Tag Archives: Jimmy Carter

Michelle Fields is completely wrong on amnesty and Latinos

Michelle Fields

Michelle Fields

Libertarian Fox News contributor Michelle Fields. Photo author unknown.

Fox News’ Latino website has recently published an opinion piece by libertarian FNC contributor Michelle Fields, who therein attacks conservative columnist Ann Coulter for pointing out the inconvenient truth about amnesty’s consequences and the majority of Latino immigrants. Fields believes Ann Coulter’s written remarks are xenophobic and based only on stereotypes.

Essentially, Fields’ claims, and her attacks on Coulter, can be summed up as follows:

Claim #1: Latinos are not a bunch of government dependents, but mostly a community of hardworking taxpayers, and they do not support Big Government or liberal/socialist ideologies. They share many beliefs with Republicans, such as faith and belief in hard work, and could very well vote GOP. Thus, the GOP is to blame for its failure to win over Latinos.

Claim #2: Amnesty will not kill the GOP.

Claim #3: Rejecting “immigration reform” because it could harm the GOP is unpatriotic and unjust.

All of her claims, without exception, are dead wrong. I’ll show you why.

Firstly, while I don’t want to generalize, and while not all Latinos are government dependents, the vast majority of them are. The typical Latino family in the US is led by a single mother. If she works, her income is so low she doesn’t pay any income taxes and receives the Earned Income Tax Credit – effectively a subsidy from US taxpayers. If she doesn’t work, she receives various forms of welfare, including 99 weeks of free unemployment compensation.

For food, mom gets food stamps and other aid, while her kids get 2-3 free meals at school every day.

Her kids are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and can receive student loans, college aid, and in-state tuition rates.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare. (Latinos have the lowest insurance rate of any demographic group in the country.)

Why would those people vote for a party (the GOP) that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and reduce the government programs they do live off?

Wouldn’t self-interest dictate voting for a party that will let them continue receiving all the current giveaways from Uncle Sam, and perhaps give them even more?

Most Hispanics in America today are born out of wedlock to teen mothers. Hispanics are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock to a teen mother, to do poorly in school, to drop out of high school, to be unemployed and on welfare, to commit crime, and to go to prison. (Of course, the former social ills lead to the latter – children born out of wedlock, especially to teen mothers, have their lives screwed up at the start, if you pardon my language.)

Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Hispanics overwhelmingly supports Big Government. According to very recent polling by Pew Hispanic Polling, the Kaiser Foundation, and others:

While this is the first time I agree with Rachel Maddow on anything, Maddow was nonetheless absolutely right to note that:

“There’s no great mystery here. Latino have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, and strongly believe public access to affordable care should be a basic societal guarantee.

In other words, most Latinos believe the exact opposite of most Republicans. The GOP wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety; Latino voters want it protected. Republicans want to gut Medicare and Medicaid; Latinos see both programs as critical.

“This is going to hurt Republicans,” Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm, told Levey. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”

Since the 2012 election, we’ve heard repeatedly from Republicans that Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP and, if the party could only use more effective language, Latino voters would gravitate to the conservative party. And yet, the evidence to the contrary is increasingly overwhelming.”

Or, as the LA Times has noted:

“As Republican leaders try to woo Latino voters with a new openness to legal status for the nation’s illegal immigrants, the party remains at odds with America’s fastest-growing ethnic community on another key issue: healthcare.”

According to other polling by Pew Hispanic Research and others, Latinos aren’t any more conservative on social issues, either. In fact, they support gay marriage and abortion by wider margins than anyone else except Jewish Americans, women, and youngsters (themselves also traditional Democratic electorates).

For example, a June 19th, 2013 poll by Pew found that 52% of all Hispanics, including 54% of Catholic Hispanics, 57% of “native-born” Hispanics, and 59% of those Hispanics for whom English is their first language, support gay marriage legalization. Among ethnic groups, only Jewish Americans support the legality of gay marriage and abortion by wider margins.

So Ann Coulter was absolutely right, and Michelle Fields was dead wrong, about Hispanics’ political views: the vast majority of them ARE strident liberals, ARE dependent on the federal government from cradle to grave, and DO support Big Government. Those are not stereotypes. Those are facts.

