Tag Archives: Cato Institute

One statistical truth about illegal aliens in the US

Posted on by

The LDAMM — Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots — are the last conglomeration wishing you to know the truth about illegal invaders assaulting US borders. As USBP authorities have said, “they’ve never seen it this bad.”

The border issue is a “manufactured crisis,” as you well know, according to the LDAMM.

If that’s not bad enough — complicated by the fact that the LDAMM have no intention whatsoever of fixing it any of the border issues or assisting President Trump in the slightest — here is an extremely inconvenient truth about illegals. From the not-paragon-of-right-leaning virtue, TheHill.com:

Most illegal aliens routinely commit felonies

by Ronald Mortensen

Two new studies, one from The Sentencing Project and one from the libertarian Cato Institute, reported that the percentage of immigrants committing crimes is lower than that of United States citizens. However, the underlying methodology used in each was critically flawed.

It is possible that legal immigrants commit crimes at a rate lower than U.S. citizens and that they are incarcerated at a lower rate than U.S. citizens. After all, legal immigrants are well vetted, and if they have criminal records in their countries of origin they are generally ineligible for admission to American.

The same cannot be said for illegal aliens because virtually all adult, illegal aliens commit felonies in order to procure the documents they need to get jobs, to drive and to obtain other benefits that are restricted to U.S. citizens. 

Stop. Let’s cease mincing words. Entering the United States illegally is in fact, eh, illegal. Hence, it is a crime. That’s the definition of the word.

il·le·gal
/i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
  1. contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

It is also illegal to acquire false documents in order to continue your life — illegally — in the United States when you should not be here in the first place. Words having meaning, you see.

The vast majority of illegal aliens use fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers.  They possess fake drivers’ licenses, phony “green cards,” fraudulent birth certificates and any other documents that U.S. citizens and legal residents have.  In addition, they falsify I-9 forms under penalty of perjury. Thus, the average illegal alien routinely commits multiple felonies -forgery, Social Security fraud, identity theft, and perjury.

This criminal activity is routinely swept under the rug in order to protect the myth of the law abiding illegal alien. However, when pushed, even the strongest supporters of illegal aliens are forced to acknowledge that the vast majority of illegal aliens commit multiple felonies. 

Wait for it.

In fact, the Social Security Administration and New York Times report that approximately 75 percent of illegal aliens have fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers which is a felony. The ACLU accepts this figure and uses it to show that illegal aliens pay payroll taxes.

Furthermore, the Los Angeles Times reports that up to 8 million of 11.1 million (72 percent) illegal aliens commit job-related felonies. La Raza says that illegal aliens contribute $15 billion annually in Social Security payments through payroll taxes [by using illegally obtained Social Security numbers – felony].

Mexican-born American journalist (actually Caucasoid eschewing, race-baiting Mexican Pimp himself – BZ) Jorge Ramos admits that many illegal aliens use “fake” documents (a felony).

You can’t leave Kalifornia out of the equation.

Even the president of the California State Senate admitted this month that “half” of his family “would be eligible for deportation under [President Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification (felonies).”

This is, to be even more blunt, continuing evidence to indicate that the LDAMM have absolutely no problem with cherry picking precisely what laws they wish to obey and what laws they won’t.

When the day arrives — and trust me, with a continuing embracement of this pattern — that others decide, en masse, what laws they too will hold or cast aside, the LDAMM will be the first to complain. Say, if entire county or state law enforcement agencies decide to not enforce any and all anti-Second Amendment laws.

Finally, another inconvenient reminder as well: that statistics tend to skew, naturally, up when the illegal population itself increases.

Clearly, the numbers are worse now and becoming more execrable.

BZ

 

 Share

ACLU considering kicking the First Amendment to the curb?

Posted on by

This used to be the stance of the ACLU. Have they abandoned the First Amendment?

If so, then who supports free speech?

Leftists? Demorats? The American Media Maggots? College campuses? The Southern Poverty Law Center? The US Communist Party?

