Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Fake News? What About Fake Science?

In 2009, the climate science community was rocked with the release of hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.  The emails seemed to suggest that there was a concerted effort to manipulate data and suppress deniers.  As Wikipedia reports, committees were set up to examine those claims and their findings were reported as follows:
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests."
Now, fast forward to February 2017.  The prestigious scientific journal Nature announced that it would no longer publish scientific papers unless the conclusions were replicated by independent peers in the same field of science.  The basis of this decision by Nature was a 2016 survey in which scientists claimed that more than 70% of them were unable to reproduce the results of published scientific papers.  This was also the case in climate change science findings.

This also comes on the heals of two other "shocking" disclosures.

Earlier this year, Dr. John Bates -- a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center -- disclosed that temperature data was manipulated to hide an 18-year hiatus in global warming in advance of the Paris climate summit.  This lead directly to Obama's signature on a climate agreement that would cost this country, and the world, trillions of dollars in spending.

Then, there was the early retirement of well-known climatologist Judith Curry who wrote an essay as to why she was retiring.  Her most poignant reason follows in this quote from that essay:
"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishmentfunding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."
That brings me to a final point.  In Chinese myth, there is something called the Money Tree.  An ornate holy tree that is supposed to bring good fortune.  Today, given all of the above, the true Money Tree appears to be climate science.  As long as climate research points to climate change as a real problem, those scientists can be reassured that money will keep flowing towards them for additional research.  And, it appears that it doesn't matter if 70% of that research is flawed or not reproducible.  Thank God that Nature has finally stood up to fight this kind of Fake Science, which is another form of Fake News!

References:

Climatic Research Unit email controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility in submitted papers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/the-journal-nature-is-going-to-begin-requiring-reproducibility-in-submitted-papers/

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers': http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud? http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/

Disenchanted climatologist Judith Curry resigns from Georgia Tech: http://climatechangedispatch.com/disenchanted-climatologist-judith-curry-resigns-from-georgia-tech/

Money Tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_tree_(myth)






Monday, February 27, 2017

Trump to Cut Government Regs by 75%?

In a meeting with business leaders, Trump stated that he would cut federal regulations by 75% or more.  Really?  That is impossible; given the shear magnitude of regulations in this country.

We have 75,000 pages of tax code.  ObamaCare has spawned 20,000 pages of new healthcare regulations.  During the Obama administration, almost 82,000 new pages of regulations were generated across all agencies of government.  A record.  And, George W. Bush was no slouch either.  His administration and Congress generated more than 79,000 pages of regulations during his terms in office.

Here's the reality.  The members of Congress call themselves "law makers".  That's what they think their job is.  Not "law cutters".  So, the pile of laws simply keeps piling up.  Thus, for Trump to eliminate 75% of regulations, he's going to need a lot of cooperation from the very people who make those laws. I don't see that ever happening.  It's just not in their DNA.

References:

Trump tells business leaders he wants to cut regulations by 75% or 'maybe more': http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-tells-business-leaders-he-wants-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent-or-maybe-more.html

Look at how many pages are in the federal tax code: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look-at-how-many-pages-are-in-the-federal-tax-code/article/2563032

How Many Pages Is Obamacare? https://robschwab.com/how-many-pages-is-obamacare/

Obama Sets New Record For Regulations – 81,640 Pages In 2016: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-17/obama-sets-new-record-regulations-%E2%80%93-81640-pages-2016


Friday, February 24, 2017

Al Gore's Polar Bear Folly Continues to Worsen

In response to numerous reports claiming his demise, Mark Twain once famously said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

If polar bears could talk, the would probably say the same thing because, in 2006, Al Gore in his fallacious movie "An Inconvenient Truth", predicted their similar fate with this animated clip from that movie:



According to Gore, all the sea ice would disappear due to climate change, and the poor polar bears,  unable to find any ice to rest on, would subsequently drown from exhaustion.  In fact, as Al accepted his Nobel Award for that great movie, he claimed that all ice would be gone by 2013.

Here's the problem.  The ice didn't go away and those bears are doing quite well if you compare their their numbers to those of the late 1960's.  Back then, their population was estimated to be between 8,000 and 10,000.  Now, according to the latest study, whose report was released on February 21,  their population is estimated to be between 22,623 and 32,257.  And both of those numbers beat the 22,000 to 31,000 estimates from the year before; respectively.

It's sad that "An Inconvenient Truth" was so wrong in so many ways, but is still regarded by the political left as being factual.  What's even sadder is the fact that Al Gore is set to release a "sequel" to his original lies.

References:

Polar Bear Numbers Still On The Rise, Despite ‘Global Warming’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/17/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/

After 10 years Al Gore's film is still alarmingly inaccurate: http://newbostonpost.com/2016/05/06/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013

Gore’s assertion that polar bears will become extinct due to global warming is an alarmist exaggeration: https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/gores-assertion-that-polar-bears-will-become-extinct-due-to-global-warming-is-an-alarmist-exaggeration/

Good News for Polar Bears. Bad News for Al Gore: As far back as seven years ago, a British court ruled that Gore’s Oscar-winning environmentalist documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained several errors and exaggerations that illustrated the alarmist spirit that motivated the filmmaker: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popular-culture/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-warming/

Weather Channel Founder: Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ Another ‘Scientific Monstrosity’: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/20/weather-channel-founder-gores-inconvenient-sequel-another-scientific-monstrosity/

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Democrats Plot a Tax Revolt Over Trump

Back in December, a writer for Time.com wrote that the 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton shouldn't pay their federal income tax until the country drops the electoral college, in favor of a system based on the popular vote alone.  Apparently, some think the idea is a good one, but not just for the electoral college issue.  Some people believe they should give their tax money to Planned Parenthood.  Others say don't pay taxes as a rejection of Trump's border wall.  Then, there are those willing to be potential tax evaders over the repeal of ObamaCare.  What about free college?  Gun control? Or, any other liberal agenda item one can think of?

The trouble is that a good amount of the taxes being collected go to the social programs that liberals love.  Payroll and self-employment tax helps fund Medicare and Social Security.  Other taxes help those with low incomes and support such housing programs and ObamaPhones.  Then, there's Head Start, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and the list goes on.

It is simply idiotic for a bunch of liberals who voted for Hillary, along with a lot of those social programs, to not pay taxes as a way to show support for the same programs.  By the way.  They may  also want to think about when the IRS slaps a 25% penalty on their outstanding debt. Or goes after their wages, bank accounts, or property.  Of course, there is always possible jail time. The IRS has ten years in which to collect from the date not paid.  That will be well past the time Trump could still be in office.

Hillary lost. Get over it.  No amount of laying on the floor, kicking and screaming will change that.  Not paying taxes won't change it either.

References:

Time: 65 Million Americans Should Threaten to Not Pay Taxes: http://time.com/4590994/popular-vote-tax-pledge/

We will not pay: the Americans withholding their taxes to fight Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/tax-refusing-pay-protest-trump

 The Consequences of Unpaid Taxes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/tax-refusing-pay-protest-trump

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

What the Oroville Dam Spillway Fail Says About California's Priorities

About 200,000 people near the Oroville Dam were evacuated as the nation watched to see if hundreds of homes and businesses would be destroyed in a full breach of the dam's emergency spillway.   In the meantime, we find out that there were past warnings that it was unsafe.  According to a story in the Washington Post, the fix to keep the spillway safe would have cost about $100 million 11 years ago.  But, the State of California had other priorities.

Instead of taking care of its huge infrastructure problems, the state opted to build a high-speed bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco.   The original cost projection for that was $98.5 billion. Already, the easiest part of the "build" -- the Central Valley -- is seeing a 50% cost overrun (as being reported by the LA Times).  To put the original cost of the bullet train into perspective; it is more than 1000 times the money needed to fix the spillway.  By one estimate, California will have to spend $500 billion dollars over the next 2 decades to fix, expand, and maintain the State's infrastructure.

Instead, the priority was to build a bullet train to save the world from climate change, by getting cars off the roads and planes out of the air; even though some studies have concluded that the impact on climate change will be negligible. In the meantime, thousands of people are left at risk in Oroville. How many more are at risk from unfunded infrastructure hazards in California because of "climate change" projects like a bullet train?

References:

The government was warned that the Oroville Dam emergency spillway was unsafe. It didn’t listen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/13/officials-were-warned-the-oroville-dam-emergency-spillway-wasnt-safe-they-didnt-listen/?utm_term=.2812180ddd0c

Taking California's bullet train to a greener future - LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kelly-california-high-speed-rail-20140129-story.html

High Speed Rail Won't Impact Climate Change - California Policy Center: http://californiapolicycenter.org/high-speed-rail-wont-impact-climate-change/

California's Bullet Train to Cost $98.5 Billion: What Else That Can Buy: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Californias-Bullet-Train-to-Cost-985-Billion-What-Else-That-Can-Buy-133041823.html

California's bullet train is hurtling toward a multibillion-dollar overrun, a confidential federal report warns: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-cost-overruns-20170106-story.html

California’s Crumbling Infrastructure: An Urgent Priority: http://www.westerncity.com/Western-City/February-2014/PresMsg-CA-Crumbling-Infrastructure/

Shocking rain damage is wakeup call to fix ailing roads, infrastructure, experts say: http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20170218/shocking-rain-damage-is-wakeup-call-to-fix-ailing-roads-infrastructure-experts-say 


Tuesday, February 21, 2017

A Bully as President is not New

I've heard all too many claim that Trump is unlike any other President we've ever had.  That he's a bully.  Not politically correct.  That he intimidates the press.  Well, does anyone remember President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ)?  In fact, the following picture of LBJ pulling his dog up by his ears speaks volumes about him:

In a review of the book "The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume III", the reviewer, Michael Shelden, appropriately titled his review,  "A Lewd, Crude Master".  One of his initial comments being "...the reader is offered an unforgettable image of the big Texan giving dictation to a nervous female secretary while he urinates in a corner washbasin."  Shelden further wrote:
"LBJ had the manners of a barnyard dog and enjoyed shocking his subordinates, whom he bullied mercilessly. Like most bullies, he was a coward at heart who used flattery and evasion to dominate more powerful foes, reserving his insults and tantrums for lesser folk. If one of his underlings did not jump fast enough or high enough, he shouted obscenities and threw things. He demanded absolute devotion, declaring, "I want someone who will kiss my ass in Macy's window and stand up and say, 'Boy, wasn't that sweet!'
 In a similar article written for the National Review by John Fund, this comment was made about LBJ:
"As president, he cut a grandiose figure. He was a braggart and a frequent liar. He was suspicious of other countries, frequently saying, “Foreigners are not like the folks I am used to.” He had a reckless disregard for limits. He belittled and browbeat others to intimidate them and give him what he wanted. Historian Robert Dallek said that he “viewed criticism of his policies as personal attacks” and opponents of his policies “as disloyal to him and the country.”
Fund further commented:
"He would bully and insult reporters, saying of one that he “always knew when he was around, because he could smell him.” He told whoppers about voter fraud in his elections. But he did get things done, dominating the political scene for good and for ill."

