive dissent among tens of millions.
It exposes as a bold-faced lie the claim that President Obama made at the end of his second term, that “things have never been better” in America.

 September 20, 2017

The Awful Future that Looms for a Majority of Today’s Americans

When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.”   Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion).  That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder.   As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.   
Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road.  In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem.  The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79.  That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.
And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence?  Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.)  Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.
A.  http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-09/200797_5_.jpgFederal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP.   As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 
B.  The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world.  The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.
C.  Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP.  By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today.  Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation.  Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt.  In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.
D.  Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters.   The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.
E.   The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.”  If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.
The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues. 
The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint.  The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017).  Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.
The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power.  Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.
Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care.  He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth -- 6.7% -- in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II).  President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.
Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class.  Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes.  Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.
I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048.   I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era.   The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.
When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.”   Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion).  That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder.   As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.   
Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road.  In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem.  The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79.  That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.
And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence?  Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.)  Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.
A.  http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-09/200797_5_.jpgFederal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP.   As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 
B.  The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world.  The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.
C.  Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP.  By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today.  Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation.  Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt.  In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.
D.  Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters.   The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.
E.   The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.”  If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.
The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues. 
The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint.  The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017).  Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.
The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power.  Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.
Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care.  He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth -- 6.7% -- in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II).  President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.
Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class.  Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes.  Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.
I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048.   I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era.   The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.



Read more: 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/the_awful_future_that_looms_for_a_majority_of_todays_americans_.html#ixzz4tEUApC4L
Follow us: 
@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Rural New York schools grapple with declining population, increasing poverty

By Jason Melanovski
20 September 2017
A recent report has highlighted the dire development of increasing poverty and declining enrollment many rural school districts are facing across New York state, forcing these districts to choose between making onerous cuts, combining with other districts, or closing schools within the district, thus forcing students to travel longer distances.
According to a report titled “Demographic Challenges Facing Rural Schools: Declining Enrollment and Growing Poverty” by the New York State Association of School Business Officials, the dual phenomena of increased poverty and lower enrollment are wreaking havoc on local school budgets, which are primarily funded by local property taxes.
Calling enrollment declines “omnipresent,” the report states that “96.7 percent of rural school districts had declining enrollment and 84.9 percent had drops of at least ten percent.”
While the rate and overall population in poverty is still higher in New York’s suburban and urban school districts, the poverty rate in rural areas is increasing at a noticeably faster pace.
From 2003 to 2015, the poverty rate for school-age children increased from 14 percent to 18 percent for children in rural school districts and from 19 percent to 21 percent for children in non-rural school districts. For both rural and non-rural school districts the greatest jump in poverty rates occurred between 2009 and 2011 following the 2008 financial crisis.
Another measure of the economic plight of school children is the percentage of children receiving free or reduced priced lunches. In rural school districts 48.3 percent of students receive free or reduced priced lunches, and that number rises to 53.2 percent of students in non-rural districts. A student is eligible for free or reduced priced lunch when his or her family makes less than 185 percent of the poverty level.
Although the report was released to shed light on the challenges facing rural school districts, it made clear that poverty among the state’s school children has no geographic limits. According the report, “The combination of poverty and Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) data show that a little more than one in every five schoolchildren in New York lives in poverty, while a little more than half of all school children face significant economic constraints at home.”
The report compiled data from the 340 rural school districts, which make up about half of those in New York State, but serve only a little more than 11 percent of the students.
The report noted that the population losses and increases in poverty cannot be separated from the financial crisis of 2008, stating “for a few years prior to the onset of the Great Recession, growth rates in urban and rural counties were closely related. Beginning in 2008, rural populations entered a period of sustained decline, while urban populations continued to grow, though their pace of growth slowed after 2011.”
According to United States Census data, the emptying of much of rural America can be directly connected to the shrinking number of jobs in non-metro areas, as the rural job market is now 4.26 percent smaller than it was in 2008.
Speaking to the Daily Star of Oneonta, NY, the rural Delaware Academy School District’s Superintendent Jason Thomson stated that the current 47 percent of students who qualify for free or reduced price meals is the “highest we’ve ever seen.”
In addition, many of the rural counties mentioned in the report have also been hit hard by the opioid epidemic, claiming the lives of young workers and reducing an already declining population. Tioga County, for instance, lost up to 10 percent of its population between 2002 and 2016 and averaged 16.7 opioid deaths from 2013 to 2015 according to New York state.
With rapidly declining enrollment, rural schools are forced to count on smaller and smaller budgets with each succeeding school year, resulting in cuts to classes, teachers, programs and extracurricular activities and an overall sense of living in a world with scant opportunities for future life.
As the report states, rural “schools may have to cut back on valuable academic and enrichment opportunities, from Advanced Placement courses to music and sports programs, when they no longer have the student numbers needed for viability. Any potential reductions in college readiness preparation are incredibly serious. Decreasing enrollment can also increase students’ sense of isolation as there are literally fewer peers for them to interact with.”
To add to an already dire state of morale in rural schools, despite the fact that poor rural schools often have significantly higher graduation rates than poor urban schools, diplomas from rural schools are often seen as “worthless” according to David Little, executive director of the New York State Rural Schools Association. Poor rural schools in New York are simply unable to afford the cost of offering advanced placement (AP) and college-level coursework that is seen as necessary by college admissions officers.
For its part, the New York state government and the Andrew Cuomo administration have failed to respond to the demographic and social declines in rural school districts and increase state aid. The state continues to use a formula created in 2008, prior to the financial crisis, which categorizes the majority of rural schools as “average need.” If current demographic and poverty data were used, the majority of rural schools would now be considered “high-need,” requiring increased state aid.
Increasing rural poverty is not unique to New York. It has been rising across the country after falling sharply over many decades to a record low rate in 2000 of 13.4 percent. 16.7 percent of rural Americans lived in poverty in 2015, compared to 13 percent in poverty within metropolitan areas, according to the United States Census Bureau.


