Friday, October 4, 2019

ELIZABETH WARREN'S PLATFORM: Amnesty and a massive Mexican welfare state on our backs

Los Angeles County Pays Over a Billion in Welfare to Illegal Aliens Over Two Years

 

In 2015 and 2016, Los Angeles County paid nearly $1.3 billion in welfare funds to illegal aliens and their families. That figure amounts to 25 percent of the total spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to Fox News.
The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Approximately a quarter of California’s 4 million illegal immigrants reside in Los Angeles County. The county allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.
The welfare benefits data acquired by Fox News comes from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services and shows welfare and food stamp costs for the county’s entire population were $3.1 billion in 2015, $2.9 billion in 2016.
The data also shows that during the first five months of 2017, more than 60,000 families received a total of $181 million.
Over 58,000 families received a total of $602 million in benefits in 2015 and more than 64,000 families received a total of $675 million in 2016.
Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who studies poverty and illegal immigration, told Fox the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.”
“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said. It can cost the government a total of $24,000 per year per family to pay for things like education, police, fire, medical, and subsidized housing.
In February of 2019, the Los Angeles city council signed a resolution making it a sanctuary city. The resolution did not provide any new legal protections to their immigrants, but instead solidified existing policies.
In October 2017, former California governor Jerry Brown signed SB 54 into law. This bill made California, in Brown’s own words, a “sanctuary state.” The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the State of California over the law. A federal judge dismissed that suit in July. SB 54 took effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
According to Center for Immigration Studies, “The new law does many things: It forbids all localities from cooperating with ICE detainer notices, it bars any law enforcement officer from participating in the popular 287(g) program, and it prevents state and local police from inquiring about individuals’ immigration status.”
Some counties in California have protested its implementation and joined the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state.
California’s campaign to provide public services to illegal immigrants did not end with the exit of Jerry Brown. His successor, Gavin Newsom, is just as focused as Brown in funding programs for illegal residents at the expense of California taxpayers.
California’s budget earmarks millions of dollars annually to the One California program, which provides free legal assistance to all aliens, including those facing deportation, and makes California’s public universities easier for illegal-alien students to attend.

According to the Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2017 report, for the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants living in the country, the resulting cost is a $116 billion burden on the national economy and taxpayers each year, after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by some of those illegal immigrants.
Warren’s Anti-Capitalist Message

The low-key, folksy tone delivering radical ideas.
 
