American Elephants


Hillary Wants To Remove “Barriers” to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens by The Elephant's Child

151119_DX_Hillary-Myths.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge

Hillary is moving farther and farther to the left to compete with Bernie Sanders as she pushes for votes in New York. The former Secretary of State announced that she would make it easier for immigrants to become citizens in a meeting with New York activists. She promised to “make it a priority to create a new federal agency which would knock down  ‘all the barriers’ to citizenship, especially for all those Americans in Waiting who are in the country illegally.”

“The hassle of becoming a citizen is sometimes overwhelming,” Clinton said, referring to the millions of immigrants in the United States who are eligible for citizenship but have not applied. “We should not add a series of barriers.”

“I’m using this campaign to knock down all the barriers,” she added.

Clinton touted her plan to create a new federal agency called the Office of Immigration Affairs to streamline services to both legal and illegal immigrants in the Manhattan meeting, which was timed just ahead of a New York primary in which support of the Latino community will be important.

We are not in urgent need for more citizens, and the path to citizenship should be somewhat difficult. We need future citizens who really want to become Americans, who are willing to learn the language, learn something about our history, and something about our customs and laws. That is not a barrier to becoming a citizen, Hillary, but a blessing for the citizen to be, and an important thing  for our country.

Hillary apparently, once upon a time, passed the bar exams and became a practicing lawyer. Surely she had to read the Constitution at some point. But then Obama claims to have taught Constitutional Law, (he apparently taught Alinsky instead) and has been engaged for over seven years in finding ways to get around the Constitution with executive orders and administrative law.

We have a federal agency that deals with exactly those problems. It’s called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and could use some support from the administration. The last thing this country needs is another federal agency. If our elected officials and office seekers fail to take the rule of law seriously, I suppose they don’t see it as important for new citizens either. Do we need another president who fails to enforce our laws—just the ones she or he likes?



Bill Whittle Reads a Hillary Clinton Children’s Book! by The Elephant's Child

Hey kiddos, it’s time for Uncle Bill to read a story– its a charming tale about a super breed of woman, a true leader from birth, Hilary Clinton! Gather round!!

(h/t: P J Media)



Here’s Hillary! I Guess It’s Congenital. by The Elephant's Child

You have probably heard about this, but you shouldn’t miss hearing it direct from her lips. Scott Pelley didn’t seem to be taken in either.



Is Income Inequality Really “The Defining Challenge of Our Time”? Why? by The Elephant's Child

ObamaTux

Last week, President Obama had a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay area, in the Atherton home of a major Democrat donor, where he told the presumably wealthy donors ( tickets for the event cost $33,400) that Income Inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.” But then Climate change has also been the defining challenge.

Hillary and Bernie both complain about excessive CEO pay. The election is supposed to be driven by envy. In one of Hillary’s campaign ads, the narrator tells us “On average it takes 300 Americans working for a solid year to make as much money as one top CEO. It’s called the wage gap.” Last month Bernie Sanders wrote in a Tweet that “In the United States, CEOs make 300 times what their workers make. That is simply immoral and must be dealt with.”

Hillary and Bernie like to compare a few of the very highest paid CEOs, who head the largest multinational corporations with thousands of employees rather than the average CEO. There are something in the realm of 100 million hourly workers in the country, and most of them don’t work for a huge international corporation.

How about comparing the average American worker to the average CEO? In 2014, there were 21,550 Chief Executives working full-time managing a company or enterprise. Those CEOs earned, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average annual salary of $216,100. That’s about the same annual salary of $201,030 for the average orthodontist.

The average annual pay for the 100 million hourly workers who are employed at private companies, small, medium and large, is $48,920, (based on an average hourly pay of $24.46). There are very highly paid hourly workers as well — the workers who operate those cranes that lift the containers off the container ships make over $100,000. but then you’d have to pay me a lot to climb all those ladders— scary.

Your average CEO doesn’t make anywhere near Apple Computer’s Tim Cook’s $10 million salary either. But then the market value of Apple’s stock is greater than the entire stock market of Brazil ($490 billion). A three-star general makes $164,221 per year, and a four-star general gets $179,700. The Secretary of State gets $203,700. A Senator gets $177.000, but there are allowances for mail, staff, travel and other amenities. Alabama’s head football coach Nick Saban is the highest paid football coach for 2015 at $7,087,481. And top fashion models rake in well over a million.