 

 

US Census report shows increasing social inequality

By Eric London
15 September 2017
US Census data from 2016 released on Tuesday shows increasing social inequality amid a small gain in household income that is offset by a massive growth of personal debt and rising living costs.
The data tracks the ongoing redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy as a result of the pro-Wall Street policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It substantiates the oligarchic character of the United States.

Social inequality

The Gini index, used to measure social inequality, with higher figures indicating a wider economic divide, rose slightly from 2015 (.479) to 2016 (.481). The 2016 figure, according to rankings in the CIA World Factbook, makes the US slightly more equal than Madagascar and less equal than Mexico.
In terms of aggregate income share, the shift from 2015 to 2016 is as follows:
The growth in inequality is even starker when traced from 2007, the year before the Wall Street crisis.
The data reflects income and not wealth, thereby providing an incomplete and conservative indication of the scale of inequality. Even within the highest quintile, the income share increased only for the top 10 percent, and, in particular, the top 5 percent.

Household income

The corporate media has portrayed the report as a sign of positive income growth, since it shows a slight rise in median income of 3.2 percent from 2015 to 2016.
But according to the Census data, the earnings of “full-time, year-round workers” remained stagnant. For men in this category, a total of 63.9 million people, earnings declined by 0.4 percent, from $51,859 in 2015 to $51,640 in 2016. For women in this category, 47.2 million people, there was a minor increase, 0.7 percent, from $41,257 in 2015 to $41,554 in 2016. In other words, families with 2 adults working full-time saw a paltry $78 increase in their yearly earnings from 2015 to 2016.
Claims of rising incomes mask the growth of inequality. The Census data shows that the household income of the 90th percentile (the 100th being the highest) was 12.53 times higher than the household income of the 10th percentile in 2016, up from 12.23 times higher in 2015 and 11.18 times higher in 2007. The degree to which income is concentrated in the richest 10 percent of the population is exemplified by the fact that the 5th percentile boasted a household income 3.82 times higher than the 50th percentile in 2016, up from 3.79 times in 2015 and 3.52 in 2007.
As Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, “Since 2007, average inflation-adjusted income has climbed more than 10 percent for households in the highest fifth of the earnings distribution, and it’s fallen 3.2 percent for the bottom quintile. Incomes of the top 5 percent jumped 12.8 percent over the period.”
For the working class, any income increase was transferred to the corporate elite in the form of rising debt payments and increasing living expenses, especially for health care.
According to figures from eHealth, a large private health exchange, average deductibles for families rose 5 percent from 2016 to 2017 (a year after the period covered by the Census report) and average individual premiums rose 22 percent over the same period.
The rising cost of student debt alone largely erases income increases seen by some young people. According to the Census, those aged 15 to 24 saw an income increase of 13.9 percent, from $36,564 in 2015 to $41,655 in 2016, while incomes for young people aged 25 to 34 rose 4.9 percent, from $58,091 to $60,932, nearly double the percentage increase for older age groups.
However, in 2016, student debt rose to an average of $30,000 per young person, up 4 percent from 2015, eliminating over 80 percent of the income rise for 25-34 year olds. For 15 to 24 year olds, the $4,000 increase in median income would hardly cover one sixth of the average debt payment, let alone make up for the fact that young people face a future in which they are unlikely to receive a pension, Social Security or Medicare.
Rising debt levels are not a phenomenon limited to young people. A Bloomberg report from August 10 notes that credit card defaults increased from the beginning of 2015—when roughly 2.5 percent of debt holders defaulted—to the end of 2016, when the total hit 3 percent. This figure subsequently climbed in 2017 to reach 3.49 percent.
Bloomberg notes: “After deleveraging in the aftermath of the last US recession, Americans have once again taken on record debt loads that risk holding back the world’s largest economy... Household debt outstanding--everything from mortgages to credit cards to car loans--reached $12.7 trillion in the first quarter [2017], surpassing the previous peak in 2008 before the effect of the housing market collapse took its toll, Federal Reserve Bank of New York data show.”
“For most Americans,” the report continues, “whose median household income, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its peak in 1999, borrowing has been the answer to maintaining their standard of living. The increase in debt helps explain why the economy’s main source of fuel is providing less of a boost than in the past. Personal spending growth has averaged 2.4 percent since the recession ended in 2009, less than the 3 percent of the previous expansion and 4.3 percent from 1982-90.”
The Bloomberg report explains that income from wages minus household debt trended downward in 2015, meaning that debt is rising faster than wages, causing a loss of roughly $500 billion across the US economy in the space of just one year.

Poverty rate

Though the Census report shows that the poverty rate declined from 13.5 percent of households in 2015 to 12.7 percent in 2016, this figure is substantially higher than the 11.3 percent level that prevailed in 2000. In reality, individuals and families must make 2.5 to 3 times the official poverty rate of $12,000 for an individual, $15,500 for a married couple and $25,000 for a family of four just to make ends meet.
What the data really shows is that the poorest half of the country--over 150 million people--is in a desperate financial position, with the next poorest 40 percent facing constant financial strain and a declining share of the national income. In regard to poverty, the Census Bureau maintains figures that go up only to 200 percent of the official poverty level. The latest report shows that 95 million people—29.8 percent of the population—fall into this category. The share of those under the age of 18 in this category is much higher--39.1 percent.
This is the context for the drive by the Trump administration and both big business parties to slash corporate taxes, impose a health care “reform” that will increase costs for millions of people, and accelerate the transfer of wealth from the working class to the financial aristocracy.

Census Bureau: Mens’ Wages Remain Below 1973 Levels


0
wages
AP Photo/David Goldman

Americans’ median pay packets have been flat since 1973, even though the vastly expanded federal government has justified its own salaries and its many massive spending and policy programs as a sure-fire way to boost education, productivity, and wages.

The colossal 44-year failure of the federal government to help grow American men’s wages — or even to reduce poverty rates — is laid bare in the latest report from the Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.”
The dense report includes myriad detailed tables of data around one shocking chart, which reveals no growth in men’s wages for the past 44 years, or since President Richard Nixon was beginning his second term in office.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2017-09-13-at-12.02.41-AM.png
Median earning of full-time, year-round workers, 15 years and older, 1960 to 2016.
The sudden flatline followed a 31 percent rise in all men’s median wages from 1960 to 1972.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/Nixon-1968-campaign-AP.jpg
During the 44-year period since 1973, income among women grew by roughly 30 percent as more skilled and trained women entered the market, gained experience, and were promoted to better-paying jobs. Those opportunities and contributions are good news — but they do not change the reality that men’s income has been flat for 44 years.
In fact, the report notes that “the real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.”
There are many explanations for the flat income, such as the massive growth in the labor supply when 30 million additional American women and roughly 30 million immigrants joined in the marketplace competition for good jobs. For example, a pro-immigration panel at the prestigious National Academies of Science estimated in 2016 that the huge government-imposed inflow of immigrants since 1965 has imposed a hidden 5 percent “immigration tax” on Americans’ pay packets.
Technology has made many individuals workers more productive but also sidelined many others, such as newspaper printers and steelworkers. Peaceful international trade has allowed men to sell more products overseas but also allowed employers to hire foreign workers instead of Americans. Whatever the combinations of reasons, the mid-point for men’s income has been flat for 43 years, according to the Census Bureau.
The flat-earnings chart needs some explanation:
It shows only inflation-adjusted, pre-tax pay packets, so it excludes the impact of inflation, taxes and government benefits, such as food-stamps and tax-breaks for children, or of Obamacare’s subsidies and spending obligations.
It shows median income, which is the midpoint of the income scale. Half the people earn above the line, half the people earn below the line. Average income would be higher, but less revealing, because a higher share of income is going to the highest earners, compared to back in the 1970s.
The chart shows the income of year-round, full-time workers, excluding part-workers or seasonal workers, or those who work on-and-off under contracts. The chart does not make distinctions by race.
The chart shows individuals’ income, not the income of households, which has fluctuated as the average number of children or adults has declined.