Joseph Klein

Senator Elizabeth Warren continues to rise in the Democrat presidential primary polls. She led the field by 4 points in the latest Economist/YouGov weekly tracking survey. In Quinnipiac University’s national poll released on September 25th, Warren received 27 percent while Biden got 25 percent of Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic. “Dig a little deeper, and the reasons behind Warren’s rise become more clear. She generates a lot of excitement as a potential nominee,” said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy. “On top of that, half of Democrats want a presidential candidate that supports big changes – even if it means things are harder along the way.” Senator Bernie Sanders, whose far left ideology is the closest to Warren’s among the presidential primary contenders, had seen his poll numbers slipping even before he suspended his campaign appearances and events until further notice following a heart procedure for a blocked artery.
Warren has tried to distinguish herself from Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, by portraying herself as a believer in capitalism so long as it is heavily regulated and fundamentally restructured to favor those further down the economic ladder. She has claimed that she is a "capitalist to my bones." However, no matter how hard Warren tries to sugarcoat her ideas to appeal to more moderate voters without losing her progressive base of support, Warren is a far leftist with a radical, anti-capitalist ideology. 
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody,” Warren said in 2011 – an idea that Barack Obama picked up a year later with his “You didn’t build that” remark.
 “You built a factory out there? Good for you,” Warren said. “But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”
Elizabeth Warren also claimed credit for creating “much of the intellectual foundation” of the radical Occupy Wall Street movement. “I support what they do,” she exclaimed in 2011. Here are some of things  they did in the course of their “occupations” in the name of “social justice” – violence, vandalism, sexual assaults, and arson.
Fast forward to the 2020 presidential campaign. A center piece of Senator Warren’s current pitch is her wealth tax proposal. She wants to pay for her radical redistributionist programs such as tuition-free public college, cancellation of student debt, universal child care, "Medicare for all,” and the economy-wrecking New Green Deal with a 2 percent tax on net worth over $50 million. To the catchy chant at a September campaign rally of “Two cents, two cents, two cents,”  Warren responded, "Yes, that is a two cents tax on fortunes over $50 million." Her tax would increase to three cents on every dollar above $1 billion.  
Warren is serving up class warfare par excellence to her leftist base. Only the super-rich would be impacted by the new tax, the “richest 0.1 percent of Americans,” according to its proponents.  And who cares about them, especially if you believe Warren’s claim that that they didn’t get rich on their own anyway? Indeed, Warren repeated her collectivist refrain from 2011 in defending her wealth tax proposal this past August and September. Warren believes that “all of us” – by which she means the government on our behalf - deserve much of the credit for helping those fortunate enough to “build a great fortune…we’re saying that if you make it really, really, really big, bigger than 50 million dollars, then pitch in two cents so everyone else can have a chance.”
Elizabeth Warren’s pitch is disingenuous, to say the least. True, entrepreneurs, factory owners and business owners, indeed “all of us,” benefit from certain government programs such as education, defense and infrastructure spending that help facilitate individuals’ ability to fully realize the American dream. However, what she leaves out in her speeches is that many of the dollars she claims are used by the government to do all the things for the “fortunate” have come, in the first place, from owners of factories and businesses – entrepreneurs who take risks and create tax revenue-producing jobs for many other Americans. Moreover, government inefficiency, corruption and harebrained social engineering schemes too often waste taxpayer money. Why should the government be permitted to seize even more money from law-abiding taxpayers to squander on such extremist proposals supported by Warren as free health care for illegal immigrants?
Economists Natasha Sarin and Lawrence H. Summers have critiqued the wealth tax on several grounds. First, they argued, efforts to minimize the impact of the 2 percent annual rate are misleading. “A 50-year old who has accumulated a substantial fortune can expect to pay more than half of it in taxes before she dies,” they wrote. “Imagine that a wealthy person invests in 10-year treasury bonds, with a 2.4 percent return. The wealth tax would extract 2 of the 2.4 percent return. Combined with income taxes levied at a 40 percent rate, the wealth tax could make the effective tax rate on capital income well over 100 percent. And then at the end of life would come the estate tax.”
Second, Sarin and Summers wrote that “wealth taxes are likely to be burdensome on entrepreneurial businesses in their private phase, when entrepreneurs are liquidity-constrained. Perversely, this could disincentivize transformative innovation…If America had had more figures like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Steve Jobs over the last generation, it would have been a good thing, associated with a stronger economy even if measured inequality increased.” That’s because a stronger economy means more jobs for more Americans. “Turning the tax code into a vehicle for confronting what some call ‘oligarchic drift’ would undermine business confidence, reduce investment, degrade economic efficiency, and punish success in ways unlikely to be good for the country or even to be appealing to most Americans,” the economists added.
Third, there are valuation issues, particularly with respect to intangible assets such as intellectual property or shares in a privately-owned company that has not yet generated a profit.
Fourth, Sarin and Summers pointed to other countries’ unsuccessful experiences with a wealth tax. “Twelve countries had wealth taxes in 1990, and only three still do today,” they wrote.
There is also a problem with Warren’s wealth tax proposal that Sarin and Summers did not expressly address. The 2 cents slogan makes it sound so modest, with only a tiny part of the population who would be directly impacted. But as with many such modest-sounding beginnings, the camel will be getting its nose under the tent. A brief look at the history of the federal income tax illustrates the point.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which permitted Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states based on population, was officially ratified and added to the Constitution in February 1913. During the negotiations later in 1913 leading up to the enactment of the legislation that included the federal income tax, President Woodrow Wilson wrote Senate Finance Chairman Furnifold M. Simmons (D-N.C.) in support of the lower of two alternative rates under consideration. He wrote that “my own opinion in the matter is that it is much safer to begin upon somewhat moderate lines.” President Wilson signed the Revenue Act of 1913, which lowered tariff rates as well as enacting the income tax, into law on October 3, 1913. It imposed a one percent tax on incomes above $3,000, with a top tax rate of an additional six percent on those earning more than $500,000 per year. The amount of $500,000 in 1913 “is equivalent in purchasing power to about $12,682,163.30 in 2018,” according to the CPI calculator. By 1918, the top tax rate rose to 77 percent, presumably to help defray World War I costs. It went down to levels in the mid-twenties during the next decade. However, the top tax rate rose again to levels between 63 percent and 94 percent, until finally brought down to far more reasonable levels during the Reagan administration that led to rapid economic growth.
Now, on top of Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax, some of Warren’s kindred progressives are calling for a return to a top federal income tax rate of 70 percent not seen since 1980. And Warren has ducked questions on whether her version of “Medicare for all,” which would eliminate private insurance in favor of a government take over of the health care industry, would entail increased taxes on the middle class.  
Everyone who values innovation, jobs, and protection of the inalienable right of Americans to the “pursuit of happiness” proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence should be alarmed by Elizabeth Warren’s radical ideas as she continues to climb in the polls. Do not be fooled by the low key, folksy tone that she uses to deliver her left wing, anti-capitalist nostrums.


