Sunday, July 12, 2015

CONNECTICUT SANCTUARY CITY MAYOR: WE WILL KEEP PROTECTING ILLEGAL ALIENS

Illegal alien and Kathryn Steinle’s alleged murderer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, would have been treated in Connecticut exactly as San Francisco treated him. Apparently, this is fine with sanctuary city New Haven Mayor Toni Harp.

According to the Journal Inquirer (JI), on Friday, Harp said that her city will continue to protect illegal aliens despite the horrific murder of Steinle in San Francisco.

Without a history of a violent felony or a court order for his detention, Lopez-Sanchez would not have been detained by state or municipal authorities in Connecticut, state Correction Commissioner Scott Semple said, reported the JI .

Lopez-Sanchez, a five-time deportee and seven-time convicted felon, said in a local ABC affiliate interview that he chose to go to San Francisco because he knew the sanctuary city would not hand him over to immigration officials. San Francisco police did not inform immigration officials when Sanchez’s most recent release occurred in April. The illegal alien allegedly stole a .40-caliber handgun from a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger’s car in June and shot and killed Steinle earlier this month.

Last year, Connecticut enacted a law that bars police from detaining an illegal alien unless that individual is determined to pose specific public safety risks. If the risks are deemed present, police are required to inform federal immigration officials that the illegal alien will be detained. The individual is released, however, if federal officials do not take custody of him within 48 hours.

Semple’s memo to federal immigration officials indicates that Connecticut would follow guidelines similar to what transpired in San Francisco:

Under the revised policy, the Connecticut Department of Correction will no longer enforce ICE detainer requests and administrative warrants solely on the basis of a final order of deportation or removal, unless accompanied by a judicial warrant or past criminal conviction for a violent felony.

As Breitbart News reported Friday, since President Obama took office, “the number of non-citizens Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to deport but did not due to the ruling of a judge, requests from the government, or the use of prosecutorial discretion have increased 42 percent.”

As a state, Connecticut has opened its arms to illegal aliens. The cities of Hartford and New Haven have signed on as sanctuary cities with ordinances providing that police do not transfer to immigration officials illegal aliens who have been arrested – or even notify ICE at all about them. The state also enacted a law at the end of last year that allows illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.

“New Haven will continue to welcome new residents from other countries and embrace their positive contributions in our community, all in the spirit of ‘e pluribus unum,’” Harp said. “The city’s ongoing ‘sanctuary’ status reflects a widespread acceptance of diversity in New Haven and respects the distinct jurisdictions administered by the federal and local governments.”

Via: Breitbart

For the Liberty of France

In late 1944, Charles Kaiser’s uncle, a U.S. Army lieutenant, stayed for a while at the Paris residence of two sisters, Christiane and Jacqueline Boulloche. So began a relationship that would eventually lead Kaiser to write his new book, The Cost of Courage. An American journalist, Mr. Kaiser has designed this book about the French resistance for an American audience. This account of the resistance provides unique insight into the history of one French family and a courageous struggle against Nazism.

The story begins with a Gestapo raid that targets the book’s protagonist, André Boulloche. André is found by the Germans after a resistance officer under his command breaks under interrogation. Failing in an attempt at suicide as the Nazis raid his apartment, André suffers a gunshot wound to the stomach and is captured.

Though his personal resistance was heroic, there was nothing glamorous about André’s plight. Kaiser explains:

If he hadn’t been wounded, André thinks, this part would have been easy: he would have swallowed the fatal pill right away. But now he is writhing on the floor, with blood spurting out of his stomach – and the cyanide never leaves his pocket.

Fortunately, André’s sister and fellow resistance officer, Christiane, had just left the apartment on ”the best timed shopping trip of her life.” She returns to see the Gestapo at work, and evades capture.

The Boulloches were an haut-bourgeoise, well-connected Catholic family, and unlikely revolutionaries. Yet, as Kaiser explains, they all shared “an innate sense of duty.” Describing Christiane, Kaiser says, ”more than anything else, it is instinctive patriotism that pushes her into battle.” Still, the Boulloche notion of patriotism is inherently bound to honor and justice. Before she entered the resistance, Christiane organized a collection for a Jewish schoolteacher who was fired after the Nazis seized power.

The Cost of Courage’s most interesting sequences describe the tradecraft of the Resistance. We see how André learned his methods—”letters written with lemon juice, which only becomes legible when the pages are heated over a candle.” Kaiser describes how André records Nazi ”arms depot locations” and ”memorizes a book that interprets every [Wehrmacht] insignia”. We learn of Christiane’s crucial role as a network facilitator in repairing radios, and smuggling weapons to fighters. Kaiser also explains how Christiane used tradecraft to avoid detection, such as stepping off trains just as the doors closed and broadcasting radio transmissions from different locations. Survival, we’re reminded, is about meticulous attention to detail. It was also about spiritual strength. We learn that after André’s capture, he boosted the morale of a fellow prisoner by teaching him “the Schumann piano concerto, certain Beethoven sonatas, and the Brandenburg Concertos.”

