Media Silent on Christian Massacre by Muslims

Muslims Massacre 19 Christians on Sunday, 120 in the Past Three-Weeks; Media SILENT

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

Immigrants use twice the welfare of U.S.-born citizens

A 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing the American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.

Michael F. Haverluck

Thursday, March 14, 2019

A recent study reveals that illegal aliens and other foreign non-citizen residents in the United States use nearly double the amount of welfare that native-born Americans receive from the government.

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately half of noncitizens living in America are in the country illegally, and researchers from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) explained that even though the Trump administration has taken many measures to reduce immigrants’ reliance on the U.S. welfare system, they still receive a great majority of free benefits dished out by federal and state governments – at taxpayers’ expense.

    “Sixty-three (63) percent of non-citizen households access welfare programs – compared to 35 percent of native households,” CIS reported. “Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates – often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.”

Migrants double the drain …

    Even though native-born Americans far outnumber non-citizens, the latter group funnels much more money from the federal government for welfare services.

    “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),” CIS’s Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler informed from the data. “Including the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare – compared to 19 percent of native households …”

Despite many new obstacles erected to curb dependence on government programs, many migrants still have a number of ways to beat the system and pull in extensive taxpayer-funded benefits.

“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,” Camarota and Zeigler outlined.

Regardless of how one stacks the statistics, non-citizens overwhelmingly access more government funds than American-born citizens.

“No single program explains non-citizens’ higher overall welfare use,” the CIS report explained. “For example, not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared to 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants, compared to 30 percent for natives.”

Whether migrants have been in America for months or decades, their utilization of the welfare system is high.

“Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent,” Camarota and Zeigler pointed out.

Even when migrants are working, they continue to receive government handouts.

“Welfare receipt by working households is very common,” the report added. “Of non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent have at least one worker, as do 76 percent of native households receiving welfare. In fact, non-citizen households are more likely overall to have a worker than are native households.”

Failure to attain an education and land higher paying jobs are two reasons for continued migrant dependence.

“Of all non-citizen households, 58 percent are headed by immigrants who have no more than a high school education – compared to 36 percent of native households,” Camarota and Zeigler relayed from the study. “Of households headed by non-citizens with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs. In contrast, 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate use one or more welfare programs.”

CIS researchers found that in the four states receiving the most immigrants, the use of welfare is considerably higher for non-citizens than native-born Americans.

“In California, 72 percent of non-citizen-headed households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 35 percent for native-headed households,” CIS pointed out. “In Texas, the figures are 69 percent vs. 35 percent; in New York they are 53 percent vs. 38 percent; and in Florida, 56 percent of non-citizen-headed households use at least welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native households.”

Curbing migrant welfare?

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump declared his desire to stop all welfare-dependent legal immigration to the U.S. that siphons away taxpayer funds.

“I don’t like the idea of people coming in and going on welfare for 50 years, and that’s what they want to be able to do—and it’s no good,” Trump told Breitbart News.

He shared his plan last year geared to weed out immigrants who are destined to rely on the government for survival.

“The Trump administration has long called for changes in laws so that new immigrants wouldn’t rely on welfare,” Fox News reported in December. “In a 447-page proposal posted online in September, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called for immigrants to be denied permanent residency if they’ve received or are likely to receive benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers.”

Since the turn of the century, the number of immigrants living in America has increased four-fold.

“Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S – this is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000,” Breitbart’s John Binder informed. “The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year – more than 1.5 million annually – are low-skilled, poor or working-class foreign nationals.”

The tax burden on Americans would be greatly reduced if legal immigration is curbed.

“The legal immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut – the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants,” Binder added. “The majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household.”

Immigration’s annual drain on taxpayers translates to nearly as much as a an American pays for a down payment on a house.

“Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars,” Binder explained. “This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.”

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States. For the real truth about the emergency crisis at our southern border, family detention, and all the false political propaganda, their website is an invaluable resource.

CftC

 

 

 

The Attack on America – Here and Now

    The book The Attack on America describes how our enemies will try to destroy America and the original intention of the Framers and Founders. The recent Congressional election with Moslems, socialists, and others with ideologies contrary to the ‘One Nation Under God” Biblical worldview held in 1787 being elected brings home the reality that we are engaged in a great new civil war. Organizations such as the Justice Democrats that recruited Ocasio-Cortez enabled the espionage taking place in Congress. The question that needs to be answered and disseminated is: Where does the funding for organizations such as the Justice Democrats come from?.

Socialism Always Ends in the Tyranny of the Ruling Class

Socialism Is a Rigid Ideology Always Ending in the Tyranny of the Ruling Class

Lee Edwards, Ph.D.

 March 06, 2019

Local residents search for food in a pile of trash in Caracas, Venezuela, March 5. (Photo: Valery Sharifulin/TASS/Getty Images)

Q: What did socialists use before candles?     A: Electricity.

It’s an old joke, sure. But it’s no laughing matter. Just ask the people of Venezuela.

The socialist regime there nationalized the electricity sector a dozen years ago. Today, blackouts in the once-prosperous Latin American nation have become routine.

Electricity isn’t all that’s in short supply. Gasoline is scarce in the oil-rich nation, as are food and medicine.

Meanwhile, the regime concentrates on violently repressing protests and burning humanitarian aid as it approaches its borders.

After 20 years of socialism, Venezuela is a failed state.

And that should surprise no one. Socialism is a rigid ideology that always ends in tyranny.

The prime example is the Soviet Union. Lenin and Stalin’s iron rule brought death to 20-25 million victims. “Enemies of the state” were executed by firing squads, sent to forced labor camps in the Gulag, perished in country-wide forced famines, experimented on in “psychiatric” hospitals, and summarily deported from their homes to the distant steppes of Russia.

No less totalitarian in their practices were the Castro brothers, who promised freedom and democracy when they came to power in Cuba. Six decades later, the Cuban people are still waiting for the first free election.

Socialism always promises progress, but it inevitably delivers scarcity, corruption, and decay.

Eastern Europe under communism became a monument to bureaucratic inefficiency and waste. Throughout the Soviet bloc, life expectancy declined dramatically and infant mortality soared.

Upon gaining independence, India trod a socialist path for 40 years. It led to a never-ending cycle of poverty and economic deterioration. Finally, Indian leaders began looking to Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx to guide their economy. Today, it boasts the largest middle class in the free world.

Socialism has little regard for the middle class. It’s all about securing and maintaining power for the ruling class.

Consider the People’s Republic of China. Mired in Maoist revolutionary rhetoric, it was one of the world’s poorest countries for its first three decades. Then, Deng Xiaoping introduced “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Forty years later, the People’s Republic of China boasts the world’s second-largest economy, but its citizens remain deprived of basic human rights and civil liberties.

The Communist Party does not allow a free press or free speech, competitive elections, an independent judiciary, free travel, or a representative parliament. Instead, President Xi Jinping has instituted a cult of personality that rivals the one-time worship of the so-called Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong.

Nicaragua’s Marxist leader Daniel Ortega is another example of the lust for power and control that characterizes socialism. His underreported reign of terror has resulted in the deaths of more than 300 dissidents in just the last few years.

All of these horrors are inevitable because socialism is built on a fatal conceit.

Modern socialists believe that the world has become so complicated, so complex, so globalized, that regular citizens just can’t manage things. We, and only we (say the socialists), are equipped to run things.

Hence, for example, it’s imperative to nationalize health care, since “the little people” can’t be trusted to make intelligent, informed decisions about their health care.

Rather than empower the common man, socialists believe in empowering bureaucracy. In their minds, bureaucrats will always make decisions based on science and dispassionate reason—and make sure those decisions are implemented and enforced efficiently.

It’s an elitist, intellectually arrogant belief, and it’s dangerous.

As Ronald Reagan noted in a long-ago campaign speech for Barry Goldwater: “Either we accept the responsibility for our own destiny, or we abandon the American Revolution and confess that an intellectual [elite] in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

In “The Road to Serfdom,” the Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek dismissed the utopian dream of “democratic socialism” as “unachievable.” Why? Because it is based on the fatal conceit that a galaxy of bureaucrats can collect, analyze, and direct the individual actions of 300 million Americans.

“America will never be a socialist country!” So President Donald Trump declared last month in his rousing State of the Union speech. That should be the fervent prayer of all Americans who prize liberty and wish to live our lives our way.