ELIZABETH WARREN IS AN ADVOCATE FOR AMNESTY FOR 40 MILLION MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS. TO KEEP THEM COMING AND VOTING DEMOCRAT FOR MORE SHE WANTS TO HAND THEM MORE WELFARE AND THEN HAND THE TAX BILLS OVER TO THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS. WHAT'S LEFT OF IT!

Democrats' Contempt for the Sanctity of Life

Ed Buck, a prominent Democrat donor and fundraiser, has been charged with battery, administering illegal drugs, and operating a drug house.  The charges paint a disturbing picture of this wealthy scion of liberal politics.  At this time, two men have been identified as having died and a third having been seriously harmed, but prosecutors are said to have found hundreds of photographs "of men in compromising positions" who may have been lured to Buck's home with the promise of money, shelter, and drugs.
This case raises many questions, not just concerning the several felonies with which Buck has been charged, but about the morality of this and other prominent liberals.  On what basis could any human being engage in sexual conduct with "hundreds" of unfortunate human beings, using them like playthings and then casting them aside?  What does such conduct suggest about the capacity of some individuals to use others for their personal pleasure, regardless of the dangerous consequences involved?  
Certainly, conservatives are far from perfect, but at least conservatives do not flaunt their iniquities.  Conservatives as individuals possess all the imperfections of other men, but they still ascribe to an ideal of goodness and virtue.  The same cannot be said for liberals, who believe that they should rack up as much pleasure as possible in this world because they are sure there's no life after death.
For liberals, what happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office.  Many Democrats thought Bill Clinton was just being Clinton and that there was nothing especially immoral about conducting affairs with aides, state employees, actresses, and nursing home managers.  Was this because they did not appreciate the sanctity of those who served as mere diversion for our 42nd president?
Just what is so appealing to liberals about promiscuity, anyway?  Is it just sex, or is there a special satisfaction in transgressing traditional moral codes?  Is it the idea that one is "bigger" than the law?  Or is it that liberals believe that the rules no longer apply?  Is it beneath them to believe in marital fidelity and lifetime devotion to one's spouse?  Liberals think they are too sophisticated for this kid of trust, just as they think telling the truth is Boy Scout stuff and election promises are made to be broken.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Yeah, right.
Conservatives are different.  We at least hold up the ideal of devotion, honesty, and truth-telling, and though we're not perfect, we try to be.  That's especially the case when it involves the sanctity of life.  Conservatives defend the unborn, defend their families, and defend their God-given liberties.  Conservatives know that all of God's creation is sacred, and it is that knowledge that makes them act with restraint and care.  That is the essence of conservatism.
The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is a lack of restraint rooted in egotism and self.  The Warren presidential campaign is a perfect example.  If elected, Elizabeth Warren will, according to her own admission, attempt to closely regulate all large businesses, eliminate fracking and the jobs that go with it, provide Medicare for All, dictate health care decisions (including practically unlimited abortion "rights"), eliminate capital punishment, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, provide free college, cancel student debt, eliminate the Electoral College, ban assault weapons, open our borders, legalize marijuana, and significantly cut the defense budget.
Warren's policies show her to be an extremist driven by ideology rather than concern for the individuals whom she would tax, endanger, disenfranchise, and tyrannize with regulation and social mandates.  Where is her concern for the individuals whose lives she would alter so radically with her sweeping reforms?  Those lives are sacred, their right to prosper and save is sacred, and their right to safety and security is sacred.  Warren does not seem to have thought much about the dangers of unrestrained immigration or the fact that a weakened national defense will put all Americans at risk.  What is she describing is tyranny, plain and simple.
The most obvious example of liberal denial of the sanctity of life, of course, is liberals' position on abortion.  For any person who truly believes in the sanctity of life, abortion must be repugnant.  One point six million abortions, terminating approximately one quarter of all pregnancies, are performed every year in the U.S.  At this rate, that would amount to 80 million abortions over the past 50 years.  Imagine the loss of those beautiful human souls.
Or are they beautiful?  Liberals do not believe so.  They tell us that the earth has become overpopulated.  It is "the earth" that matters and not human beings.  Or they say the mothers of those unborn children would not be able to care for them and that the children would just become a burden on the State.  The "burden on the State" is more important than the unborn child.
What you will never hear from a liberal is the idea that every child, born and unborn, is sacred.  A child is worth that burden and worth the stress he purportedly places on "the earth."  A time is coming when America will wish that it had those 80 million souls to defend it and help it prosper.  That ability to contribute to society and pursue economic opportunity, and to fight if necessary to defend one's home, is another side of what makes every child sacred.  Children are sacred because of their capacity for goodness, beauty, and life, but also because they will grow into adults who take responsibility for themselves and for their neighbors.   
Would any conservative vote to end the life of 80 million human beings?
I believe that every human being is God's creation and that everyone is born with the potential to contribute and achieve.  Our Founders believed in limited government because they too believed in human potential, and they feared the tyranny of authoritarianism.  They had reason to fear, having lived under the yoke of British colonial rule.
It is no accident that those who seek a vast expansion of government power today also oppose the sanctity of life.  A free people engaged in productive endeavors will never vote for a socialist who will suppress their freedom.  What today's tyrants fear above all is a public that believes in the sanctity of life and is willing to stand up for it.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).





So is running for president now a corrupt Democrat's 'get out of jail free' card?




Based on today's standards, promoted in Congress and the press, Democratic Party candidates, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, can greatly enrich their families with massive amounts of money from foreign parties, and a Republican president or its Justice department are not even allowed to bring up their names, let alone research their obvious corruption. Most of the media and other Democrats are now calling President Trump's bid to get to the bottom of the ongoing corruption we see 'impeachable' and they couldn't care less about corruption as they preach that no one is above the law.