The chart only shows income, but not the quality of goods in the stores, such as Starbucks coffee, cheap products imported from China, high-tech music players, improved autos or better health-care. That rise in product quality from competing companies — not claimed policy improvements from federal agencies — has provided the vast majority of material gains for Americans amid flat incomes.
The details are provided on Table A-4, on page 49 of this PDF.
The median earnings for all men employed year-round was $51,640 in 2016, which is still far below the $54,030 earned by full-time men in 1973. It is also below the $51,938 earned in the 2000 Internet boom, or the $52,222 earned in the 2007 property bubble when large-scale legal and illegal immigration provided employers with millions of alternative imported workers.
The post-1973 reality of flat income is a huge contrast to the rapid growth from 1960 up to the 1973 oil shock and the reopened inflow of immigrant labor after 1965.  During the twelves years 1960 to 1972, the median average wages for all males — including minorities, seasonal workers, and contract workers — rose from by 31 percent, from $31,926 to $41,013.
When the income of all men is gauged, the Bureau concluded that all men’s median income in 1973 was $41,935. It dropped after 1973 and rose back up to $43,360 in 1999 as companies competed for the few unemployed workers during the first Internet boom. Income crashed in 2008 to a depression-low of $39,636 in 2012 once the federal government’s real-estate bubble burst. Since then, income has slowly climbed back to $42,220 in 2016 amid the continuous public protest against the federal government’s cheap-labor economic strategy, which is exemplified by the bipartisan 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty legislation.
Other data in the report shows that the nation’s poverty rates have barely budged since the 1960s, although many people in the United States are wealthier than many people n Europe. For example, the percentage of American said to be in poverty was 11.1 percent in 1973 and 12.7  percent in 2016.
That national poverty rate climbed, in part, because of the population of Latinos spiked from 10.8 million in 1973 to 57.6 million in 2016. Poverty among Latinos was 19 percent in 2016, little changed from 1973.
The report also noted that:
The official poverty rate decreased by 0.8 percentage points between 2015 and 2016. At 12.7 percent, the 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from 2007 (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession.
In real terms, median earnings of full-time, year-round working women in 2016 were 2.3 percent higher than their 2007 median, the year before the most recent recession. The real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.
In 2017, the number and percentage of shared households remained higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. In 2007, 17.0 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 19.7 million households. In 2017, 19.4 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 24.6 million households.
Read it all here.
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS to serve the filthy rich

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.

“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”


A 'Read-My-Lips' Moment for Trump?

Patrick J. Buchanan
 By Patrick J. Buchanan | September 15, 2017 | 4:38 AM EDT
https://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/ap_image/s3/potus-irma_2.jpg?itok=xunRbt26
President Donald J. Trump participates a Hurricane Irma briefing call with FEMA Administrator William "Brock" Long, Monday, Sept. 11, 2017, joined by White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, left; Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism Adviser Thomas Bossert, right, and Deputy Homeland Security Adviser John J. Daly, seated, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. ( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
"Having cut a deal with Democrats for help with the debt ceiling, will Trump seek a deal with Democrats on amnesty for the 'Dreamers' in return for funding for border security?"
The answer to that question, raised in my column a week ago, is in. Last night, President Donald Trump cut a deal with "Chuck and Nancy" for amnesty for 800,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who came here illegally as youngsters, in return for Democratic votes for more money for border security.
According to preening Minority Leader Pelosi, the agreement contains not a dime for Trump's Wall, and the "Dreamers" are to be put on a long glide "path to U.S. citizenship."

Trump denies this is amnesty, and says the Wall comes later.

Fallout? Among the most enthusiastic of 

Trump backers, disbelief, disillusionment 

and wonderment at where we go from here.