And Republicans can’t woo these people. You can’t convert a Big Government liberal to free-market conservatism anymore than you can convince an Islamist to forego jihad.

The GOP cannot win the Hispanic vote unless it becomes the second party of Big Government and social liberalism. But that would defeat the party’s purpose, and the Dems will always outdo Republicans in the “handing out taxpayers’ dollars” game.

But remaining (or making the GOP again) the party of limited constitutional government means foregoing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. That is a fact. Latinos love Big Government.

Miss Fields claims that the Latino vote is winnable for the GOP. But that is impossible for the above reasons. And all election results show that.

In fact, in 1984, while the general American populace voted for Ronald Reagan in even greater numbers than in 1980, Hispanics voted for Walter Mondale in even greater numbers than they had for Jimmy Carter: 61% for Mondale versus “only” 56% for Carter.

In other words, Latinos missed the Carter Administration so badly that they voted for Walter Mondale, an advocate of the “nuclear freeze” and tax hikes, in even greater numbers than they had for Carter!

Ronald Reagan won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and only 37% in 1984.

But Republicans passed, and he signed, amnesty in 1986. Didn’t Latinos reward Republicans for amnesty thereafter?

Actually, no, they didn’t. Just two years later, they voted for Dukakis in even greater numbers (69%) than for Mondale (61%) and Carter (56%)! George H. W. Bush won only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988.

But he made it easier to immigrate to the US, created the Diversity Visa Lottery, and eliminated the English language test on the naturalization exam. Didn’t that earn him the Hispanic vote?

No, it didn’t. He won only 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 – even less than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 and 71% in 1996.

But didn’t George W. Bush show Republicans can win the Hispanic vote?

No, he didn’t. He won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and only 40% (not the 44% Miss Fields claims) in 2004. Even then, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore (62%) and John Kerry (58%).

Even America’s loudest advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, John McCain, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008; Latinos backed Obama then by 67%.

But most outrageously, four years later, Latinos thought Obama deserved a second term, and they voted for him in 2012 in numbers even greater than in 2008 (71% vs 67%). This is consistent with their entire history of overwhelmingly backing stridently liberal presidential candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. They’ve never met a strident liberal they didn’t love.

(Source: Pew Hispanic polling.)

And now, very recent polling shows that if Joe Biden was the Democratic and Marco Rubio the Republican nominee, Biden would handily beat Rubio – a leading advocate of amnesty and a Hispanic himself – 60% to 26%, i.e. Rubio would receive even less of the Hispanic vote than the strongly anti-amnesty Mitt Romney, despite being a Hispanic himself!

The Latino vote is utterly unwinnable for the GOP. Therefore, it is in the Party’s and the Country’s interest to halt further immigration (from all countries of the world, not just Latin American ones) and to ensure that the illegals already in America are deported.

Ann Coulter is also absolutely right to point out, and Michelle Fields dead wrong to deny, that amnesty will kill the GOP.

Just look at Miss Fields’ home state of California to see what would happen to the GOP.

Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – from Latin American countries (mostly Mexico) has turned California into such a liberal state that NO Republican can be elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long, it gave America such great Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S.I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is such a liberal state that the Dems have the governorship and supermajorities in both houses of the state legislatures, allowing them to raise taxes anytime without limits. In 2010, Californians chose Babsy Boxer and Governor Moonbeam over two bright conservative women – Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman – one of them pro-life, the other pro-choice, and rejected a proposal to suspend California’s cap-and-tax scheme until the state unemployment rate shrinks.

Last year, Californians gave the Dems a supermajority in the State Senate.

Similar stories are repeated throughout the country. New Mexico, like California, is lost forever. Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.

When Texas goes, America goes.

As Ann Coulter rightly points out, if amnesty is passed, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no going back. Look again at the Hispanic voting patterns of the last 33 years to see what electorate America would have. An electorate 71% of which thought Barack Obama had done a good job and deserved a second term. An electorate 61% of which missed the Carter Administration so badly that it voted for its vice president. An electorate 69% of which voted for Michael Dukakis.

But it would actually be much worse than that: as Sarah Palin points out, amnesty would be a heinous betrayal of working-class Americans, who would see their jobs stolen by illegal immigrants.

Thus we come to Miss Fields’ last claim: that rejecting “immigration reform” is unpatriotic and unjust. A patriot is one who does what is good for his country.

Amnesty – as Miss Fields herself has noted – would be very bad for the country. It would reward lawbreaking and put a huge new strain on American taxpayers. It would also turn the entire country into California. That would be disastrous for America.

Thus, by blocking amnesty, House Republicans are doing the PATRIOTIC thing. They’re doing the right thing for the Country and the Party.

To conclude, Miss Fields is dead wrong on all counts. The vast majority of Latinos ARE government dependents and DO support Big Government. Amnesty would kill the GOP, and conservatism in general, forever. And stopping it is the patriotic thing to do.

If Miss Fields is the classy young woman I believe she is, she should and will apologize to Ann Coulter. She’s certainly a knowledgeable and intelligent person and has been right on many issues. But on these, she’s flat wrong.

George W. Bush Speech at Presidential Library Dedication

bushlibrary

George W. Bush was joined by all four living Presidents of the United States, for the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, TX. The last time all five men had met was in 2009, shortly before President Obama’s inauguration. Following is George W. Bush’s dedication speech video, and transcript:

George W. Bush: I’m retired from politics – happily so, I might add, but not from public service. We’ll use our influence to help more children start life with a quality education, to help more Americans find jobs and economic opportunity. To help more countries overcome poverty, and disease. To help more people in every part of the world live in freedom. We’ll work to empower women around the world to transform their countries. Stand behind the courageous men and women, who have stepped forward to wear the uniform of the United States, to defend our flag, and our freedoms here at home. Ultimately the success of a nation depends on the character of its citizens. Mr. President, I had the privilege to see that character up close. I saw it in the first responders who charged up the stairs, into the flames, to save people’s lives from burning towers. I saw it in a Virginia Tech professor who barricaded his classroom door with his body, until his students escaped to safety. I saw it in the people of New Orleans, who made homemade boats to rescue their neighbors from the floods. I saw it in our service members, who laid down their lives to keep our nation safe, and to make other nations free. Franklin D. Roosevelt once described the dedication of a library as an act of faith. I dedicate this library with an unshakeable faith in the future of our country. It was the honor of a lifetime to lead a country as brave and as noble as the United States. Whatever challenges come before us, I will always believe our nation’s best days lie ahead.

Reflections on Jimmy Cah-tah – Worst President…Until Obama

Whenever I hear that name, this ill-conceived bit of liberal philosophy comes to mind:

“Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom.”

I’ve always found it intellectually horrifying that a famous person can utter something so terribly flawed as this view and not be immediately challenged and taken to the intellectual woodshed for it. This singular quote defines that bumbling sycophant from Plains, Georgia.  I’ll take issue with it by restating it, as I believe it would be, to be essentially accurate.

“Government is an essential structure necessary to make rules for a society to live by.”

That’s about it. It requires no further embellishments.  No need to introduce “human wants”…, unless you have an agenda to push! His definition has NOTHING to do with why government exists. Carter takes off running and states his desired emotional conclusion and then goes about trying to justify it by expounding an emotional belief to define it.  After all “wants” are emotional needs.  What one can very reasonable ascertain from his quotation is that…Government is for the people that wise entity that provides for all their wants.  Read it again and you’ll see.

And therein lies the key to the mental disease we all know as liberalism. Carter’s use of the word “contrivance” reveals him.  In the interest of holding folks to my standard that Words Mean Things the word contrivance means a “scheme” or an “expedient”, not essentially something straightforward and honest in nature.  Held up in comparison to my descriptive of an “essential structure” one can readily see the difference in implication.  The point to take away here is to NEVER accept at stated value words spoken, especially by those we impose a public trust upon to govern us.  Challenge what they say and force them to the responsibility of an accounting for that which they say.

Maybe you remember this flight of fancy The Peanut Farmer took:

 
Another oldie, but hypocritical goodie from he who proclaims ‘freedom of speech” and the “big tent” and “inclusion” and “brotherhood” philosophies is this one:

Deflation or Inflation? Yes

Since the beginning of the “Great Recession” that Americans still find themselves in, there have been prognostications of incredible inflation while other “experts” claim that crippling deflation would be the necessary outcome.  Could they both be right?

Perhaps – there are two major forces at play in our economy right now: price inflation and income deflation.

Price inflation

Wheat Prices

Commodities are going through the roof.  Oil is above $90 a barrel, corn is $6.07 per bushel, March wheat got as high as $8.05 a bushel this week soybeans, cotton, sugar .. you name it.

It’s not just food and clothing.  Copper, gold, silver are also much higher recently.  All of these commodities are building blocks for the food we eat, the clothes we wear and consumer items Americans need.

Oil prices hit twice as hard.  Not only is petroleum a raw material for plastics, medicines, food and clothing, but it is also used to fuel the trucks, trains, planes and ships that transport those goods to stores.

Now that the government is pushing to raise the amount of ethanol in gasoline, rising corn prices will also hit Americans in two places.  As a component of E10/E15/E85, it will increase the price at the pump.  As more corn is turned into fuel, the supply-demand curve will steepen and everything that has corn as an input will see raw material prices increase even faster.

Wage/Income Deflation

The American job market has not recovered from the recession and is likely to take several years to do so.  As The Wall Street Journal reports, this recession is already longer than the last wage period where wage deflation took hold.

The only other downturn since the Depression to see similarly large wage cuts was the 1981-82 recession. But the latest downturn is already eclipsing that one. Unemployment has stood above 9% for 20 straight months—longer than the early 1980s stretch—and is likely to remain above that level for most of 2011, putting downward pressure on wages.

With millions more workers seeking jobs than there are available, employers have gained a stronger position in pay negotiations.  The job market is incredibly competitive allowing employers to cherry pick the best talent for the salary dollar.

Another downward wage pressure is that employers do not have to give big salary increases or bonuses to keep talented employees.  A tough job market means fewer employees will be willing to leave and if they do, there is an ample pool of workers ready to take their place – perhaps at a reduced rate.

The Journal post shows evidence that these dynamics are cutting wages for American workers.

Economists had wondered how far this dynamic would go in this recession, and now the numbers are starting to show it: Between 2007 and 2009, more than half the full-time workers who lost jobs that they had held for at least three years and then found new full-time work by early last year reported wage declines, according to the Labor Department. Thirty-six percent reported the new job paid at least 20% less than the one they lost.

Prices Higher and Incomes lower – Inflation or Deflation?

Both.  Production costs are going up, but consumer buying power is falling off.

Consumers have to pay home heating costs, put gas in their cars, buy clothes and food.  If all of those things cost more, and consumers are making less money .. there is less consumer potential in the market place.  Welcome back the nemesis from the late 1970’s and early 1980’s: stagflation.

Remember the “misery index” from the 1976 and 1980 Presidential election?  The misery index is computed by adding inflation to unemployment.  If both are high, a stagnant economy and high inflation are present.  Stuff gets more expensive to make, but no one can afford it so the economy stagnates.

Jimmy Carter holds the current record of 21.98, but Obama’s current term is on a run taking the misery index from 7.73 at the beginning of his Presidency to 10.94 in November.  The current numbers are deceptively low for two reasons: the federal reserve inflation rate and bureau of labor’s unemployment numbers aren’t telling the whole story.

Anyone that has been to the grocery store or filled their car up with gas knows that things are much more expensive lately.  Because the government’s inflation measure does not include food and energy, it doesn’t take into account the very things that Americans simply must buy.  The incredibly low inflation rate reported by the fed is a sham and does not truthfully report the increase in living costs that Americans face.

The unemployment numbers are also portraying a false positive.  BLS statistics do not include those that have simply given up looking for work or have run out of benefits.  Unemployment is a measure of first time applications.  After 20+ months, not many first timers left to apply.  As this article from the Associated Press states, 9.4 is not as good a number as the President would have America believe (emphasis mine).

The unemployment rate did come down, to 9.4 percent from 9.8, but that was partly because people gave up looking for work.

..

All told, employers added 1.1 million jobs in 2010, or about 94,000 a month. The nation still has 7.2 million fewer jobs today than it did in December 2007, when the recession began.

Producers have been eating the increasing costs of their raw materials and transportation.  That practice is ending as margins have been squeezed as tightly as possible.  The cost to the consumer is going up, but the consumer now has less money to spend.  Stagflation, again..  oddly enough, under another progressive Democrat President that has been listening to Paul Volcker for economic advice.  Same players, same results.