Hillary Clinton’s minimum speaking fee is reportedly $225,000 for a one-hour talk. Hourly pay. The average CEO makes less than Hillary’s speaking fee — with that grating voice.

For the most part, the disparity in wealth is a factor of demographics. Young people just starting out don’t make much. Older folks with a lifetime of building skills and contacts and savings have more. Education matters, skill matters, talent, looks, and smart money sense matter as well. The occupation you choose matters, but then there are people who started out flipping hamburgers at McDonalds and have ended up owning numerous McDonalds franchises.

Democrats envision the perfect world of the future in which everybody is equal at last. They don’t like competition. Trophies for everyone! They want to be in charge, because the next regulation will fix things, won’t it? Or maybe not. What matters is how you are doing with the choices you have made. Are you happy or envious? If you are envious, you might think about what, if anything, that is doing for you?



The Role of the Press Is Supposed to Be Reporting by The Elephant's Child

la-na-carly-fiorina-hillary-clinton-demonstrab-001
Carly Fiorina, if you remember, did so well in the “undercard” debates that she moved up into the main debate — two debates ago — and she did well, though she remarked that people were just getting to know her, which was true. At that point, she ceased to exist. She appeared as an effective candidate, and I thought she seemed a potential Margaret Thatcher, and wanted to know more about her.

But she disappeared from public notice. She was busy campaigning, and appeared on some radio shows, notably Hugh Hewitt’s, but there was not a mention of her in the mainstream media. With no buzz about her candidacy, she became invisible. The media had apparently determined that since Hillary was running as “the first woman.” she did not need any female competition, particularly competition from someone so competent that she made Hillary look bad, and not only that, but who expressed her eagerness to debate Hillary.

That’s what the left-leaning press does. Invisible and with no mention in the press, interest waned, and it was back to the undercard debate. That’s the media exerting their influence over the outcome of an election. The Trump attention evolved into overkill, and people realized what was going on.

Hillary, they say, is the most qualified candidate in the campaign. Depends on what you mean by “qualified.” She has had a number of important titles, but a singular lack of specific accomplishment in any of the occupations. Her jobs have been a succession of scandals from Whitewater to Benghazi to jeopardizing national security and the lives of the people who make our nation secure — with an attempt to hide all of her correspondence from public view. Why? No one knows.



Is Income Inequality Really the Burning Issue of Our Times? by The Elephant's Child

Bernie-Sanders-3

A constant theme for the Democratic presidential race has been income inequality. Democrats always want to increase envy in the minds of their loyalists, and what better way than to insist that America’s affluent got rich, unjustly, at the expense of the poor and the middle class. Envy and resentment stoke the fires of class warfare, and the Obama Administration’s lackluster economy and slow growth make people feel helpless and more inclined to blame others for their circumstances.

Liberals want to address income inequality by redistributing wealth from the well-to-do and giving it to the poor. It’s comforting to believe that the misfortunes of your life can be blamed on someone else. But natural demographic changes and lifetime income cycles distort the estimates of income inequality.

Young people just beginning a career not only don’t earn very much, but they want to get married and buy cars and houses and have babies. And they go into debt to do so. Their parents have been saving all of their lives, educating their children, and gradually building up some wealth. U.S Census data show a clear relationship between age and median net-worth in every quintile, Moreover, the death rate has fallen sharply — people are living longer, and there are more of them. Young people have less retirement savings, and the old folks have a far higher homeownership rate. Older workers have more skills built up over a lifetime, and are worth more to employers because they are more productive.

e21_inequality_3
Economist Thomas Sowell has explained:

Only by focusing on the income brackets, instead of the actual people moving between those brackets, have the intelligentsia been able to verbally create a “problem” for which a “solution” is necessary. They have created a powerful vision of “classes” with “disparities” and “inequities” in income, caused by “barriers” created by “society.” But the routine rise of millions of people out of the lowest quintile over time makes a mockery of the “barriers” assumed by many, if not most, of the intelligentsia.