Trump's debt-ceiling deal cut the legs out from under the GOP budget hawks. But amnesty would pull the rug out from under all the folks at those rallies who cheered Trump's promise to preserve the country they grew up in from this endless Third World invasion.
For make no mistake. If amnesty is granted for the 800,000, that will be but the first wave. "There are reasons no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor you're a citizen," writes Mickey Kaus, author of "The End of Equality," in The Washington Post.
"We'd be inviting the world. ... (An amnesty) would have a knock-on effect. Under 'chain migration' rules established in 1965 ... new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States.
"(T)oday's 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who in theory are at fault."
Trump is risking a breach in the dam. If the populists who provided him with decisive margins in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania feel betrayed, it's hard to blame them.
Why did Trump do it? Clearly, he relished the cheers he got for the debt ceiling deal and wanted another such victory. And with the rampant accusations of a lack of "compassion" for his cancellation of the temporary Obama administration amnesty, he decided he had had enough heat.
It is not easy to stand up for long to the gale force winds of hostile commentary that blow constantly through this city.
Trump's capitulation, if that is what turns out to be, calls to mind George H. W. Bush's decision in 1990 to raise the Reagan tax rates in a deal engineered for him by a White House-Hill coalition, that made a mockery of his "Read my lips! No new taxes!" pledge of 1988.
For agreeing to feed the beast of Big Government, rather than cut its rations as Reagan sought to do, Bush was called a statesman.
By the fall of '92, the cheering had stopped.
Can Trump not know that those congratulating him for his newfound flexibility will be rejoicing, should Bob Mueller indict his family and his friends, and recommend his impeachment down the road?
What makes pre-emptive amnesty particularly disheartening is that the Trump policy of securing the border and returning illegal immigrants to their home countries appears, from a Census Bureau report this week, to be precisely the prescription America needs.
In 2016, paychecks for U.S. households reached an average of $59,039, up 3.2 percent from 2015, a year when they had surged.
U.S. median household income is now at its highest ever.
Yet there are inequalities. Where the median family income of Asian-Americans is above $81,400, and more than $65,000 for white Americans, the median family income of Hispanic families is $47,675, and that of African-American households far less, $39,490.
Consider. Though black Americans are predominantly native-born, while high percentages of Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, from the Census numbers, Hispanics earn more and Asians enjoy twice the median family income of blacks, which is below where it was in 2000.
Still, black America remains steadfastly loyal to a party that supports the endless importation of workers who compete directly for jobs with them and their families. Writes Kaus, "The median hourly wage (of DACA recipients) is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed, lower-skilled Americans."
Looking closer at the Census Bureau figures, Trumpian economic nationalism would appear to have its greatest appeal to the American working class, a huge slice of which is native-born, black and Hispanic.
The elements of that policy?
Secure the border. Halt the invasion of low-wage workers, here legally and illegally, from the Third World. Tighten the labor market to force employers to raise wages in our full-employment economy. Provide tax incentives to companies who site factories in the USA. Impose border taxes on the products of companies who move plants abroad.
Put America and American workers first.
Will any amnesty of undocumented workers do that?
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."


THE WAR ON AMERICA’S MIDDLE-CLASS waged by D.C., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the La Raza Fascist Party and Mexico!


The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor and spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. NEIL MUNRO

ILLEGALS & WELFARE
70% OF ILLEGALS GET WELFARE!

Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.

“According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”
CIS

JOE LEGAL v LA RAZA JOSE ILLEGAL
Here’s how it breaks down; will make you want to be an illegal!

THE DEVASTATING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS


Will Trump’s Amnesty double these figures?

TRUMPERNOMICS: THE SUPER RICH APPLAUD TWITTER’S TAX PLAN!

"The tax overhaul would mean an unprecedented windfall for the super-rich, on top

of the fact that virtually all income gains during the period of the supposed

recovery from the financial crash of 2008 have gone to the top 1 percent income

bracket."


CATASTROPHIC CRIME SURGE IN MEX-

OCCUPIED CALIFORNIA


Half the murders in Mexifornia are now by Mex gangs!

BOOK:…..TRAGIC!

THE DEATH GAP: INEQUALITY IS 

KILLING AMERICA!



CALL IT OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS OR TRUMPERNOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH!


OPEN BORDERS:

IT'S ALL ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED AND PASSING ALONG

THE ILLEGALS' WELFARE AND CRIME COSTS TO THE AMERICAN

MIDDLE CLASS!


“That Washington-imposed policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.” ---- NEIL MUNRO
BREEDING THE LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY WELFARE STATE

LA RAZA DOUBLED U.S. POPULATION AND VOTED TO SURRENDER AMERICAN BORDERS FOR EASY PLUNDERING BY NARCOMEX.

“Through love of having children we're going to take over." Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96

The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

TWITTER TRUMPER trades WALL for tax cuts for the super rich…. But he doesn’t pay taxes!!!

TRUMP: For more tax cuts for the rich, NO (REAL) WALL, NO E-VERIFY, NO LEGAL NEED APPLY and NO ENFORCEMENT!


CHICAGO: THE FACE OF A NATION IN SHAMBLES

CHICAGO’S BLACK GANG LAND…. Is what happens when bankster Rahm Emanuel and his corrupt Obama party turned the city under!

  
OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US

history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.


OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went 

to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 

TRUMP OFFERS VICTIMS OF HARVEY AND IRMA $15 BILLION or about HALF of what California hands their Mexican welfare state!


IS IT YET TIME TO REBUILD AMERICAN AND END THE BUILDING AND REBUILDING OF MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS OVER THERE?

THE MEXICAN INVASION of AMERICA’S OPEN and UNDEFENDED BORDERS
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM
                                                                                                    
SANCTUARY CITIES AND THE SOARING LA RAZA MEX CRIME TIDAL WAVE….
THE ILLEGALS’ CRIME TIDAL WAVE…. Where are Americans (Legals) safe from the foreign predators and their violence? NOT IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS!
One could ask Kate Steinle, if she was still alive, what happens when a multiple-times deported felon continues to return to the U.S. after each deportation, only to be protected in one of 300 sanctuary cities in the U.S. By Brian C. Joondeph


HARVEY: COSTLIEST IN HISTORY
Should we stop rebuilding Muslim dictatorships and fix our own???
WHY NOT FORCE THE LA RAZA MEX DRUG CARTELS TO PAY FOR THE REBUILDING OF HOUSTON OUT OF THEIR HEROIN SALES IN OUR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS?
Will these filthy pols ever talk about doing something for LEGALS before they go off  hispandering for the invading, looting Mexicans???
The Shocking Staggering Cost of Mexico’s Invasion, Occupation, Looting and Crime Tidal Wave…. Then they go out and vote Democrat for more!
THE WATERS ROSE AND CIVIL WAR II COMMENCED.
HOUSTON: ONLY THE POOR DROWN IN THIS COUNTRY!
THE HOUSTON FLOOD   -   CRONY CAPITALIST LICK THEIR LIPS OVER REBUILDING.... FIRST, LIKE KATRINA, CUT WAGES AND INVITE HORDES MORE ILLEGALS IN TO WORK CHEAP!
"Like Katrina, Hurricane Harvey has lifted the lid on the ugly reality of American society, exposing colossal levels of social inequality, pervasive poverty and ruling class criminality."

"The reason why these warnings have been ignored is not hard to fathom. They have been resolutely opposed by corporate interests, including the real estate industry, Wall Street and Big Oil. Their ability, operating through bribed politicians of  both parties, to veto and block elementary measures to protect the American people, exemplifies the complete subordination of all social needs under capitalism to the selfish drive of a corporate-financial oligarchy to accumulate ever greater levels of personal wealth and profit."
THEY INVADE OVER AND UNDER OUR BORDERS… and do so by invitation of the Democrat Party.
Lawmen are worried that the cartel tunnel builders on the Mexican border are now using their engineered concoctions to smuggle illegals, not merely drugs.

That's what the Daily Caller has found, describing the new anxiety as one was discovered over the weekend, catching about 30 illegals coming in from Mexico and China. MONICA SHOWALTER – AMERICAN THINKER.com

THE BIG “DEAL MAKER” TWITTER TRUMP WORKS OUT A NO WALL DEAL WITH NARCOMEX
….. LA RAZA WILL NOT BE PAYING FOR THE ALL THAT MIGHT IMPEDED THEIR SUCKING OF $100 BILLION PER YEAR OUT OF AMERICA’S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS!
TWITTER TRUMPER’S PROMISE TO DEMS & MEXICO: NO (real) WALL, NO E-VERIFY and NO ENFORCEMENT of DACA
WHILE THE SWAMP KEEPER TWITTER TRUMPER SERVES THE SUPER RICH…. The wall remains a joke on Legals and HUNDREDS OF STORES across America’s OPEN BORDERS are being shuttered by the hundreds!

WALL STREET TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: DIE YOUNG… your company pension dies with you!

OPIOID AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION KILLS OF MIDDLE AMERICA

SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA
"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.  

AMERICA UNRAVELS:

Millions of children go hungry as the super- rich gorge themselves and ILLEGALS SUCK IN BILLIONS IN WELFARE!

"The top 10 percent of Americans now own roughly three-quarters of all household wealth."

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/america-unravels-millions-of-children.html

"While telling workers there is “not enough money” for wage increases, or to fund social programs, both parties hailed the recent construction of the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, a massive aircraft carrier that cost $13 billion to build, stuffing the pockets of numerous contractors and war profiteers."








HERITAGE FOUNDATION:
AMNESTY WILL ADD ANOTHER 100 MILLION IMMIGRANTS TO AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS
Where does the jobs (for legals), housing crisis, homelessness and Mexican drug cartels’ expansion?
THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS REMIND AMERICANS (Legals) THAT THERE IS NO (REAL) BORDER WITH NARCOMEX!

SHOCKING IMAGES OF CARTELS ON U.S. BORDERS:

“Heroin is not produced in the United States. Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.” 

Mexico Drug Cartel Super-Labs Help Drive Overdose Deaths in California



The combination of Mexican drug cartel super-labs increasing the purity of illegal drugs, and an ongoing prescription painkiller boom, is set to drive up overdose death rates in California.

The Los Angeles Times, citing the RAND Corporation, reports that authorities are 

increasingly worried that increasing demand for increasingly more refined drugs smuggled from Mexico foreshadows an increase in carnage from the drug epidemic.


For decades, heroin was produced in Mexico with rudimentary equipment, then distributed on the West Coast with a dark brown color. Ghe purity rate was about 15 percent, which is how it won the nickname “Mexican tar.”
Because of the West Coast’s relatively low drug potency, heroin overdose rates were usually much less prevalent than on the East Coast, where the color was almost white, and the purity was about 40 percent. The East Coast supply was usually smuggled in from China under the nickname of “China white.”
But thanks to proliferating technology, Mexican drug cartels drastically upped their potency game over the last decade and now produce their own China white that is now flooding the West Coast with some of the highest-grade illicit drugs on the planet. Mexican heroin purity has risen from 15 percent to over 50 percent; the average purity of methamphetamine has climbed from 39 to almost 93 percent; and the average purity of Fentanyl has risen from 5 percent to 90 percent.
In 1999, CNN reports, only 9 American states had deaths from drug and opioid overdoses above 7.5 per 100,000, and the West Coast states averaged only 7.8 deaths per 100,000. By 2015, American annual deaths from drug and opioid overdoses had more than doubled to about 40,000, only 3 states had deaths overdoses below 7.5 per 100,000, and the West Coast averaged 13.1 overdose deaths per 100,000.
California only had 1,925 opioid-linked overdose deaths last year, according to the Sacramento Bee. But California overdose death rates seem ready to boom, given that 80 percent of serious drug users initially get hooked on legal opioid prescription drugs.
The Bee reported that California’s fourth-least populated Trinity County, with just 13,628 residents, had 18,439 prescriptions for opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone last year. But having more prescriptions than residents is not unusual in the state. The 10 Northern California counties that include Trinity, Lake, Shasta, Tuolumne, Del Norte, El Dorado, Placer and Sacramento counties all had opioid pain-killer prescription rates that exceeded the number of residents last year.
Rural Northern California prescription opioids use is now similar to the “gateway drug” prescription rates of rural West Virginia, Ohio and New England, where legal and illegal opioid use is blamed for over 183,000 overdose deaths between 1999 and 2015.



DEATH ON THE BORDER


Agent Rogelio Martinez sought “to defend my country from terrorists.”







         
United States Border Patrol agent Rogelio Martinez knew his job was dangerous, but as Aileen Flores noted in the El Paso Times, the four-year veteran loved his work. “Dad, it’s the job I like,” Rogelio would tell his father José Martinez. “I want to defend my country from terrorists … I want to prevent terrorists and drugs from coming into the country.”
Rogelio Martinez, 36, had been planning a Sunday home gathering to watch the New England Patriots play the Oakland Raiders in Mexico City. Rogelio never made it home because, as José told the Times, his son’s head had been “destroyed.”  
Martinez was dead and another agent in serious condition. What should have been a festive occasion, Flores wrote, “instead turned into a day of mourning filled with disbelief, sadness and heartache.” Based on past cases, the death of agent Martinez will not elicit much lamentation from the Mexican government and its American collaborators, particularly on campus. 
In March of 1995 U.S. Border Patrol agent Luis Santiago fell to his death while pursuing illegals. Voz Fronteriza, an officially recognized student publication at the University of California at San Diego, responded with “Death of a Migra Pig,” a page-one editorial that celebrated both the death of Santiago and called for the killing of federal agents.
“We’re glad this pig died, he deserved to die. All Migra pigs deserve death,” said the officially funded UCSD publication. “We do not mourn the death of Santiago, instead we welcome it. Yet it is too bad that more Migra pigs didn't die with him. . . All of the Migra pigs should be killed, every single one. There are no good Migra agents; the only good one is a dead one.”
In 1994, Voz Fronteriza received $6,000 from UC student activity funds and many of its writers are members of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, which refers to the American Southwest as “occupied Mexico.” California attorney general Xavier Becerra, a former congressman once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, boasts of his involvement with the militant group. 
UC San Diego chancellor Richard Atkinson offered no public protest of “Death of a Migra Pig” and vice chancellor Joseph Watson failed to condemn the editorial. Neither campus boss suffered for appeasement of the razaists, and in October 1995 Atkinson became president of the entire University of California system. 
Ten years earlier, in February of 1985, members of the Guadalajara drug cartel headed by Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, kidnapped U.S. DEA agent Enrique Camarena. Cartel thugs tortured and murdered Camarena and Mexican pilot Alfredo Zavala. The case resurfaced this August, when a Mexican federal court sentenced Gallardo to 37 years in prison for the murders, a full 32 years after the Mexican cartel murdered the American. 
As the Los Angeles Times recalled, Gallardo was a former street cop who “counted police commanders and politicians among his protectors and supplicants.” After the Camarena murder, the U.S. pressured Mexico to arrest Guadalajara cartel bosses Ernest Fonseca and Rafael Caro Quintero.  Gallardo, “reportedly protected by authorities, was not arrested until 1989” and his case “dragged on for decades in Mexican tribunals.”
Mexico transferred Ernesto Fonseca to house 