Democrats can seek trash on their Republican opponents from foreign nationals and not only do most journalists and other Democrats not care, they can use a fake dossier full of opposition research as grist for an FBI investigation in their bid to take out Trump. Then, if Trump brings up Biden’s name to a foreign leader, they call that illegal and impeachable.
A Democrat, her staff and many at the State Department and other agencies can continually violate the nation's security laws (as Clinton did) and the Justice Department inexplicably lets her off. Most journalists and other Democrats support her and call it partisan to look at the clear violations of the law as they lecture everyone that no one is above the law.
A Democrat and her spouse can physically and mentally abuse women (again, the Clinton pair) and seek to destroy anyone who gets in their way as they amass power. Most journalists and other Democrats don’t give a damn about any of the abused women with credible claims against Bill or Hillary Clinton even as they say how pro-women they are.
A Democrat commits fraud throughout her adult life by lying about her heritage to move up the economic ladder (Elizabeth Warren) and most journalists and other Democrats will support her. In fact, they've made her the frontrunner in the current Democratic nomination for president polls.
Democrat candidates can seek to destroy and impeach Judge Brett Kavanaugh based on articles the media has published with no evidence to support the stories. And the media pretends their stories are based on facts. How can they expect the public to believe them when they ran years of stories on Russian collusion when there was never any evidence?
Democrat candidates continually lie about what Trump said in Charlottesville and lie about Ferguson, Missouri to gin up racial hate and violence and they are supported wholeheartedly by the complicit media as they pretend they are the party of unity and the truthful party.
Democrat bureaucrats in the Obama administration, at Justice, CIA, other intelligence agencies and at the State Department continually lie to justify spying to take out Trump while they protect Hillary from prosecution. But if the Trump administration looks at the origins of the fake Russian collusion narrative, that is impeachable and partisan. The compliant media doesn’t give a darn about the clear violations of the law and abuse of power while they continually say that no one is above the law.
A Democrat president can violate the Constitution with DACA, be flexible with Russia, give kickbacks to Iran tyrants, stop an investigation into drug running by terrorists to appease Iran, violate bankruptcy laws, have slush funds at Justice, CFPB and EPA to reward political supporters, illegally unmask names of people surrounding Trump, leave Americans to die in Libya while concocting a lie, spy illegally on thousands of Americans, imprison reporters, look the other way as his Secretary of State violates security laws and takes kickbacks, Look the other way as Obama administration officials such as Eric Holder, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice and others commit perjury, withhold documents from Congress for years on Fast and Furious, prosecute whistleblowers for violation of the espionage act, cage and separate children at the border and all his conversations with foreign leaders will remain private.
As the media watched all this clear corruption unfold throughout eight years of Obama, almost all journalists and other Democrat supported him, called him brilliant and to this date pretend the Obama administration was scandal-free as they tell the public that no one is above the law.
Known serial liars Clapper, Brennan, Holder, plus creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti are treated as reliable sources by almost all media outlets as they trash Trump.
Meanwhile, whatever Trump does is impeachable, even if it is only bringing up Biden’s name to investigate clear corruption. According to the media, as they collude with other Democrats, it appears that every one of Trump’s phone calls should be made public.
And any disgruntled Democrat bureaucrat who leaks information, whether or not they had firsthand knowledge, should be treated as a protected whistleblower instead of a leaker.
Republicans are welcome as reliable sources in the media, like Senators Mitt Romney, John McCain or Jeff Flake, as long as they are trashing Trump. Otherwise they are not welcome.
It is so hard to spot the bias as the media trashes Trump and his supporters, daily, with every name in the book and lecture the public that no one is above the law and how the Democrat party is the party of unity.
Image credit: Photo illustration by Monica Showalter with use of image by Michael Vadon, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0.



Hillary's going to get in

It is no longer a matter of if but of when.  All doubts about Hillary's 2020 plans should have been erased by her appearances this week promoting the book that she and her daughter “wrote” to say nothing about her mien!  She endlessly reprised her absurd claim that the election was stolen from her, called for Trump's impeachment, and even admitted to her gutsiness for standing by her man.
I think she has always been in the race, covertly, and that she and Bill always assumed that no candidate would arrive at the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, at which point she could be put forth as a compromise.
Screen Grab (Cropped)
Biden's done for; there is no way he is going to survive the imbroglio surrounding his son's machinations and profiteering in Ukraine and China.  There's too much there there.  It will become inescapable, even to the unwashed, that the only reason money flowed to Hunter Biden was to gain influence with Joe or gain benefits through Joe and his network of friends and allies.
Joe’s always been a placeholder for Hillary, whether he realizes it or not. It’s all has changed now because Biden's done, and could precipitate Hillary's early entry into the fray, as not only Biden but Bernie Sanders may be leaving the field. With their supporters potentially up for grabs, Elizabeth Warren could end up with a first ballot victory.
Hillary has to know that she is considered to be unlikable, but I think it is a given that no one likes Warren, either.  Daniel Greenfield compares her to Hillary here:
Warren’s likability deficit has nothing to do with her gender....[She ripped] off asbestos victims while pocketing a tidy sum....The ‘Hillariness’ of Warren doesn’t [just] lie in their shared fabulism or lack of ethics....[her] a complete lack of qualifications....[or because both are] inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else’s lives....[They're] both unlikable because you can’t picture either one having any fun....[C]ombine that with an obsessive need to monitor, regulate and eradicate other people’s fun, and you have the miserable essence of the progressive movement.
Hillary, and Bill, know that this is their [third] last chance, and they're not going to let another woman snatch it from her, as that “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking” black guy or that entitled creep did.  So, keep an eye out, for “when” is going to be sooner than anyone expected.
Now, can she win this time?  Only a fool would count her out.  She won't lose Biden's supporters.  Just being a woman will get her many of Warren's female supporters.  Despite Trump's inroads with African-American and Hispanic voters, she'll find considerable support in those groups.  Wall Street, Hollywood, and the MSM love her.  Traditional Democrats, not wanting four more years of uproar, may return to the fold over Ukraine and the like.
She'll work harder this time, if she can uphold under the effort, bringing Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin into the picture.  She'll be better prepared to debate Trump, but that may not mean much since Trump's hard to out-debate.
Settle into the chair, get out the popcorn, the show's about to begin.  If you doubt it, then I have a walking trail in Chappaqua to sell you.
The author is retired, his profile may be found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent to ringchadburn@hotmail.com



