debunking more liberal propaganda

For those of you who want to know the truth instead of the propaganda being pushed by the liberal mainstream media, I have a short message for you. I am sure that you have heard the baloney being pedaled that communities with higher illegal populations are 'safer than others'. Well, here are some 'real facts'. First of all, the percentage of the population that are illegals is about 7% of the general population. So, it the illegals commit the same number of crimes as the  'general' population, then the illegals should be committing about 7% of the total crimes. Here are the real numbers.

Illegals commit approximately 22% of all of the murders. Statistically, they should only commit about 7% of the murders. The math is extremely simple. It is obvious that they commit murder at three times the rate as the general population.

Illegals commit 18% of all the fraud. Statistically, they should commit only about 7% of the fraud. So, it is obvious that they commit fraud at 2 and a half  times higher rate than the general population.

Illegals commit 29% of the money laundering crime. So, they commit more than 4 times the money laundering than the general population. Simple math.

Illegals commit 72% of drug possession charges, ten times the rate of the general population.

The conclusion is obvious and undeniable, illegals commit more crimes than the general population.

One could ask why this is true. The answer is also obvious. The fact that they came to America illegally indicates that they had no respect for our laws from the very beginning. They committed a crime in entering our country illegally. They continue to commit a crime by staying here illegally. Since they have no respect for our law to begin with, it if clearly obvious that they will have no respect for our laws on a continuing basis while here illegally. There is a legal way to reside here in America. America has some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world, but America has the right to determine who can reside in our country. RESIDING IN AMERICA IS A PRIVELIDGE WHICH IS GRANTED ONLY TO THOSE HERE LEGALLY.

another unhearalded attaboy

The mainstream liberal Trump-hating media are doing their usual regarding positive news about President Trump. Either they bury it as a brief note or ignore it altogether. As soon as the tax bill was passed, there were multiple major companies that announced either pay raises for their employees or pay bonuses for their employees including AT&T's announcement of $1000 bonuses for each of their 200,000 employees. In case you are not doing the math, that is an expenditure of $200 million by AT&T in employee bonuses for 'middle-class' not 'rich' people. So much for the lies by the democratic leaders that the middle-class will see no benefits from the tax bill. Wells Fargo announced that they were implementing an increased minimum wage for all of their employees.

Just put it in your mind to remember when you get your new 'bonus' or pay raise within the next year, give President Trump some credit. Also, pay attention to your take-home pay after your company refigures the tax deduction to your paycheck a couple of months into 2018. The increase that you will see is due entirely to the tax bill which President Trump fought for. Oh and by the way, those of you who are currently seeking employment may be blessed by the benefit of finding a job, just remember to thank President Trump for fighting for the policy changes to create more jobs. Just remember that the democrats voted against the bill which is providing more money in your pocket. To stress the obvious, 100% of the democrats voted against the legislation which is now helping you because the democrats agenda provides no solutions or benefits. They are dedicated to an entirely negative agenda. resist anything and everything which Trump wants regardless of the consequences.

History is on Trump's side

An article By Stephen Moore

Last week during an address at the White House President Donald Trump likened his tax plan to the tax cut that John F. Kennedy proposed 55 years ago., This elicited some howls of protest from Trump's liberal critics, who say it's historically inaccurate to compare the Trump plan to JFK's.

Is it? In 1963 Kennedy proposed a tax cut that slashed business and individual tax rates by about 30 percent. It's true that tax rates were a lot higher then (90 percent in some cases) than now. But the philosophy was the same: Lower taxes will get businesses, investors and consumers going again and jump-start a lackluster economy.

There are other similarities between Trump and JFK on taxes. Democrats complain that the Trump tax cut will increase the deficit, just as Republicans made this same fatuous claim against the Kennedy tax cuts. President Kennedy declared at the New York Economic Club that it is a "paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

He reminded Congress that America's biggest problem was not the budget deficit but a "growth deficit."

That sounds almost identical to what Donald Trump is saying today on taxes and what Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are arguing against.

JFK, posthumously, was proven exactly right, and the tax cut critics were refuted by actual events. After the tax cuts were enacted in 1964, America experienced one of the greatest periods of prosperity in our history.

The U.S. had three straight years of 6 percent growth — the last time that has happened.

Larry Kudlow's 2016 book, "JFK and the Reagan Revolution," documented the post-JFK tax cut growth spurt: "The tax payments by the wealthiest filers nearly doubled. We had many quarters of 6 percent growth back then."

That same effect was duplicated when Ronald Reagan chopped the top income tax rates from 70 to 28 percent and the corporate rate from 48 to 35 percent. The share of taxes paid by the richest 1 percent rose from 19 percent in 1980 to above 25 percent by 1990, according to IRS tax return data. Total tax revenues surged from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to just over $1 trillion by 1990.

In 1986, Reagan's Tax Reform Act passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of— are you sitting down? — 97-3. This included the votes of such prominent Democrats as Bill Bradley, Ted Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum and Sam Nunn. Where are the pro-growth Democrats today? Are there any?

In 1998, Bill Clinton, who had raised taxes in 1993, reversed course and signed into law one of the biggest bipartisan tax cuts in history, which included a slashing of the capital gains tax. The growth and employment boom was so great that the budget reached a budget surplus.