And, let's not forget that following President Kennedy's assassination, Kennedy's wife, Jackie, firmly believed that Vice President LBJ had her husband killed.  That fact alone, speaks volumes about what she and others thought of him.

A lot was done during Johnson's presidency.  There was civil rights, equal pay, medicaid, welfare and a whole host of other legislative actions were passed into law.  As Fund also stated "Johnson was reckless, grandiose, and intimidating, but he got things done..."  Also, he made mistakes.  Failed actions during the Vietnam War were examples. It was those failings that created the Democratic Party's anti-war stance of today.

I think we should wait and see if Trump is as effective as President Johnson.  And, those complaining about his "style" should brush up on history.

References:

Trump Is a Lot Like the LBJ Whom Liberals Still Idolize: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445060/lyndon-johnson-donald-trump-grandiose-bullying-colossal-figures

Photo Source: President Picks up Dog by Ears. Public Outraged: http://howdyyall.com/Texas/TodaysNews/index.cfm?GetItem=64

A lewd, crude Master:  Michael Shelden reviews The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume III by Robert A Caro: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4728473/A-lewd-crude-Master.html

Jackie Kennedy believed LBJ had her husband killed according to tapes: https://www.google.com/search?q=did+lbj+kill+kennedy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

LBJ's tragic “addiction” to Vietnam: The mistake that still haunts America 50 years later: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/28/lbjs_tragic_addiction_to_vietnam_the_mistake_that_still_haunts_america_50_years_later/

Monday, February 20, 2017

Dems Plot to Oust Trump as Mentally Unfit

It wasn't but days after Trump had beaten Hillary, that the well-known liberal, Keith Olbermann, brought attention to this excerpt from Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:
"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
To the Democrats, "unable to discharge the powers and duties" means having Trump declared "mentally unfit". Then the plan would be to pressure the Vice President and a majority of his cabinet to act in accordance with the above text of the 25th Amendment.  Many see Vice President Mike Pence as a more reasonable alternative than Trump and his dismantling of decades of liberal progress.

Representative Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, has even proposed legislation that would force Trump to have a "psych eval".  This fact was published in an opinion piece in the New York Times titled: "Is It Time to Call Trump Mentally Ill?"   That "piece" was written by Professor of Clinical Psychiatry Richard A. Friedman at Weill Cornell Medical College.  No word as to who he voted for, but chances are he's a Hillary fan.  In that same "Times" article, he listed other instances where "psychiatrists" have questioned Trump's mental "stability".   Friedman also noted that the American Psychiatric Association requires its members to practice what is the "Goldwater Rule", which states that "it is unethical for them to diagnose mental illnesses in people they have not examined and whose consent they have not received."  Still, Democrats seem to think that they are competent to judge Trump's sanity; simply by what he says.

So, all these claims of mental illness are going nowhere unless Trump, himself, "consents" to a clinical examination(s).   Something I doubt will ever happen.  Even if he did, who would conduct such an exam?  Democrat Senator Schumer? I'm sure his law degree makes him eminently qualified. In addition, under the patient protections of the HIPAA law, the findings of any examination cannot be made public without Trump's approval. Further, do you really think the Vice President and Cabinet Members, hand-picked by Donald Trump, would turn on him?

For sure, the anti-Trump protestors are going to incorporate what they see as signs of "mental illness"  into their protest events.  Perhaps they would find a march on October 10th, World Mental Health Day, to be appropriate.  Of course, their plan is to oust Trump long before that.

References:

Keith Olbermann Has a Surprisingly Simple Way to Oust Donald Trump – WATCH: http://www.towleroad.com/2016/11/keith-olbermann-surprisingly-simple-way-oust-donald-trump-watch/

Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 

Is It Time to Call Trump Mentally Ill? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/is-it-time-to-call-trump-mentally-ill.html

Democrats Go There: Invoke 25th Amendment Unless Trump "Gets A Grip": http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-19/democrats-go-there-invoke-25th-amendment-unless-trump-gets-grip

25th Amendment Could Declare Trump Mentally Unfit: https://www.yahoo.com/news/25th-amendment-could-declare-trump-163732166.html

How Can We Get Rid of Trump? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/opinion/sunday/how-can-we-get-rid-of-trump.html?ref=opinion

 HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/mental-health/

pb

Friday, February 17, 2017

The "Flynn" Fiasco Leaves a Lot of Questions

Forced to resign as Trump's National Security Advisor, former Lieutenant General Flynn apparently had someone eavesdrop on a call he made to the Russian Ambassador, prior to Trump even taking office. Then, the details of that call were leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post.  So, this brings up a number of questions:
  • Was it Flynn's phone or the Russian Ambassador's phone that was being tapped? Or both?
  • If it was Flynn's phone that was being tapped, then why?
  • Is there a "shadow government" at work within the Trump Administration that is out to undermine the activities of this President?  One that goes beyond the tapping of Flynn's phone?
  • Then, there is the obvious question of who leaked the information.
  • Because of all of the above, one has to wonder if loyalists to Obama or the Clinton's are behind this?
In my opinion, this is a serious issue that must be investigated; and not by Democrats alone.  

References:

Democrats call for an Investigation of Flynn: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4222244/Democrats-call-investigation-Michael-Flynn.html

Obama’s Shadow Presidency Well-funded Organizing for Action promises to crack conservative skulls to halt the Trump agenda: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265808/obamas-shadow-presidency-matthew-vadum


Thursday, February 16, 2017

Univision's Jorge Ramos Calls Trump a "Deportation Czar"

In a recent verbal tussle with Sean Hannity,  Hispanic journalist Jorge Ramos used some theatrics to slam Trump for separating families through deportation.  He pulled out a photo of a woman, Guadalupe GarcĂ­a, and her two children and tore the photo apart, leaving her pictorially separated from her children.


Apparently Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  deported her just a week earlier; literally leaving her children alone and "motherless".  Also note that she was being deported because of felony identity fraud. Just in case you don't think that her deportation was without cause.

Of course, this all sounds like a terrible situation.  However, if Ramos had done his homework, he would have found that  ICE reported that in 2013, alone, 72,410 parents of U.S. born children were deported under the Obama Administration; also tearing their families apart.  The writer of that story, which appeared at the Huffington Post, also reported this:

"When a parent is deported, their U.S.-born children sometimes leave with them. But some stay in the U.S. with another parent or family member. Some children end up in U.S. foster care."

Where was our "ace reporter," Mr. Ramos, when all that was taking place?  72,410?  That's a lot of photos that he would have had to tear apart to make a similar point about Obama.  Apparently, Trump has a lot of catching up to do to rightfully wear the "deportation Czar" crown.

References:

WATCH: Ramos Complains That Trump Deporting Illegal Immigrants Will ‘Destroy’ American Families: http://www.dailywire.com/news/13482/watch-ramos-complains-trump-deporting-illegal-frank-camp

Deportation Separated Thousands Of U.S.-Born Children From Parents In 2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html

pb

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

California's "Real" Calexit Problem

Taking its cue from Britain voting to secede (Brexit) from the European Union, some in California want to do the same by seceding from the United States; or, "Calexit" as it is known.  In fact, in the latest polling, 32% want to exit. At the heart of the issue is that the rest of the United States doesn't share California's values.  Of course, the election of Trump reinforced that belief since Hillary Clinton received more than 10 million of the State's nearly 15 million votes cast.  In any event, California's Secretary of State has authorized the collection of nearly 600,000 signatures to put Calexit to the vote on the next ballot.

For all this talk about "values",  California seems to be ignoring the fact that there already is a kind of Calexit  taking place.  From 2004 to 2013, 5 million people left the State; mostly over high taxes (including property taxes) and high costs of living.  In another study, California lost 9,000 businesses in a 7-year span.  Most citing a "hostile business" environment of high taxes and regulation.

California also has some serious structural problems that may accelerate the number of those wanting to do business elsewhere.  The State has the highest poverty rate in the nation at 20.6%.  Contributing to the poverty problem is the fact that the unemployment rate is almost a full percentage point above the national average. Further, thanks to the voter initiative passed into law that essentially emptied the State's prisons of supposed low-level criminals, there has been an "explosion" of property crimes across the state.  In addition, cities like Los Angeles have seen an increase of violent crime after decades of decline.

Exacerbating the exodus is the fact that California's lawmakers just keep piling up regulations.  In 2016, 800 new laws went into effect which the LA Times said "touch on broad aspects of California residents’ everyday lives, or address major issues such as voter participation, and life and death."  And, for 2017, hundreds of new laws also went into effect including a $15 minimum wage by 2020 which is sure to accelerate the business exodus.  In addition, employers are banned from asking any prospective employee if they have an arrest record or court detention prior to being 18.

The bottom line is that Californians, themselves, are making it less hospitable for people to live and work in the state; and they just can't see it.

A final note: While many of the laws on the books are beneficial to some or all of California's residents, many are very burdensome to businesses and contribute to what many already are calling a "hostile" business environment.

References:

Supporters for 'Calexit' initiative start collecting signatures: http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/232714964-story

California's ballots have all been counted — more than 14.6 million: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-s-ballots-have-all-been-1481163154-htmlstory.html

An explosion of California property crimes — due to Prop. 47: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/An-explosion-of-California-property-crimes-6922062.php

'Calexit' would be a disaster for progressive values: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-friedersdorf-calexit-unprogressive-20170129-story.html

5 Million People Left California Over the Past Decade. Many Went to Texas: http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/04/5-million-people-left-california-over-the-past-decade-many-went-to-texas/

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, 7-year study says: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/11/california-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Why Does California Have The Nation's Highest Poverty Rate? http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/09/28/why-does-california-have-the-nations-highest-poverty-rate/#79027b623e89

Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-crime-stats-20161227-story.html

California Unemployment Rate: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+unemployment+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

California's new laws for 2016: See how you are affected: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-g-california-new-laws-2016-htmlstory.html

How will California's 2017 Laws Affect You: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-new-2017-laws/#jobs


pb



  


Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Arrest Mayors/Police Chiefs of Sanctuary Cities

Donald Trump wants to deprive sanctuary cities of federal funds, but there is an easier way of stopping the practice of providing "safe haven" for illegal aliens.  Arrest and convict the mayors and police chiefs of those cities that are in violation of federal law.

U.S. code "1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a)" states this:
"Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation."
There is no question that these mayors and police chiefs in these cities, are both "knowing", and "in reckless" disregard of illegals in their communities.

Further, this U.S. code also states:
"The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both."
Additionally:
"...the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years."
More importantly, there is provision of the law:
"...if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years."
Someone might remind San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee of that latter provision.  He was the mayor when Kathryn Steinle lost her life to a gunshot from an illegal alien in that declared "santuary city".  In fact, statistically, there are more than 820,000 criminal illegals in this country; of which 84% have either committed felonies and/or serious misdemeanors.   That's one-in-twelve who have violated our laws since they originally violated the law by coming into the country illegally.

In my opinion, arresting and trying mayors like Bill DeBlasio (New York City), Rahm Emanuel (Chicago), and Ed Lee (San Francisco) would be a much more powerful message than simply stripping their federal funds.

References:

Trump wants to strip federal funding from 'sanctuary cities': http://nypost.com/2017/01/25/trump-to-strip-federal-funding-from-sanctuary-cities/

U.S. code "1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a): https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

Mayors pledge to defend ‘sanctuary cities’ against Trump: http://nypost.com/2016/11/15/mayors-pledge-to-defend-sanctuary-cities-against-trump/

Family of woman killed by illegal immigrant files claims against San Francisco: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/kathryn-steinle-family-suing-san-francisco-over-he/

Report: 820,000 criminal illegals, 84% with felonies, serious misdemeanors: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-820000-criminal-illegals-84-with-felonies-serious-misdemeanors/article/2609915



Monday, February 13, 2017

Will the Indivisible Guide Divide Democrats?

Just days after Trump's win,  George Soros and other big Democrat donors huddled together with Nancy Polosi, Elizabeth Warren, and Keith Ellison to come up with a strategy to resist Trump's agenda and take back power.  Thus, the hashtag #resist came to be.

But, something else may have also arisen from that meeting: the Indivisible Guide.  Essentially, this is a cookbook for progressive activism to #resist Trump by confronting GOP Congressmen and Senators in an effort to force them to block Trump's agenda.  The "Guide" instructs activists to confront GOP lawmakers at their Town Hall Meetings, public events (like ribbon-cutting ceremonies), at their offices, and even their homes.  The Washington Post wrote about this new age of disruption tactics in a piece titled: "Swarming crowds and hostile questions are the new normal at GOP town halls".

Of course, these activities are all Constitutional as long as they are peaceful,  but already some are crossing that line.  Further, people with concerns other than what liberals are concerned about are being drowned out.

Now, should these tactics turn violent and become overdone, it is quite possible that they may backfire by damaging the chances of some Democrats being elected or reelected.  Several Democrats are in vulnerable positions going into the 2018 mid-term elections.  And, lets not forget that Trump won the election in the battle of ideas.  Not those of Hillary Clinton.

References:

Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, 'take back power': http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-soros-trump-231313

Swarming crowds and hostile questions are the new normal at GOP town halls: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/swarming-crowds-and-hostile-questions-are-the-new-normal-at-gop-town-halls/2017/02/10/376ddf7c-efcc-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.30eeda5c34a3

Twitter: News about #resist: https://twitter.com/hashtag/resist?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag

Facebook: The Indivisible Guide:  https://www.facebook.com/indivisibleguide/

The Indivisible Guide.PDF: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5855a354cd0f68bab2089b40/t/588eaa1ebebafb2132666bcd/1485744745727/IndivisibleGuide_2017-01-29_v8.pdf

What is the Indivisible Guide: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/what-is-the-indivisible-guide-847974467669

 Protesters read Coretta Scott King letter outside McConnell's house: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319071-protesters-read-coretta-scott-king-letter-outside-mcconnells

DNC Official Sides With Protesters Who Physically Blocked DeVos: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/10/dnc-official-sides-with-protesters-who-physically-blocked-devos/

Chaffetz faces tough crowd at Utah town hall meeting: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43138806&nid=148&title=chaffetz-faces-tough-crowd-at-utah-town-hall-meeting

GOP lawmakers face angry, worried constituents at town halls - SFGate: http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/GOP-lawmakers-face-angry-worried-constituents-at-10925273.php

Friday, February 10, 2017

Democrats are Sure to Blame Trump for Rising Unemployment Rates

For the last 7+ years, the President Obama, enjoyed falling unemployment rates because many unemployed workers simply gave up looking for work.  As a result, and under the current official unemployment calculation rules, they were no longer considered part of the workforce.  Subsequently, President Obama saw increasingly improving unemployment rates because these people were MIA as far as the Census Bureau was concerned.  In fact, if they are had been added into the "Alternative Measures of Unemployment (U6)", the real  rate would be double what it is.

A recent survey reported by CNBC, in an article titled "US unemployed have quit looking for jobs at a 'frightening' level: Survey", clearly explained this fact.  According to that polling, 59% of Americans out of work for 2 or more years had given up looking for employment.  Overall, 43% of all those out of work have given up trying to find a job. All of which are no longer in the Census Bureau's calculus of unemployment rate.

Now, following Trump's election, it appears that many of the these former uncounted "bench sitters" are starting to look for work, again.  As a result, the unemployment rate is rising:

Click on Graphic to Enlarge

Each month since Trump was elected, the unemployment rate has increased while the Labor Force Participation has also increased.   This, to me, suggests that those former "bench sitters" are believing that Trump will find them work; and are once again actively looking.   They are now among the "counted" and the unemployment rate is rising.  It is no coincidence that the labor force participation rate -- the percentage of workers who consider themselves in the workforce -- went from 62.6% in November to 62.9% in January; and, over the same period, the unemployment rate rose from 4.6% to 4.8%.

The downside of this is that uninformed people will blame Trump for rising unemployment when, in fact, the real culprit was the Obama Administration.   It is highly possible that the unemployment rate will go well above 5%.  And, there is no way that the anti-Trump media, will go out of their way to explain the truth.

References:

January Unemployment Report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

US unemployed have quit looking for jobs at a 'frightening' level: Survey: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-unemployed-have-quit-looking-for-jobs-at-a-frightening-level-survey.html

What's the real unemployment rate? - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Democrats Unhinged!

In my entire life, I have never seen such vitriol, character assassination, hyperbole, and name calling by a political party, than what has been said by key people in the Democratic Party regarding Trump and all the people who would be part of his administration.

During the election process, Hillary Clinton went off the rails and called Trump voters a "basket of deplorables".  Well, those deplorables won.

"Recently, without any proof,  Nancy Pelosi said this about Trump advisor Steve Bannon: “It’s a stunning thing that a white supremacist, Bannon, would be a permanent member of the National Security Council and dismissing [the] Chairman of Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence as permanent members."

When Trump announced Judge Gorsuch as his Supreme Court Pick, Pelosi said this: “Clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine, and the rest, if you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy.”  My guess is that she would have said that about anyone that Trump would have chosen as his Supreme Court nominee.

Even though the New York Times found Gorsuch slightly more conservative than Antonin Scalia and less conservative than Clarence Thomas, former Democratic National Committee chief, Donna Brazile declared him  "extreme".

Not to be outdone, Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren took this shot at Trump and his Cabinet:      "We will resist every single effort to make America into a small and spiteful place. We will resist every injustice. We will resist every effort to divide us. We will resist every effort to disgrace our Constitution. We will resist every single step toward the takeover of our government by billionaires, bankers and bigots."

Then there this comment from Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer about Trump's choice for Secretary of Education as well as other cabinet picks: "In my mind, she is the least-qualified nominee in a historically unqualified Cabinet." In essence Schumer thinks that every one of Trump's cabinet members are unqualified.

Lastly, as the Washington Post is reporting, "virtually all" Senate Democrats will vote against any of Trump's cabinet nominees.  Thus, proving the title of this blog post.

Is this the way our founders wanted our government to work?

References:

 Hillary Clinton's 'Basket Of Deplorables,' In Full Context Of This Ugly Campaign: http://www.npr.org/2016/09/10/493427601/hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables-in-full-context-of-this-ugly-campaign

Pelosi: Gorsuch Is Terrible For You If You ‘Breathe Air, Drink Water’: http://www.dailywire.com/news/13055/pelosi-gorsuch-terrible-you-if-you-breathe-air-hank-berrien

Nancy Pelosi: Steve Bannon is a white supremacist: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nancy-pelosi-steve-bannon-white-supremacist-muslim-travel-ban-donald-trump-islam-breitbart-a7560031.html

Brazile: Trump's Supreme Court pick 'more extreme' than Scalia: http://thehill.com/homenews/317927-brazile-trumps-supreme-court-pick-more-extreme-than-scalia

Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party' Can Defeat Trump: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/04/elizabeth-warren-democrats-only-opposition-party-can-defeat-trump

Virtually all Senate Democrats poised to vote against remaining Cabinet picks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/virtually-all-democrats-poised-to-vote-against-remaining-trump-cabinet-picks/2017/02/06/4493bee0-eca9-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.53c1292d953b


Wednesday, February 8, 2017

If Courts Rule Against Trump's Travel Ban, We've Got a Problem

Many suspect a long, drawn-out battle in the courts over Trump's travel ban.  A battle that may go all the way to the Supreme Court.  However, if Trump's ban is struck down, we have an even bigger problem with our "visa" program, which also restricts many citizens from entering the country.

Except in the case of Canada and 38 countries with a "visa waiver" status, any citizen of another country wishing to enter the U.S. is required to obtain a visa for work, education, and tourism from the U.S. Embassy in their country, as noted in this statement from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website:
"A foreign national or alien entering the U.S. is generally required to present a passport and valid visa issued by a U.S. Consular Official, unless they are a citizen of a country eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, or are a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. or a citizen of Canada."
Even in the case of those countries issuing a "visa waiver",  the stay is limited to 90 days; and you must present a valid passport from your country of origin to travel into and around the United States.

In terms of shutting down visa access, the State Department's website says this:
"U.S. Embassies and Consulates are sometimes forced to limit or at times suspend visa services because of natural disasters, civil unrest, war and/or security concerns, among other reasons. The list below notes the U.S. Embassies and Consulates that currently provide limited visa services, locations where visa services are suspended, and countries that do not have embassies or consulates."
So, basically, Trump isn't doing anything that hasn't been within the purview of the U.S. for years.  Those who say what Trump is doing is unconstitutional or outside the law should take a good look at those existing laws.  For example, if a person is a citizen of Belarus, Minsk, you can only receive a visa for the following reasons:
"Although full visa services are suspended until further notice, U.S. Embassy Minsk processes nonimmigrant visa applications for the following limited categories: A visas for diplomats and government officials; G visas for employees and representatives to international organizations; B visas for relatives of Belarusian diplomats serving at Belarusian diplomatic missions in the United States; visas for family and medical emergencies requiring urgent travel; visas for U.S. Government-sponsored travel and programs; and visas for senior citizens, 70 years of age and older. Review the U.S. Embassy Minsk website for more information. "
Last I checked, Belarus is not an Arab country and not covered under Trump's ban.

Further, Section 212(f) of the 1952 Nationality and Immigration Act states this:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Obviously the whole travel ban confusion has more to do with politics and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" than reality.

References:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Entering the U.S. - Documents required for Foreign Nationals (International Travelers): https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/572/~/entering-the-u.s.---documents-required-for-foreign-nationals-(international

U.S. Department of State: Countries with Limited or No U.S. Visa Services: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/countries-with-limited-or-no-u-s--visa-services.html

The Past Six Presidents Have All Used The Executive Power To Block Certain Classes Of Immigrants: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-past-six-presidents-have-all-used-executive-power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/


Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Democrats Spun ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers

In December of 2016, Health and Human Services (HHS), announced a record enrollment for ObamaCare.  Immediately, Democrats began to spins by saying that essentially, this proves Americans want to keep ObamaCare, and they are rushing to signup.  The then-President Obama was so ecstatic over this fact that he extended the enrollment period to allow even more people to signup for his signature namesake healthcare law.

The only thing wrong, unfortunately, was that, in typical Obama fashion, it was all political "bull".  When HHS announced the final enrollment numbers for ObamaCare for 2017, there was no record.  In fact, only 9.2 million people had signed up.  A number that was actually lower than last year's 9.6 million.  Of course, the blame for this shortfall fell all on Trump.  Even though Trump had already been elected for over a month when HHS announced the original record enrollment.

In addition, the worst is yet to come.  Every year HHS announces big numbers at the end of the enrollment period.  However, millions fail to pay for the insurance they signed up for.  Last year, HHS announced 11.3 million signups.  By the fall, that number fell to just 9.6 million paying customers.  One can only imagine what this year's 9.2 million will end up with; assuming ObamaCare isn't repealed in the meantime.

References:

Obamacare Signups Sag and It's Trump's Fault? Shortly following Donald Trump’s upset victory in November, the Obama administration and the legacy media began telling us that Obamacare enrollment was skyrocketing due to fear of the president-elect’s pledge to repeal the law.   https://spectator.org/obamacare-signups-sag-and-its-trumps-fault/

December 2016: Record number of Obamacare sign-ups on HealthCare.gov for 2017 health insurance coverage: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/21/record-number-of-obamacare-signups-on-healthcaregov-for-2017-health-insurance-coverage.html

January 2016: Obamacare sign-ups hit 11.3 million nationwide: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/07/obamacare-sign-ups-hit-113-million-nationwide.html

February 2017: Obamacare signups on federal exchange dip to 9.2 million: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-signups-on-federal-exchange-dip-to-92-million-2017-02-03

December 2016:  President Touts Record Obamacare Enrollment As GOP Weighs Repeal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/12/16/president-obama-touts-record-aca-enrollment-as-gop-weighs-repeal/#65805f1430cb

Monday, February 6, 2017

Stop Blaming Indiana for the Gun Violence in Chicago!

In October 2015, Barack Obama first broached the idea that Indiana was responsible for gun violence in Chicago, because of that state's lax gun laws.  Then, the following January, he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that "The problem is, is that about 30 percent, 40 percent of those guns are coming from Indiana across the border, where there are much laxer laws."

In reporting the later statement, USA Today confronted Obama's assertions by presenting the "true" facts.  In a Chicago Police review of "illegal guns" recovered at crime scenes, 60% came from other states;  of which, 19% were from Indiana.  Mathematically, that means that 19% of 60% accounts for just 11.4% of all guns retrieved from crime scenes. In other words, almost 89% of illegal guns used in crimes in Chicago came from sources other than Indiana.

Yet, the lie still persists.

In October 2016, The Huffington Post took Donald Trump to task when he criticized Chicago crime by writing an article titled: "Trump Apparently Unaware Chicago’s Gun Problems Stem From Indiana".  Then, just recently, when it was announced that Chicago's January 2017 homicides were equal to the pace of 2016's bloody January,  I heard again, the claim that Indiana was to blame.  Of course, Mike Pence, our V.P., is the former Governor of Indiana and this gives Democrats a perfect reason to blame Indiana.

But, there's another twist to the lie.  Chicago has very little knowledge of where all the guns are coming from since it has one of the lowest "solved" rates in the nation.  While, on average, 61.5% of the nation's homicides result in an arrest, the rate in Chicago was 25.6% in 2016.   According to the website "Hey Jackass", 90.6% homicides have gone unsolved so far this year as noted by this graphic:



Simply, Chicago, not Indiana, is responsible for the high gun violence in that city.  It's time that Democrats accept that fact and stop trying to scapegoat that reality.

References:

INDIANAPOLIS — President Barack Obama suggested that Indiana and other states with few gun restrictions are to blame for Chicago’s homicide problem: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/28/lax-indiana-gun-laws/74740388/

Obama links Indiana guns to Chicago violence: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/08/obama-links-indiana-guns-chicago-violence/78496308/

Trump Apparently Unaware Chicago’s Gun Problems Stem From Indiana: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-violence_us_58082033e4b0dd54ce37ad9e

At end of bloody year in Chicago, too few murders solved: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/30/chicago-murders-clearance-rate-2016/96009878/

Chicago’s Violent Crime In January Matches Bloody Start Of 2016: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/02/01/chicagos-violent-crime-in-january-matches-bloody-start-of-2016/

Hey Jackass: http://heyjackass.com/

Friday, February 3, 2017

All the Hysteria and Hyperbole on the Political Left Over Gorsuch

To listen to liberals and progressives, since Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch as his pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, you would think that this "one" judge is capable of causing the end of the U.S. as we know it.  Somehow, Gorsuch would even be more powerful than the conservative Scalia that he replaced.  A literal Supreme Court superman.

Even before he was nominated, the liberal/progressive group, the Alliance for Justice run by Nan Aron, which has many of the Democrat's ears, said that any of Trump's picks would roll back a "century of progress".  More specifically, Aron wrote this about Gorsuch:
"Judges Neil Gorsuch and Timothy Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, helped set women’s health back decades in the infamous Hobby Lobby case, when they ruled that for-profit corporations can be treated as persons exercising religious freedom in denying reproductive health care to women employees."
How is it possible that a 2014 decision by Gorsuch that upheld the right of Hobby Lobby to refuse to provide contraceptive and therapeutic abortion as part of ObamaCare, has "set women’s health back decades"?  I seem to remember the "contraceptive" mandate of ObamaCare was only passed into law in 2010.  Not "decades" ago!

Then there's these over-the-top comments about Gorsuch from Nancy Pelosi:
"[Trump]...has appointed someone who has come down on the side of corporate America versus class-action suits on securities fraud; he’s come down against employees’ rights, clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine and the rest. If you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy."
My God! Grab your kids and run! Gorsuch is coming and he's going to kill us all! It is being painted like a scene out of Godzilla!