    Lee Edwards is the Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, and chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty”.

 

 

 

Situation and Statistical Ethics Never Negate Immutable Law

Kamala Harris Is Wrong. Keep the World’s Oldest Profession Illegal.

Scott Yenor

March 02, 2019

Photo: Mason Trinca/Stringer/Getty Images

    Sen. Kamala Harris thinks that prostitution should be legal.

    Prostitution, the California Democrat said in a recent interview with The Root, are relations based on consent, and “when you are talking about consenting adults, I think that … we can’t criminalize consensual behavior, as long as no one is being harmed.”

    A grocer willingly sells bubble gum to willing customers, just as a car dealer willingly sells a car to a willing customer. Prostitution is no different, at least according to Harris, a former California attorney general.

    Should a willing woman be able to sell access to her body for sex to a willing man?

    What if the woman is not willing—for example, if she has been bought or sold through sex trafficking? Harris says such women haven’t consented. Nobody “who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be … free of criminal prosecution,” the senator said.

    But this distinction between the legal and illegal would be difficult in practice to police. With more prostitution, one gets more exploitation.

    A young girl, shunned in her hometown, may come to the big city, friendless, and have few places to turn for good work. She finds an “adult entertainment consultant”—what we used to call a pimp—and he “hires” her on.

    Is the exploitation of this lonely, vulnerable young girl criminal? Would the exploitation be OK if the “consultant” didn’t profit too much?

    Harris’ position appeals to a deeply held principle; namely, that all relationships are permissible so long as they are founded on consent and do not harm others. Through appeal to this principle (and a particular notion of harm), American judges have decriminalized pornography and rendered constitutional same-sex marriage.

    Some states have similarly decriminalized marijuana through appeal to this principle recently. A more complete acceptance of this principle could bring bigamy, polygamy, public nudity, and adult incest to America.

    Americans cannot abandon the principle of consent, and yet, at the same time, we need a serious consideration of what makes a practice harmful.

    Liberals like Harris are notoriously selective in applying notions of what constitutes harm.

    The widespread availability of pornography affects the minds, affections, and sensibilities of many Americans and compromises their ability to form lasting, affectionate relations. Liberals insist that’s not a harm.

    People who use marijuana on a daily basis are more prone to commit acts of violence and are more subject to mental illness. Liberals insist that’s not a harm.

    However, suggesting that men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports is “hate speech” that harms the dignity of a transgender athlete. That is a harm to liberals.

    “Harm” must not be a weapon wielded for political convenience. The public must worry about harms done to the broader moral atmosphere, in which people can form marital bonds and maintain them.

    Part of what makes a country livable and decent over the long term are laws that support public morality, like laws against prostitution.

    Legalizing prostitution would destigmatize men paying for sex. Yet, our notions of honor and shame are partly shaped by our laws. When more people do something, it’s less likely to be seen as shameful, and it becomes acceptable.

    This destigmatizing would make it easier for people to engage in such transactions, and more would do it. More women might do it for a living, especially “on the side,” when they are young and need the money. More men would avail themselves of prostitutes for a variety of reasons—fraternity parties or even Super Bowl parties, for example.

    Contrary to conventional wisdom, what happens between consenting adults doesn’t only affect them. It reverberates throughout the culture.

    Sexual desire is partly shaped by society’s images of what is good. Prostitution, if seen as a good, would lead men to be less faithful and compromise the place of fidelity in marriage—one of the attributes of marriage Americans continue to see as central to it.

    Legalizing prostitution also would further detach sex from enduring relations in the minds and affections of the populace.

    Perhaps neither the prostitute nor her customer is harmed, in the narrow sense, by a sexual transaction. Men and women are harmed, however, when sex is seen as something to be bought and sold, rather than something connected to intimate, affectionate, and possibly enduring relations.

    So many innovations—from the college hook-up culture to easily accessed pornography—have disrupted the effort to maintain the connection of sex and enduring relations.

    Legalizing prostitution would complicate efforts for restoring that and only accelerate family decline.

    Harris should take a longer, deeper view on what makes for a harm.

   Scott Yenor is a professor of political science at Boise State University. He was the visiting fellow in American Political Thought in the Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation (2015-2016).