The Left believes in government, not in the free market, which they don’t understand at all. The only way that government can create jobs is to hire more people — which they do regularly by creating more regulations and more agencies — all of which is paid for by the taxpayers, thereby reducing the wealth of the people and the economy. This is what they call progress.

Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns are based on finding ever more ways to redistribute wealth, taking more money from more productive people and giving it to the less productive.

Raising the minimum wage is one way. “No one can raise a family on the minimum wage” they say. No one is supposed to. Minimum wage jobs are meant to be jobs for first-time workers. How many people do you suppose are qualified to wipe off tables, sweep the floor and punch labeled keys on the cash register at a fast food restaurant? Conversely, how many people do you suppose are qualified to manage 20,000 employees in 20 separate divisions of a giant corporation in fierce competition with other giant corporations in the same business?

“But it isn’t fair!” is the cry. Your mother probably told you that life is not fair. She was right. The young person who graduates from college and graduate school with excellent grades and an advanced degree is going to have a different life than the young person who dropped out of high school without graduating, and has had trouble finding a steady job. That isn’t about fairness.

In actuality, the middle class is just fine, and still driving the economy. What is happening is more a result of how the researchers  divide up the quintiles into which they separate Americans. You have the poor, the lower middle class, the middle class, the upper middle class and the rich. Pew Research, for example, takes the median income in a given year, with half richer and half poorer. And how you define “middle income” can create all sorts of mischief and all sorts of interesting headlines.  Pew’s definition of “middle income” isn’t anchored to any fixed standard of living, but in fact represents a rising standard of living over time. And surprisingly, everybody is substantially better off than they were 45 years ago.

Poverty has decreased across the world, and in 2015, food prices are down by 19 percent in just the last year. Food is more abundant, probably due to  slight increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a natural fertilizer for plants which is greening the world.



Keeping Track of the Terrorists Is More Important than Keeping Track of the Guns. by The Elephant's Child

obama-days-without-terrorist-attack-copy

After the attack in Paris, and before the attack in San Bernardino, Hillary Clinton offered up the Leftist Bluebook formula: “Let’s be clear: Islam in not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

A few days back, President Obama jetted to Paris spewing clouds of CO2 which he believes to be destroying the planet and uttered the undying words “a declaration that for all the challenges we face, the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other. What should give us hope  that this is a turning point that this is the moment when we finally determined we could save our planet, is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it.”

The New York Times felt so strongly about “weapons of war” that they put their editorial right on the front page. “End the Gun Epidemic in America It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” They should be embarrassed. They hauled out all their best adjectives and strong words — Moral outrage, national disgrace,  “America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing.” Barbara Boxer offered her testimony on the efficacy of California’s strong gun laws.

If the terrorist couple in San Bernardino had managed to get away, they had already produced an armory of 12 pipe bombs. They were made from Christmas tree lights, toy cars and other ingredients that anyone can buy anywhere. quite effective at killing and maiming. France has very strict gun laws, which essentially eliminate the possibility of guns in the hands of anyone but police. So does Britain, there even the police are unarmed. A young unarmed soldier was attacked and brutally killed on a public street with machetes.

The Times’ fatuous comment was — “at least they ‘re trying. The United States is not.” Pompous editorial, petty conclusions. A lot of killings have been prevented by civilians who are licensed to carry. The  rate of gun crime has been going down steadily since the mid 1990s. With Obama releasing big numbers of people sentenced for non-violent crimes, it may well start  back up again. There is a reason why the number of crimes has gone down, most likely, more people serving time for crime.

The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely

President Obama entered the White House believing that the “war on terror” was a misguided overreaction driven by political fear, and his government even stopped using the term. Seven years later Mr. Obama is presiding over a global jihadist revival that now threatens the American homeland more than at any time since the attacks of September 11, 2001. …

The FBI director said more than once that the investigation is in the early stages, but he deserves support for speaking frankly about the evidence and dangers. Every instinct of this Administration, starting with the President, has been to minimize the terror risk on U.S. soil—perhaps because it contradicts Mr. Obama’s political belief that all we have to fear is fear of terrorism itself.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,511 other followers

%d bloggers like this: