America's Cities In Decline

On Monday, May 1st, Atlantic City avoided a default on its debt payment by the hair of its
mayor's chinny, chin, chin.  They may not be so lucky the next time around.

With a third of its casinos now shuttered, the city is struggling to survive, as shown by this graphic from the Wall Street Journal:

With per-person debt at double that of Detroit and Chicago, Atlantic City looks as if it will  soon be joining Detroit in bankruptcy.  Raising taxes isn't going to do the trick unless you tax everyone an average of 26% against their $26,936 incomes.

Then, there was a story from CNBC that said that 34% of the San Francisco Bay residents surveyed wanted to leave that area due to the cost of living, traffic, poverty, crime, and homelessness.

Add to that the story in Bloomberg News which showed that 20 cities in 2014 -- one-fifth of the top 100 cities -- saw their populations decline.

The point about all this is that declines in populations lead to struggling economies for all too many American cities because the people who do manage to move away are those who can afford to do so.   The ones left behind are generally the poorer and can't afford to move.  As a result, city revenues fall, debt increases; and bankruptcy isn't far behind.

The bottom line is that we have too many population centers in this country that are dying due to high taxes, crime, no jobs, low pay, decaying infrastructure, traffic, record poverty, and homelessness.  The lackluster economic growth of the last 7-1/2 years of the Obama administration have done nothing to correct this urban decay.

References:

Atlantic City, America’s Worst-Rated Town, Stares at Default: https://www.google.com/search?q=Atlantic+City%2C+America%E2%80%99s+Worst-Rated+Town%2C+Stares+at+Default+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Atlantic City makes debt payment as mayor averts a default: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-atlantic-city-683c0ab6-1084-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191-20160502-story.html

Survey says: 34 percent of Bay Area residents are ready to leave: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/survey-says-34-percent-of-bay-area-residents-are-ready-to-leave.html

These Are the Top 20 Cities Americans Are Ditching: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-cities-americans-are-ditching

Obama Whines About Lack of “Credit” for Economy as it Tanks: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2016/04/28/obama-complains-lack-credit-economy-growth-sinks/

pb

In Just 2 weeks, 10 Deaths and 2 FBI Failures

Just hours after Dylann Roof killed 9 innocents at the Emanuel AME Church, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blamed the deaths on the lack of tighter gun controls. Now, we find out that Dylann Roof -- under current gun laws -- should never have been allowed to buy the gun in the first place.  Because of human error in the FBI's background check process, Roof's prior felony drug conviction was not flagged and therefore there was nothing stopping him from purchasing the firearm.

In the case of the recent killing of a San Francisco woman by an illegal alien that had been deported 5 times, and who had committed several crimes, the FBI should have arrested him months ago when they were notified that the SF police had him in custody.  So, as a result of that error we have another murder that could have been avoided.

These kind of FBI failures are not uncommon.  One of the shooters at the Draw Mohammed Contest in Garland Texas had been on the FBI's radar for years.  Yet, where were they  when, days before, this guy was talking up his plans under the clear-as-day hashtag  #texasattack?

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the older Tsarnaev brother also surfaced on FBI radar and was even interviewed by them.  Some even think he was recruited as an informant. Yet, he went on to kill and maim.

Then there was the Fort Hood shooting.  Nadal Hasan was also interviewed by the FBI when he came to their attention after having been in e-mail correspondence with radical jihadist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yet, he was able to later kill without intervention.

The President says he's tired of all the mass killings in this country.  Well, tired as he may  be, perhaps he and his Justice Department should try and ride herd over his own FBI before he calls for all kinds of new gun laws.

References:

Dylann Roof should NOT have been allowed to purchase a gun and was able to because background check system FAILED: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156588/FBI-Church-gunman-shouldnt-able-gun.html

San Francisco sheriff says feds to blame in immigrant shooting case: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/san-francisco-killing/

Texas Jihad Attack Exposes FBI Failure: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/texas-jihad-attack-exposes-fbi-failure/

Internal Documents Reveal How the FBI Blew Fort Hood: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/nidal-hasan-anwar-awlaki-emails-fbi-fort-hood

FBI pushed elder Tsarnaev to be informer, lawyers assert: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/28/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-attorneys-seek-government-evidence-tamerlan-say-may-help-defense/PJoDIO3Tdf3zIau7VM9m8L/story.html

Mourning Charleston, Obama calls for stricter gun laws: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/obama-charleston-statement/28919199/

Clinton, Obama seek gun control in wake of Charleston: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-charleston-gun-reform/



 

Come Be Indentured In San Francisco

Recently, the City of San Francisco decided to start airing television and radio commercials and billboard advertisements that are designed to tell illegal aliens that they are welcome in their "fair" city (See Full Story). In those ads, San Francisco proudly declares itself a "sanctuary city" where illegal aliens can work without the fear of police harassment and in a city that won't snitch to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) about them. As a further enticement, they tell the illegals about all the city services they can expect to get when they come to San Francisco. In essence, they want illegals to know that San Francisco is their "promised land" and their "land of milk and honey!" I'm not sure, but, I think these ads should have the background theme playing of this famous Scott McKenzie song:

If you're going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there

For those who come to San Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there
In the streets of San Francisco
Gentle people with flowers in their hair

All across the nation such a strange vibration
People in motion
There's a whole generation with a new explanation
People in motion people in motion

For those who come to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you come to San Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there

I don't know who the City of San Francisco thinks they are kidding. The extremely liberal Mayor and City Council isn't interested in making a home for all these people because of some higher belief that this country should have an "open door" policy on immigration. Instead, I think their motives are selfish. San Francisco is one, if not the most, affluent of cities in our country. They need the cheap labor to walk their dogs and pickup after them. They've got mansions and hotels to clean and landscapes to be meticulously maintained. And, the rich locals (and their kids) "ain't" gonna do it.

There's no fear that these immigrants are going to settle-in. They don't have the education to take the jobs away from the San Francisco elite. Also, these "immigrants" could never afford the rent so as to be actual residents . A one-bedroom studio apartment in that city runs a minimum of $1200 a month; with most approaching $2000 a month.(See Full Story). Making only a few dollars an hour, they would be one rich " illegal" if they could even hope to get $1200 in any given month. Even at minimum Federal wage, they couldn't afford housing in that city. The only way they could afford to rent in the city limits of San Francisco is to pile about 10 or more of them into a room. And, I am quite sure those San Francisco landlords, those "gentle people there", aren't going to put up with that. Of course, these "illegals" could "commute" to better serve the San Francisco natives and their rituals of the rich. But, gasoline prices of nearly $5 a gallon in the "Bay" area might stymie that. Further, they might not be as protected outside the friendly confines of the "Sanctuary By the Bay". Without that protection, they could wind up leaving their "heart" and their "job" in San Francisco while some other city and ICE gladly deport their ass back to Guadalajara!

Yes, San Francisco is a "sanctuary" city for servitude. If you are illegal, you can go to San Francisco and you will be indentured without any chains. The contract for indenture is a simple one: they'll keep "quiet" if you just keep working and making "them" happy. They need cheap, menial labor that will keep San Francisco in the style it has always been accustomed to. Cheap labor that has always been part of San Francisco's history. One that stretches all the way back to the legal and illegal steamships that brought Chinese immigrants to San Francisco in the 1800's.

As a final comment. Most illegals don't just come here for themselves. They come to feed their families back home. They need to live cheap and work as many hours as they can to help a lot more than themselves. Most have to send money back home. This seems to be missing in San Francisco calculations to be a "sanctuary" city. With that city's wealth and the inability for illegals to actually live there, San Francisco is bound to attract the wrong kind of illegals than those that they really want. The ones that they will ultimately attract might be "a lot more illegal" than just illegally coming over our boarders and illegally obtaining a false I.D. Mark my words!

A Flame Out?

In more danger than Hillary Clinton when she visited Bosnia, the Olympic Torch and Flame was shepherded into San Francisco last night under the full cover of darkness. Like snipers, the protesters are scattered along the Torch's route in the City by the Bay; each with the intent of extinguishing the life out of it. Even the self-proclaimed Tibetan Buddhist, actor Richard Gere (actually born in Pennsylvania with lineage back to the Mayflower), is there in order to heighten the intensity of this show. (I guess a real Tibetan Buddhist wasn't available for today's events) And, the San Fransisco Police are on high alert. They will be providing protection for the Torch as if the city was being visited by the Queen of England.

Back in Washington, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are calling for President Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. Bush has been defiant with the intent of attending the ceremonies but separately confronting China's President on the issue of Tibet. I guess Clinton and Pelosi, Democrats who are always yapping about the fact that Bush doesn't engage enough world leaders on issues, must think that engaging China on Tibet would be a waste of time. In their minds, the only thing that will bring China (that rising Super Power with nukes) to its knees is by boycotting the Opening Ceremonies. I suspect that Clinton's "real" plan, if Bush would only listen, is to have the President boycott the ceremonies and, if that doesn't work, invade China and free Tibet. (I'm sure she'll call for invasion of China, soon, if her poll numbers keep slipping in Pennsylvania)

The trouble with all these protests and Clinton/Pelosi strategies is that it won't make a difference on the issue over Tibet. Does anyone think that China will actually change it's stance on Tibet if some latte-sated twenty-something is actually able to extinguish the Torch in San Francisco? Not hardly! Will China crumble if Bush isn't warming a seat at the Opening Ceremonies? I don't think so!

The issue between China and Tibet goes all the way back to the 1700's and it has been a diplomatic issue for both the Clinton and Bush Administrations; with no avail. My guess is that it will probably be an issue for the next President and, probably, many Presidents after that. In order to bring this to a head, the world community has to band together through the United Nations. However, trying to get that peace-keeping body in agreement on anything is like trying to spread peanut butter on top of water with a knife.