Since 1971, we've had 45 years of conservative courts and a "century of progress" has not been rolled back.  In fact, it was a conservative court that, in 1973, gave us legalized abortion with the Roe v. Wade decision.  What Pelosi and the likes of Nan Aron want is a liberal justice who would look at cases on the basis of ideology and politics and not constitutionality or original intent.  That ship has sailed and they need to get over it!  Further, if they think things are bad with Gorsuch, it is highly possible that Trump may fill another vacancy on the court over the next four years.  Then, we will see even more death and destruction!

References:

Nan Aron: Trump’s Supreme Court Justices Would Roll Back A Century Of Progress: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/trumps-supreme-court-just_b_12386622.html

Pelosi torches SCOTUS pick Gorsuch in CNN town hall right after Trump announcement: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-torches-scotus-pick-gorsuch-in-cnn-town-hall-right-after-trump-announcement-032356717.html

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-45-years-of-conservative-rulings-heres-what-a-liberal-supreme-court-would-do/2016/02/19/efa63ad4-d589-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.7c96bf0f7920

Who is Neil Gorsuch? http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/511850519/who-is-neil-gorsuch-trumps-first-pick-for-the-supreme-court
 
pb

Thursday, February 2, 2017

The Trump Travel Ban and The Distortion of Facts About Immigration

Every day since Donald Trump has placed a moratorium on travel  from 7 Arab speaking countries, the political left has been distorting the facts about immigration and asylum in this country.  They make it sound as if it is a "right" because, as many of their signs said: "No human being is illegal".  Others point to the inscription -- "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" -- on the base of the Statue of Liberty as proof that there should not be any limitations on entry into the U.S.. Some of our politicians even pictured "Lady Liberty" crying over the travel ban.

However, I find this all to be a bunch of bull.

First of all, where were all these whiners when Barack Obama, by executive order, ended the "wet foot dry foot" policy that had allowed Cubans to legally enter on the basis that they were escaping human rights abuses in Cubs?

More importantly, we have always placed restrictions on immigration and refugee status going all the way back to 1790.  Today, we have specific and complex quotas regarding entry, including quotas for refugee migration by different areas of the world.  In fact, under the current law, only 4,000 refugees may enter from Europe and Central Asia.  This includes Western Asia, which makes up many of the countries on which Trump has imposed a travel ban.


I think many of the "liberal" protestors would be shocked to learn that, in 1965,  then President, Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed into law, a ban on gays entering the U.S. The reasons given was that: (1) they were "mentally defective" and (2)  they had "constitutional psychopathic inferiority".   It wasn't until 1990, that that ban was lifted when a Republican President signed into law a repeal of the homosexual exclusion.

Additionally, there is the theatrics of showing the Statue of Liberty crying.  Lady Liberty was never a symbol of immigration.  She was a gift from the French people in celebration of 100 years of liberty.  Her name given by her sculptor was "Liberty Enlightening the World".  She has a book in her left hand with the year 1776 inscribed on it. There are broken chains around her feet.  And, that famous torch symbolized a beacon for the rest of the world to embrace the freedoms and liberty that this country enjoys.  The inscription at the base of the statue was added to raise funds to create a home for the magnificent statue.  Those words were never the original intent.

Lastly, the ban is temporary and preventative.  Those claiming that there has never been a terrorist who has come here from any of the 7 countries that encompass the ban defies reason.  I'm quite certain that if a terrorist act resulted due to someone coming from any of those 7 places, the same people would be all over Trump for not taking the proper steps to have prevented it. 

References:

‘Lady Liberty is crying,’ Democrats declare in wake of Trump’s visa, asylum executive order: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/28/lady-liberty-crying-democrats-declare-wake-trumps-/

'No human being is illegal': linguists argue against mislabeling of immigrants: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/illegal-immigrant-label-offensive-wrong-activists-say

Statue of Liberty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

Immigration Act of 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

History of U.S. Immigration Policy: http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

Obama ends 'wet foot, dry foot' policy for Cubans - USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/12/obama-ends-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy-cubans/96505172/

How the United States Immigration System Works: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works



Wednesday, February 1, 2017

What Trump Should Have Learned From His Travel Ban Order

Besides causing numerous left-leaning protests at our nation's airports, President Trump's travel ban had the nation's media running around trying to find anyone who had been "wronged" by his actions.  Fox news reported this:
"Family reunions were blocked, refugees from war-torn countries were turned away and border agents detained scores of unsuspecting travelers at airports as the U.S. began a chaotic implementation of President Donald Trump's plan to fight terrorism by temporarily stopping citizens of seven nations from entering the country."
CNN tried to put a "face" on all those they could find who were "unreasonably" harmed by Trump's executive action.  Even the Dallas Morning News found a family of an ex-U.S. Army translator who had traveled overseas and then, because of Trump, was not allowed back in the country.

This should all be a warning to Trump.

His hasty and poorly thought out executive orders, are giving the press plenty of ammunition in their fight to destroy his presidency.  The press is always out there waiting to jump on any collateral damage that Trump might cause.  Even though the temporary order, itself, could result in a major benefit to the country.  This is why the repeal of ObamaCare has to be handled delicately --- a talent that Trump, so far, seems incapable of.  If not done right, the media will find -- just like now -- every possible person who has been harmed by its repeal.

References:

Tears and detention for US visitors as Trump travel ban hits: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/29/tears-and-detention-for-us-visitors-as-trump-travel-ban-hits.html

These are the faces of Trump's ban: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/immigration-ban-stories/

Family of ex-U.S. Army translator caught in the middle of Trump's travel ban: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald-trump-1/2017/01/29/family-ex-us-army-translator-caught-middle-trumps-travel-ban