arrest in 2016 and in 2013 Mexico released 

Rafael Caro Quintero from prison on a legal 

technicality. Clearly, the Mexican government 

ranks among the cartels’ chief collaborators. 
In 1985 the president of Mexico was Miguel de la Madrid of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) that ruled Mexico since the twenties. At the time of Camarena’s disappearance, the Los Angeles Times recalled, “an irate Reagan administration pressed the Mexican government to find him. U.S. customs officials all but shut down the nearly 2,000-mile-long border, triggering a binational crisis.” 
Mexico is essentially a one-party state deploying a neo-colonial policy toward the United States. Mexicans in the United States send back some $25 billion yearly, and Mexico depends on the USA to provide not only jobs but pick up the tab for criminals such as Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, deported five times, who gunned down Kate Steinle, and Luis Bracamontes, who murdered police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis
In 2014, Mexico also allowed the trafficking of minor children from Central America to the United States, a massive act of child abuse, a violation of the rule of law, and blatant defiance of U.S. sovereignty. The administration of POTUS 44 was complicit with all that in hopes of expanding Democrats’ imported electorate for 2016 and beyond. 
Even so, populist Donald Trump easily defeated the Democrat candidate he accurately dubbed “Crooked Hillary.” In Mexico, PRI has resumed power under Enrique Peña Nieto but has deployed former president Vincente Fox as a stunt double to trash Trump in the style of the American left.  
Rogelio Martinez, meanwhile, loved his job and wanted to protect his country from terrorists. Whatever their official statements, his death will not trouble Mexico’s PRI regime. For the razaist crowd, Martinez is just another “Migra pig” who deserved to die. 
This deadly attack bolsters President Trump’s already strong case for building the wall and deporting false-documented illegals. As the Camarena case confirmed, sí, se puede control the border, if leaders have the will to do so. 
At this writing, the surviving Border Patrol agent has yet to be identified but according to news reports he has no recollection of what happened.   

JOHN BINDER

CALIFORNIA MOVES CLOSER TO FINAL ANNEXATION BY MEXICO


DE FACTO CITIZENSHIP PER LA RAZA:

NO TEST, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CRIMINALITY, NO BACK TAXES, NO 

FINES.... JUST JUMP STRAIGHT TO VOTING BOOTHS! AND VOTE OFTEN!!!

 

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/07/john-binder-californias-surrender-to.html

 

In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com


 THE WAR ON AMERICA’S MIDDLE-CLASS waged by D.C., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the La Raza Fascist Party and Mexico!


The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor and spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. NEIL MUNRO

AMERICA’S SUICIDE:

PATHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE, OPIOID ADDICTION, STAGGERING POVERTY, SOARING JOBLESSNESS FOR LEGALS AND POVERTY FOR ALL….. While the rich only get SUPER RICH!

PRINCETON REPORT:

American middle-class is addicted, poor, jobless and suicidal…. Thank the corrupt government for surrendering our borders to 40 million looting Mexicans and then handing the bills to middle America?


CATASTROPHIC CRIME SURGE IN MEX-
OCCUPIED CALIFORNIA


Half the murders in Mexifornia are now by 

Mex gangs!


Mark Levin: 


‘There Is a Big, Ugly Side to Illegal Immigration’


Thursday on Levin TVnationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin warned about the dangers of illegal immigration saying, “There is a big, ugly side of illegal immigration,” Levin said. “There’s all kinds of crimes being committed by people who aren’t supposed to be here.”



Mexico, the U.S. Tax-supported La Raza Fascist Party of UNIDOSus Endorses Democrat Candidate Doug Jones For His Advocacy of Amnesty and La Raza Supremacy Over American Workers