None of the above?

From Reason.com:

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

by Robby Soave

“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed.”

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women’s rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memoobtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.

Translated: the First Amendment is a flexible, fungible and liquid document which may be applied when it happens not to conflict with any host of Social Justice Warrior goals and issues.

Soave really nails it next.

It’s hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider “factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.”

Those who operate between the margins of common sense know that it is the Second Amendment which has historically supported the First Amendment. That kind of support is apparently not in the future of the ACLU.

The memo also makes clear that the ACLU has zero interest in defending First Amendment rights in conjunction with Second Amendment rights. If controversial speakers intend to carry weapons, the ACLU “will generally not represent them.”

The memo’s authors assert that this does not amount to a formal change in policy, and is merely intended as guidelines that will assist ACLU affiliates in deciding which cases to take.

Right. I’m going to use a phrase with which the ACLU is well-acquainted: “chilling effect.” And I suspect it’s their point precisely. The First or Second Amendment aren’t absolutes. There are no more absolutes. There are merely unending shades of gray.

It seems fairly clear to me what’s happening here. Leadership would probably like the ACLU to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they would also like to remain in good standing with their progressive allies. Unfortunately, young progressives are increasingly hostile to free speech, which they view as synonymous with racist hate speech. Speech that impugns marginalized persons is not speech at all, in their view, but violence. This is why a student Black Lives Matter group shut down an ACLU event at the College of William & Mary last year, chanting “liberalism is white supremacy” and “the revolution will not uphold the Constitution.” Campus activism is illiberal, and liberal free speech norms conflict with the broad protection of emotional comfort that the young, modern left demands.

Again, what happens when true liberals die and Progressives take hold of every aspect of the Demorat Party? What happens when everything in life — as Progressives demand now and Demorats are clearly embracing — is nothing but a palette of gray, with nothing immured in any absolute whatsoever?

Even massive Leftist Nat Hentoff had questions about the ACLU before he passed away in 2017.

When you’re willing to quantify, parse, minimize and in some instances demean and work against freedom and liberty, what happens to this country? By dint of the Logical Extension, what happens to the rest of the world?

Perhaps the ACLU needs to be reminded of its name and the incredible importance of its letter “L”: LIBERTIES.

BZ

 

 Share

Regulated to death under Obama

Posted on by

Not only has Barack Hussein Obama defecated in the upcoming punchbowl of President-elect Donald Trump, he has done so to America for years but even more pointedly in the past month.

The situation can be issue-dependent as it is with Israel — Obama despises both Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu — but in general Obama fully expected Hillary Rodham Clinton to waltz into office on November 8th. When that didn’t occur, Obama knew he had to jack up the pace of his “legacy” geometrically because he expected HRC to continue his social engineering in the form of a proverbial third Obama term. To Obama these last-minute actions serve dual purposes: to kick the upcoming Trump administration in the crotch and to realize more Leftist objectives.

If you look closely, however, you realize that not only did Obama not just “allow” but push for the federal government to remove the rights of citizens and then sell them back, but it gave stellar influence, authority, dominion and unbridled power to faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats, none of whom were elected in any fashion, unlike Congress, and who are essentially answerable to no one.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Obama unleashes 3,853 regs, 18 for every law, record 97,110 pages of red tape

by Paul Bedard

President Obama‘s lame duck administration poured on thousands more new regulations in 2016 at a rate of 18 for every new law passed, according to a Friday analysis of his team’s expansion of federal authority.

While Congress passed just 211 laws, Obama’s team issued an accompanying 3,852 new federal regulations, some costing billions of dollars.

The 2016 total was the highest annual number of regulations under Obama. Former President Bush issued more in the wake of 9/11.

Gosh. Nothing like micro-managing. Have you ever had a micro-manager for a boss? Did you enjoy it? Admire them? Or was every day a piece of festering crap?

This cartoon from the New Yorker is a perfect illustration of how Leftists feel about us rabble, us commoners, proles, serfs, groundlings.

“These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us.
Who thinks I should fly the plane?”

The point being that the passenger represents you, me, the unwashed conservative populist rabble, and the pilots represent your highly trained and competent Leftist US government under Obama. Leftists mandate that we must have complete confidence in the pilot because, as the government, it can give us snacks, drinks. Pilots require actual skills, training, education, experience. The pilot makes all that Free Cheese happen.

In other words: you morons, you step into the cockpit and you jeopardize everyone’s safety. Our Free Cheese. Our snacks. Our drinks.

Leftists insist: we’re making these rules, these regulations, away from Congress because we absolutely must have them and that damned silly Constitution, Bill of Rights and “checks and balances” keep getting in the way.

The annual “Unconstitutional Index” from Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, said that it was much higher under Obama than under former President George W. Bush.

“The multiple did tend to be higher during Obama administration. Bush’s eight years averaged 20, while Obama’s almost-eight have averaged 29,” said his report, first provided to Secrets.

His index is meant to show that it is the federal bureaucracy, not Congress, that levies the most rules. “There’s no pattern to any of this, since the numerators and denominators can vary widely; there had been 114 laws in 2015, and a multiple of 39. The multiple can be higher with fewer laws, or with more regulations, holding the other constant. The point is that agencies do the bulk of lawmaking, no matter the party in power,” he wrote.

Holy mother of God. Read that again: “The point is that agencies do the bulk of lawmaking, no matter the party in power.”

Let’s just look at a few of the EPA rules.

And so much more.

All of this foolishness and micro-managing has to stop. Because, with just a pen — like Obama — Trump can remove this:

■ Many environmental mandates, including limits on formaldehyde use and stricter truck fuel efficiency rules;
■ A Food and Drug Administration ban on the sale of antibacterial soaps;
■ A requirement that federal contractors provide paid sick leave for their workers;
■ Stricter consumer protections on prepaid debit cards;
■ Federal loan forgiveness for students at schools that shut down;
■ A rule that bars nursing homes that receive federal funding from requiring residents to resolve all disputes through arbitration, rather than in court.

Just a start. Please read this piece from the Cato Institute about Executive Orders.

I repeat, direct from the Department of Redundancy Dept: Obama gave stellar influence, authority, dominion and unbridled power to faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats, none of whom were elected in any fashion, unlike Congress, and who are essentially answerable to no one.

And it would seem that is part and parcel of Obama’s Legacy.

A legacy that Donald Trump can and should overturn.

BZ

 

 Share

Leftists: dissension must be ELIMINATED

Posted on by

Leftists DON'T ALLOW DISSENSIONFirst on the agenda: the Drudge Report (though it’s nothing more than an aggregator) and Fox News.  Then the entire internet.

EXAMPLE ONE:

First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship

by Paul Bedard

Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.

STOP.  Read that first sentence again: “Finally making good on LONG-HARBORED ANGER at CONSERVATIVE media, DEMOCRATS on the Federal Election Commission voted in SECRET to PUNISH Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, USING AN OBSCURE LAW to charge the network with helping those on stage.”

Would that not be unlike Lois Lerner and the IRS who complained bitterly that no such thing was done until finally the IRS admitted that precisely that thing was done?

It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet’s debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.

The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action. The vote was posted Thursday and is here.

Imagine the results had Demorats simply owned that board, as Demorats own the state of California on most every level?

It seems that CNN sponsored quite a number of Democrat debates.  CNN sponsored four Democrat debates, of the ten documented — that’s almost half.  The GOP had twelve debates, six of which were sponsored by Fox.  That also is half.  Any issue with the FEC?

Here’s the obvious kicker:

CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.

Do not think that the Demorats and Leftists are content to stop there.  They absolutely, incontrovertibly, wish to control the entire internet and all its content — particularly if that content is right-leaning in nature.

EXAMPLE TWO:

Also from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners

by Paul Bedard

Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission.

“Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”

What is diversity?  In the eyes of Leftists, it is a One World Barbeque — that is, all persons saying, writing and thinking the same: a Leftist fashion.  Dissension cannot be tolerated.  What the FEC and Leftists and Demorats want is the same freedom of speech one now customarily finds on college campuses in America today; that is, little to none.

BZ License To BlogIn this vein I wrote, many years ago in 2010, that I could foresee the time where I as a blogger would require a literal license to blog.  To express my opinions and feelings.

Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.”

Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices.

Of course it’s under threat.  Leftists and Demorat want absolute control of speech as well as most every other aspect of your life.  With a SCOTUS that leans far left as would occur under the lying and brazenly-corrupt Hillary Clinton, you can quite certainly wave good-bye to your Bill of Rights, with the Second and First Amendments primarily in their PC sights.

“One of the things that is critical for this country is to reassert the value of the First Amendment, the fact that robust discourse, that is sometimes cacophonous, is nonetheless a value, in fact it creates value,” said Pai.

But wait; perhaps you thought I was kidding with the whole “my blog will be involved as will yours” thingie?  Read on.

At a CATO Institute discussion on online speech Wednesday night, both said that regulators are eager to issue new rules that could put limits on what people could say on blogs, online news and even YouTube. Washington Examiner reporter Rudy Takala and Cato’s digital manager Kat Murti were also on the panel.

There it is in black and white.  Do not for a moment believe that, somehow, miraculously, you will remain unaffected — particularly if you are a Conservative.  Or a Libertarian for that matter — John Stossel, I’m looking at you, sir.

Pai, addressing Goodman, added, “The common thread of our experiences I think is this impulse of control, whether it’s the FCC and the impulse of the government to want to control how these networks operate, and the FEC to control the content of the traffic that traverses over those networks, and I think that certainly highlights the importance of the First Amendment.”

Goodman concluded, “We need to be ever mindful and vigilant not to let governmental agencies through 3-2 votes, or 4-2 votes at the FEC take that away from us.”

Let there be no mistake.  Leftists and Demorats want control of our lives, complete and utter control of what we do, what we eat, where we live, how we live our lives and ultimately what we write, say and even think.

Leftists and Demorats would truly be pleased with a 1984 environment.

1984 - Big BrotherI can see an upheaval coming, ladies and gentlemen, if Demorats and Leftists keep removing our rights and our freedoms.

BZ

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 Share

Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government

Posted on by

White House ExplosionI was planning two specific posts for today and tomorrow, when the above headline caught my eye.  I bring that article to you now, from MediaIte.com:

by Noah Rothman

During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.

Apparently one person, named Michael Cannon, seems to “get it.”  Continuing:

On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

And, in concert with Lincoln, JFK said:

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

 Mr Cannon’s most important sentence:

“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

I have written, essentially, the same thing before on this very blog, but with regard to illegal immigration.  Now, we have the additional issue of ObamaKare.

Michael F. Cannon is the Director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute think tank.  Check their site here.

Mr Cannon also spoke to Glenn Beck about the unaccountability of Kathleen Sebelius, the Arrogant Bitch that she is:

Do you believe that?  If Obama fired Sebelius, he would have to nominate a new HHS secretary to be confirmed by the Senate.  The confirmation hearings would be a “bloodbath.”  And all the powers of the ACA would fall to her.  Except now?  It is a filibuster-LESS Senate.  51 votes.

I already posted on Michael Cannon writing about Kathleen Sebelius shaking down companies she regulates for ObamaKare.

Unpacking Mr Cannon’s words from above: as I wrote a number of times earlier with regard to illegal immigrants and the government’s decision to NOT enforce laws on the books —

If the government can decide to avoid and disregard its own laws — essentially picking and choosing which laws it wishes to enforce (without eliminating those laws statutorily) — then what keeps any other actual citizen from deciding to pick and choose which laws he or she wishes to obey when they become inconvenient?

If Mr Obama disregards the law, then why should Americans keep the law?

You tell me.

BZ

 

 

 Share