OPEN BORDERS FACILITATE AMERICA’S RACE TO THE BOTTOM



“Cheap labor” is anything but cheap.

January 2, 2019


For decades the United States government, on all levels, has betrayed its own citizens, promoting open borders policies that have come to undermine national security, public safety, public health, and jobs and wages for American workers.
The massive influx of alien children who lack English language proficiency also has a profound impact on the education of American kids.  Increasingly schools across the United States are forced to provide costly ESL (English as a Second Language) services draining funds that could and should be used to provide quality education for American children.  Additionally, as autism rates soar and with it the growing need for special services and early intervention for such learning challenged children, money that should be spent on those vital programs that could help so many of those children live better and more productive lives is being used, instead, to fund those ESL programs for illegal aliens and frequently the children of illegal aliens who do not speak English in their homes.
When early intervention is withheld from at-risk students, the results are frequently catastrophic, yet with all of the emotional arguments posed by the immigration anarchists who call for compassion for illegal aliens, their calls for compassion utterly disregard the plight of American children. 
Open borders policies permit huge numbers of foreign workers to enter the United States and displace American workers, not because American’s “won’t do these jobs” as claimed by the duplicitous politicians, but because these foreign workers are willing to accept lower wages and worse conditions than would the American workers whom they displace.
We can all think back to the days when we were growing up and sought our very first jobs to provide us with some spending money, enabling us to put our foot on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
We often encountered the conundrum of not being able to get a job without a reference.  In order to get a reference we had to have a previous employer vouch for us.  This made getting that very first job all the more difficult and, at the same time, all the more important.
I remember my first job, when I was 14 yeas old, working during my summer vacation in a Kosher delicatessen, a short bike ride from home in Brooklyn where I washed dishes, fried potatoes and served hot dogs at the counter, waited on tables and delivered sandwiches to the women who spent hours at the nearby beauty parlors.
It was exciting and empowering to be earning money instead of asking my parents for an allowance.  Although I didn’t realize it at the time, that job also provided me with an education in life lessons, teaching me to be responsible, punctual and take instructions from an employer.  That job also taught me the value of money, I was far less likely to squander money when I had to work so hard to earn it.
Finally, that job provided me with that important first reference that helped me get other jobs in the future as I climbed the economic ladder to a successful life.
Many of my friends also worked in nearby restaurants. Brooklyn has no shortage of great places to eat, often small “mom and pop” restaurants and everyone of those establishments routinely hired teenagers and college students who were desperate to earn money.
Today most of those jobs in all too many local restaurants and other businesses are not taken by teenage American kids, but but illegal aliens, thereby shutting out Americans.
Consequently, these American kids are often unable to get that first job that would mean so much to them and provide them with important life lessons including a sense of self-worth and empowerment.
Unable to find legitimate employment, some kids, particularly in the poor neighborhoods, resort to committing crimes to get their hands on some money to take a girl on a date or make purchases.  This often puts these teenagers on a trajectory that does not end well for them or for their communities, or for America.
Illegal alien day laborers often displace construction workers, resulting in massive unemployment for American and lawful immigrant workers, boosting the profits of their employers who hire them “off the books” and pay them extremely low wages.
The open-borders/immigration anarchists are quick to invoke arguments about the need for compassion.  The reality is that there’s no compassion in the exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers nor is there compassion in the destruction of wages and jobs for Americans.
Now with the legalization of marijuana in many cities and states across the United States the issue not being raised in the media is that inasmuch as many companies test their employees for illegal drugs, it is likely that those who are encouraged to smoke marijuana will lose their jobs, perhaps leading to the globalists claiming that not only are lazy Americans not willing to take physically demanding jobs, and too dumb to take hi-tech jobs but are now too stoned to take any jobs.
The displacement of American workers is not limited to the economic bottom rung jobs.  America has been increasingly importing computer programmers and other hi-tech workers from India and other countries to displace Americans.
The Democratic Party used to act in the interests of American workers and, as a part of their efforts to protect the jobs and wages of Americans, opposed the importation of foreign workers.  Today, the Democratic Party no longer represents American workers and, in fact, has come to betray American workers and their families.  Today’s Democratic Party insists on raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour to achieve “wage equality.”  This works out to an annual wage of slightly more than $30,000.  The question that is never asked, particularly by the mainstream media is: “with whom would these workers become equal?”
It would be one thing if they insisted on a $15.00 minimum wage to help America’s working poor.  But to tout that wage as a means of achieving “wage equality” should give all Americans cause for pause.
As I noted in an article I once wrote about the veiled attack on the middle class,
The Wage Equality Deception, Alan Greenspan the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, invoked the notion of wage equality way back on April 30, 2009 when he testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship that was, at that time, chaired by Chuck Schumer.
The subject of the hearing was “Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?”  Greenspan's prepared testimony included this assertion:
But there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force. The illegal part of the civilian labor force diminished last year as the economy slowed, though illegals still comprised an estimated 5% of our total civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters.
Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.
Greenspan must not have gotten the memo- when America’s poorest workers suffer wage suppression they are likely to become homeless and, indeed, across the United States, homelessness has increased dramatically.  This not only creates chaos in the lives of the homeless and their children, but imposes severe economic burdens on cities that have to cope with this disaster.
Greenspan went on to state the United States must accede to Bill Gates’ demand for more H-1B visas as Gates noted in his testimony at a previous hearing, that we are "driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most." 
Where I come from, “the world’s best and brightest” are AMERICANS!  This is what is commonly referred to as “American Exceptionalism.”
Greenspan supported his infuriating call for many more H-1B visas by the following “benefits” for America and, as you will see, the last sentence of his outrageous paragraph addresses the notion of reducing “wage inequality” by lowering wages of middle class, highly educated Americans whom Greenspan had the chutzpah to refer to as “the privileged elite”!
Consider this excerpt from his testimony:
First, skilled workers and their families form new households. They will, of necessity, move into vacant housing units, the current glut of which is depressing prices of American homes. And, of course, house price declines are a major factor in mortgage foreclosures and the plunge in value of the vast quantity of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that has contributed substantially to the disabling of our banking system. The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.
Generally, the prospect of high-paying jobs incentivized American students to go on to college and acquire costly and time-consuming educations to be qualified to take those exciting and well-paying jobs.  If wages for high-tech professionals are slashed, those jobs will no longer be attractive to Americans.
Greenspan, Schumer and their cohorts are determined to create a $15.00 per hour “standard wage” to be paid to all workers irrespective of education or the nature of their jobs.  This is called Communism! 
Many have said that the Democrats want to import immigrants who will vote for their candidates.
What is often overlooked is that the downward economic spiral caused by the massive influx of cheap alien labor pushes ever more beleaguered Americans to vote for the Democrats who promise to help the hapless, financially strapped Americans for whom, no matter how hard they may strive, the “American Dream” has become an unattainable dream.

 

No comments: