Saturday, December 29, 2018
BAIZUO - Chinese word that ridicules Western "liberal elites
"The word baizuo is, according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that ridicules Western "liberal elites". He further defined the word "baizuo" with the definition "People who only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backward Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviors”. The term has also been used to refer to perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang.[8] The use of the word "Baizuo" could be an insult on the Chinese Internet."
Friday, December 28, 2018
Border-Trump and the Global Elite
Let's jump a notch in our overview. Neither party wants secure closed borders. You don't fight over something for 40 years and not get it done.
Why do you think that Mitch McConnel doesn't use the nuclear option and vote the "Friendship Fence" into law? There is no reason you need 60 votes anymore; Harry Reid changed that rule in the Obama Admin. All Speaker of the House has to do for it is declaring it. The Republicans don't want it either. It's obvious.
Why? Because of the rise of technology a global economy has developed. Transportation, communication, technology and the emergence of the post-industrial revolution has dramatically changed international trade. It would be enhanced further if there were no borders, separate cultures, and language.
There has risen the global elitist mindset that the Global Elites want to go past economies and have an (ideally) One World Government where the people have no national allegiances. Picture a gigantic worldwide EU. It has been the goal of European Socialists since before Hitler.
How these elites profit is by made breaking down the nation-state and selling the assets to global corporations that are set up to take advantage of the situation, and these are in turn owned by the elites.
The politicians serve the multinationals, and they receive kickbacks in donations to secure politicians in their position. Sweet deal but the people are left out.
To break down cultures the Globalist elite encourage mass migrations as in Europe and Latin America. The working man hasn't got a raise in 15-20 years American workforce is being undercut. Employers can abuse and cheat them, and they can't complain, and it keeps the price of labor cheap here and abroad.
If the vast majority of both parties weren't the same, then it would be insane for Republicans to allow the border to be open because the uneducated, needy, low skilled illegals will always vote for more goodies from the government. They don't care about America. It's not their culture
This is why the global elite in Washington Establishment hates Trump. He's crashing these global compacts that don't benefit America. Nafta, Paris Climate Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Accord, etc and making better deals for America. He understands what's behind the immigration invasions.
He is destroying the big plan. I was hollering about the Bilderbergers when people laughed and said there was no such thing. Now it's common knowledge. This has been going on a very long time. So that's my answer. It's not Democrats and Republican so much as it is the Global Elite and the People's Populism
Monday, December 24, 2018
Illegal alien cost) The INSANE Tax Burden Of Illegal Aliens On U.S. Citizens
The next time a friend or family member attempts to explain to you about the benefits cheap labor in the United States, you might want to refer to this handy-dandy document, provided by The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The comprehensive and easy to understand “Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on the American Taxpayer for 2017” document explains the extreme burden American taxpayers are saddled with, so employers can hire cheap labor, which in many cases, undercuts the ability for low-income Americans and students to compete for jobs.
Democrat lawmakers and businesses who benefit from low labor costs have been trying to convince Americans of the benefits of laxed security on our southern borders. In addition to allowing criminals to cross our borders with no background checks, there’s the massive financial burden on American workers that no one is talking about—except for organizations like FAIR, who are sounding the alarm bells over the cost of our broken immigration system.
From FAIR‘s The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on The American Taxpayer -2017:
Even in the absence of any complex studies, basic mathematics make it self-evident that illegal aliens are a drain on the U.S. economy. For example, in its report The Sinking Lifeboat: Uncontrolled Immigration and the U.S. Health Care System in 2009, FAIR found that, in some hospitals, as many as two-thirds of total operating costs are attributable to uncompensated care for illegal aliens. If those costs are being borne by American taxpayers, rather than the illegal aliens who received medical treatment, then those illegal aliens are consuming more services than they pay for, and the costs of providing those services are never recouped. That makes them a net drain on the economy.
A careful examination of the federal budget shows an annual outlay of approximately $46 billion for expenses related to illegal immigration. A review of state budgets indicates even greater local costs, estimated at $89 billion annually. This means that the overall costs attributable to illegal aliens totals an annual bill of $135 billion. That equates to over $8,000 per illegal alien and dependent, per year.
Some illegal aliens do pay certain taxes. However, employers usually hire illegal aliens to obtain cheap labor at wages well below the market rate for a given area. Many of those employers pay illegal aliens “under-the-table” and do not deduct payroll taxes. Due to their lack of immigration status, illegal aliens are unlikely to report their income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Therefore, state and local governments, as well as the federal government, are not collecting enough taxes from illegal aliens to cover the costs of the services they consume. We estimate that illegal aliens actually pay just under $19 billion in combined state, local, and federal taxes. That means that the United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments.
FAIR firmly believes that the costs of illegal immigration (and massive legal immigration) significantly outweigh any perceived benefit. Accordingly, this study focuses only on calculating the overall costs of illegal immigration.
How Many Illegal Aliens Currently Reside in the United States?
Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired.
It is challenging to determine how many illegal aliens are present in the United States at any given time. The Department of Homeland Security only counts those foreigners who enter and leave the country through lawful channels. Those who deliberately evade immigration authorities and sneak across the border remain uncounted.
Once in the United States, most illegal aliens live in the shadows and interact with the government only on a very limited basis. Others commit ongoing immigration and identity fraud, claiming to be either green card holders or U.S. citizens. As a result, the U.S. government typically becomes aware of illegal aliens when they are encountered by state and local, or federal, law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. Therefore it is often difficult for police, prison officials, and other enforcement entities to determine whether an individual they encounter is actually lawfully present in the United States, or whether that individual is falsely claiming to be here legally.
Why do illegal aliens, who are living in America create such a massive burden on the American taxpayer?
Here are just a few examples that FAIR has provided in their federal expenditures study:
Medicaid Births $1,242,990,372
After rising rapidly since the 1980s, births to illegal alien mothers dropped during the great recession (2008-2010). Since then, the numbers appear to have held relatively steady. Pew Research estimated that by the end of 2013, illegal alien mothers gave birth to approximately 275,000 children in the United States. In 2015 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), foreign-born mothers accounted for a disproportionate share of a nationwide total of about 3.98 million births: 872,256 or 22 percent of the total.
Medicaid paid for 45 percent of all births in 2010. 21 Presuming that Medicaid also paid for 45 percent of all births in 2015, it covered the costs for about 392,000 births to foreign-born mothers. The cost of those births is shared between the federal taxpayer and the state taxpayer. The total cost depends on the type of delivery and whether complications occur.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program $1,963,416,000
Colloquially referred to as “Food Stamps,” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
is also administered by USDA-FNS. Illegal aliens are ineligible for SNAP but their U.S.-born children
are eligible. (In certain limited circumstances, elderly and disabled citizens residing with illegal alien relatives may qualify for SNAP benefits but they account for only a very small percentage of SNAP use by illegal alien households.)
is also administered by USDA-FNS. Illegal aliens are ineligible for SNAP but their U.S.-born children
are eligible. (In certain limited circumstances, elderly and disabled citizens residing with illegal alien relatives may qualify for SNAP benefits but they account for only a very small percentage of SNAP use by illegal alien households.)
The eligibility requirements for SNAP are based on household income. However, income earned by illegal alien parents is not used to calculate whether their U.S. citizen children qualify for the program. Accordingly, virtually all citizen children of illegal aliens qualify for SNAP.
Women Infants and Children $1,097,820,360
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, commonly known as “WIC,” provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income, pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
Eligibility for WIC is established by income. Currently, those earning 185 percent of the federal poverty level, or lower, are eligible to apply for this benefit. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, WIC served 53 percent of all infants born in the United States in 2013. WIC is available to anyone who is in the United States and falls within a WIC eligible category (i.e., pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, infants under one year of age, and children under five years of age), is a full-time resident of the state where he/she is applying for WIC, meets the income requirements, and is at risk for malnutrition. As a federally funded, state-administered program, each state is entitled to determine whether it will allow illegal aliens to draw WIC benefits. All fifty states have extended eligibility to illegal aliens.
A study by the Center for Immigration (CIS) studies found that approximately 35.1 percent of illegal alien households with children use the WIC program.53 Using a baseline of 4.0 million illegal alien households, this would indicate that approximately 1.4 million illegal alien households draw benefits under the WIC
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $1,785,000,000
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is the current successor to the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. TANF was created to help needy families achieve self-sufficiency by providing temporary cash assistance to supplement their earned income.
In order to qualify, applicants must be either pregnant or responsible for a child under 19 years of age, meet income requirements, and be underemployed, about to become unemployed, or about to become unemployed. Recipients must be working or actively seeking employment; and, generally speaking, adults with dependent children receiving TANF must continue to meet financial and technical eligibility requirements.
Like SNAP, TANF is a welfare program that is not available to illegal aliens. However, illegal alien families that have U.S.-born children may still obtain significant financial assistance via this program. Certain TANF benefits are available to the U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens who are being cared for by grandparents, foster parents, aunts, and uncles. These are referred to as “child-only” applications.
Other ICE Operations $1,126,840,000
ICE is responsible for enforcing both civil and criminal immigration laws within the interior of the United States. Non-ERO ICE operations primarily involve detecting, arresting, and prosecuting lawfully present aliens who engage in criminal acts that violate the terms of their admission to the United States, as well as detecting, detaining, and criminally prosecuting illegal aliens involved in people smuggling, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gun running. ICE is also responsible for enforcement of U.S. customs laws within the interior of the United States. As such, it handles some of the impost collection, licensing and enforcement duties that were handled by the U.S. Customs Service prior to the formation of DHS.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program $210,000,000
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating criminal illegal aliens who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and who are incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period. In the fiscal year 2016, Congress appropriated $210 million to fund the SCAAP program.
Federal Incarceration $1,240,000,000
The illegal alien population consists of both those aliens who entered the United States without authorization and those who entered the United States lawfully but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Illegal aliens are subject to removal from the United States simply because they are present in the United States without authorization. However, many illegal aliens come to the attention of DHS when they are arrested for the commission of a crime.
Legal aliens are also subject to deportation if convicted of certain crimes. Generally speaking, legal aliens tend to offend at a lower rate than illegal aliens. This is unsurprising since a significant percentage of illegal aliens cross the border without authorization specifically for the purpose of engaging in criminal costs associated with illegal immigration, this study can be assumed to underestimate the fiscal burden imposed on the U.S. taxpayer.
All calculations are based on the most recent data available. The majority of the data is drawn from sources covering the 2014, 2015, and 2016 fiscal years. Most of these statistics reflect the fiscal impact of immigration policies pursued by the Obama administration during its final years in office. Future studies should allow for a comparative examination of the economic effects of President Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement versus President Obama’s “alien rights first” approach.
This ONE graphic, prepared by FAIR, helps to explain the massive amount of money that is taken from the American taxpayer to keep fund the Democrat Party’s illegal alien program in America:
To read the entire report, go HERE.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
-A new study of violent crime and concealed carry law found no correlation between them.
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -A new study of violent crime and concealed carry law found no correlation between them.
The study compared homicide and violent crime at the state level with changes in concealed carry law over a 30 year period, from 1986 to 2015. During this period there were substantial changes in the laws regulating the carry of concealed weapons. From the study:
ResultsDuring the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
THIS STUDY CONFIRMS WHAT A NUMBER OF OTHER STUDIES HAVE FOUND: HAVING MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT CRIMINAL RECORDS, CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS, DOES NOT INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME.
The study examined the levels of homicide and violent crime when states moved from “no carry” to “may carry” to “shall issue” to “unrestricted carry.”
It is a significant finding to be published in a medical journal, as most papers I have read about the subject, in health-related journals, make apparent errors in data selection and the scope of the study.
This study avoids the errors of scope by looking at the data over all the states for a 30 year period. It avoids selection bias by considering all homicides and violent crime, not just those involving guns.
This study only looks at detail down to the state level. The studies were done by Dr. John Lott. Lott looks at data down to the county level, not just the states. Lott examines concealed carry by looking at the number of actual permits issued, not only when the law changed. That level of examination is likely to find subtle differences.
Only a small number of studies claim that homicides or violent crime go up as more people carry concealed weapons legally. They suffer from limited scope and/or data selection bias.
Dr. Lott has debunked studies that claim more guns equal more crimes.
This study differs from studies done by Dr. Lott. It attempts to examine the effect of “unrestricted carry” also known as Constitutional Carry. Dr. Lott’s methods have difficulty with measuring the impact of Constitutional Carry. There are no permit numbers to track with Constitutional Carry.
This paper will be used to counter the claims of studies of limited scope, which suffer from data selection bias.
Limiting data to only “gun deaths” or “gun violence” is a clear data selection bias if prevents any consideration of a weapons substitution effect or deterrence from self-defense cases.
Limiting the scope of research to only one state, or just a few years, allows researchers to pick a state or years that agree with their favored thesis.
Public health journals have generally been willing to publish poorly researched studies if it validates preconceptions that “guns are bad.”
PERHAPS PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHERS WILL READ THIS PAPER, AND SEE THE EFFECT OF BIASED DATA SELECTION AND LIMITED SCOPE IN THE OTHER STUDIES.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Monday, December 3, 2018
63 Percent of ‘Non-Ctizens’ on Welfare,
Washington Examiner:
Census confirms 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare,
4.6 million households
A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.
In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
The Center for Immigration Studies said in its report that the numbers give support for Trump’s plan to cut non-citizens off welfare from the “public charge” if they want a green card that allows them to legally work in the United States.
“The Trump administration has proposed new ‘public charge’ rules making it harder for prospective immigrants to qualify for lawful permanent residence -- green cards -- if they use or are likely to use U.S. welfare programs,” said CIS.
“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank.
The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare.
And nearly all, 4,370,385, have at least one worker in the house..
In their report, Steven A. Camarota, the director of research, and Karen Zeigler, a demographer at the Center, said that in census data, about half of those are in the United States illegally.
Their key findings in the analysis:
- In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
- Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
- Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
- Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
- While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)