Democrats say they wish that Trump had put forward a bipartisan tax plan, but where is the Democratic alternative? The only alternative I've seen is Bernie Sanders' proposal to raise tax rates to 50, 60 or even 70 percent. Can anyone with a straight face argue that this would help the economy?

Sadly, the modern Democratic Party today has repudiated JFK economics. Now they are infuriated that Donald Trump has picked up that mantle. Readers can go to the Committee to Unleash Prosperity website and see and hear recordings of JFK dispensing wisdom on taxes.

Here's one more excerpt from a radio address by Kennedy: "Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries."

There is one last similarity between JFK, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump: economic optimism. President Trump shares their belief in American potential — that there are no limits to our economy or our greatness. Trump says we can grow at 3 or 4 percent. Liberal pessimists dismiss this as wild-eyed happy talk. They are selling America short.

 

 

Department of 'Just Us'

 

 

I find it to be difficult to understand the thinking processes of the leaders in the Democratic Party, so I decided to put down a few examples depicting their actions and I then try to determine their underlying thinking processes or motives. In this effort I may draw some conclusions about democrats in general, but I am sure that trying to lump all of them together is most likely inaccurate.

To begin with, I have done quite a bit of analysis and reading about the Clinton Foundation. There have been many people with strong backgrounds in criminal investigation who have said that it is a really good example to use if you want to set up a money-laundering scheme. They take in donations from many political sources including many foreign countries who obviously would have the desire to use the political connections of the Clintons. Now if I talk to a staunch democrat, I will be told that there is nothing wrong with the Clintons receiving donations from foreign countries and foreign companies who want to get special help from the Clintons. As the democrats tell me, the Clintons are much too honest to use this setup as a means of receiving bribes for political favors. However, I am dead certain that if any republican were to be known to receive millions of dollars from people who would clearly want political favors, these same democrats would scream ‘bribes’ at the top of their lungs. So it seems that the only logical conclusion is that in the democrats’ eyes it is OK for democrats to receive suspicious ‘gifts’ that ‘look like bribes’. They also seem to be saying that it is even better than OK for the Clintons to receive anything regardless of appearances.

I think that laid the groundwork for the next ‘short subject’, the Uranium One scandal. It is completely true that during the Obama reign at the same time that Hillary was the head of the State Department, 20% of America’s uranium resources were sold to the Russians. My first question is this. What kind of an idiot would ever think it was a good idea to sell one of America’s chief adversaries our uranium? Now there were supposedly multiple committees who looked at this deal and had to give their approval of the sale. Since this occurred during Obama’s reign, you can be sure that either all of the committee members or almost all of them were Obama appointees. All of them approved of the sale. However, the head of the state department was solely responsible for the ultimate decision. In other words, it the Russians had Hillary’s approval, the deal would be concluded. Interestingly, at or nearly at the same time that the deal was approved, the Russians donated over 140 million dollars to the Clinton foundation. Now we are back to what I said in the previous paragraph. According to the democrats, there is nothing wrong with the Clintons being paid over 140 million dollars at the same time that Hillary is ‘smoothing the way’ for a Russian takeover of 20% of American Uranium. But wait. It gets even better.

The Uranium One deal did not happen overnight. It took years to set up the deal. During those years, the FBI was actively investigating the actions of the Russians involved in the deal. The FBI was absolutely certain that the Russians involved were using bribes, extortion, and many other criminal activities to further the culmination of the Uranium One deal. Now Eric Holder was the attorney general at that time, and he sat in on the Uranium One meetings. In addition, he either knew about the FBI investigation or he should have known about it in his role as attorney general. The FBI covered up the information regarding the investigation of the illegal Russian activities. So now you have a situation where a sale of American uranium that should have never ever been considered is known to be involving multiple criminal actions, and this is kept secret from the very people who should be informed, the members of the various committees approving the sale. But wait it gets even better.

The top FBI men who appear to have been involved in this cover up include two familiar names, Rosenstein and Mueller. We may come back to this later in a post in the future. Suffice to say that these are the same names which are now deeply involved in the ongoing witch hunt about ‘Russian collusion’. Since they may have been involved in the cover up of ‘Russian collusion’ before, I guess the democrats think that they should have the honor of looking for imaginary ‘Russian collusion’ now! But back to the main story line.

So now it appears that we have the democratic president, Obama, who certainly should have known about the proposed sale of American uranium and the related criminal activity and the ongoing cover up. You have the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton (democrat), who appears to have received over 140 million dollars in bribes by the Russians involved. You have Eric Holder, Rosenstein, and Mueller who may have been involved in the cover up. Can it get any better? Oh yes it can. Did I mention the agent who was deeply involved in the FBI investigation who was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the whole affair? Guess who forced him to sign the non-disclosure agreement, the DOJ (read that as department of just us). Who were they preventing from hearing his testimony with this non-disclosure agreement? Only the United States senators and congressmen!!! Now why would the head of the DOJ make a person sign a non-disclosure agreement which had the single purpose of preventing the truth from ever emerging regarding the criminal activities related to the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to an unfriendly government? Who in the plethora of high-level democrats involved in the Uranium One deal have secrets they want kept hidden?