Via: WFB

On Health Care, Obama worked the Refs and Got His Way

Former Lakers coach Phil Jackson says he finds referees “a very interesting group of people.”

If you’re a basketball fan, you’ll remember that Jackson has used plainer words about referees, and this has cost him a lot of money over the years. During the 2009 NBA Finals he was fined $25,000 for complaining about “bogus” calls. The following year he was fined $35,000 twice in two weeks.

Why did he complain so publicly?

Jackson may have hinted at the answer in a recent video for a youth sports organization. “It’s an impossible game to referee,” he said. “It’s totally impossible. There’s a foul on every play. You have to decide what you’re going to call and what you’re not going to call, who you’re going to attack and who you’re not going to attack.”

So those costly criticisms may have been an investment in helping the officials make better decisions in the future.

The president of the United States happens to be a basketball fan. Maybe he’s seen this trick work a few times.

Speaking in Germany after the G7 summit on June 8, President Obama lectured the U.S. Supreme Court on how to interpret the Affordable Care Act. “It should be an easy case,” he said, “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

The next day the president spoke again about the law, describing a pre-Obamacare America where parents who didn’t have money could only “beg for God’s mercy” to save their child’s life. But thanks to the health care law, he said, a woman has thrown away her wheelchair, an autistic boy now can speak, a barber was cured of cancer. The president said miracles are happening in hospitals every day. “This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another,” he concluded. “This is health care in America.”

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the administration’s interpretation of the health care law, which Chief Justice John Roberts said was necessary to avoid “a calamitous result.” Who would want to be blamed for preventing “miracles”?

Although the justices are insulated from politics by lifetime appointments, they strive to maintain the public’s respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. They can’t put their orders into effect without the aid of elected officials. The judiciary has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers.

It’s this vulnerability—the Supreme Court’s reliance on the esteem of the public—that Obama attacked in 2010 during his nationally televised State of the Union address. The president slammed the justices, some of whom were seated right in front of him, for their ruling in a campaign finance case.

Longtime political experts were startled by the breach of protocol, but basketball fans would not have been.

With his remarks in Germany, Obama signaled that he was ready to denounce the Supreme Court, perhaps for decades, if the justices blew the whistle on the IRS rule that went around the literal wording of the Affordable Care Act. Sure enough, the call went his way.

Presidents have done this kind of thing before. Franklin Roosevelt famously threatened to pack the court with more justices in order to get the majority he needed to uphold the New Deal. But it was the other Roosevelt, Teddy, who best explained this Progressive technique.

“I may not know much about law,” TR thundered in 1912, “but I do know one can put the fear of God into judges.”

Phil Jackson would have been fined a million dollars for that remark.

Via: California Political Review

A Coming Era of Civil Disobedience?

Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and Parliament, and establish our own?

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Capitol. Calling the Commandments "religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths," the court said the monument must go.

Gov. Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached.

Fallin's action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America — an era of civil disobedience like the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law.

Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.

Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and Parliament, and establish our own?

U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been defied, and those who defied them lionized by modernity. Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the sedition act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.

Some Americans want to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, who, defying the Dred Scott decision and fugitive slave acts, led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad.

New England abolitionists backed the anti-slavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 Southern states had the same right to break free of Mr. Lincoln's Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III's England.

Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.

In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor.

Rosa Parks is a heroine because she refused to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus, despite the laws segregating public transit that relegated blacks to the "back of the bus."

In "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. King, defending civil disobedience, cited Augustine — "an unjust law is no law at all" — and Aquinas who defined an unjust law as "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Said King, "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

But who decides what is an "unjust law"?

If, for example, one believes that abortion is the killing of an unborn child and same-sex marriage is an abomination that violates "eternal law and natural law," do those who believe this not have a moral right if not a "moral responsibility to disobey such laws"?

Via: CNS News

Walker Wins: New Budget Will Repeal University Tenure Photo of Blake Neff

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is poised to win a huge victory on education as the state legislature passed a budget that repeals state tenure guarantees while also slashing the budget of the University of Wisconsin.

The victory was enunciated by the acquiescence of the university, which recognized its defeat by passing a spending plan that implements Walker’s cuts. All that remains is for Walker to consummate his victory by affixing his signature to the budget.

The two-year, $73 billion budget approved Thursday makes a host of changes Walker has sought in the realm of education. Wisconsin’s school voucher program is expanded, and $250 million in funding is taken from the University of Wisconsin. That’s down from the $300 million cut Walker originally sought, but still a substantial haircut.

Bowing to the fait accompli, later on Thursday the University of Wisconsin approved its own budget, implementing the big cuts expected of it. About 400 positions will be laid off or will go unfilled, and the university’s budgets no money for pay hikes. The school’s situation is made tougher because the legislature has also frozen in-state tuition.

While academics have accused Walker of sabotaging the school’s competitiveness, Walker has refused to yield, arguing that professors should be teaching more classes. (RELATED: Walker: University Profs Need To Work Harder)

Walker’s push to slash spending at U-Wisconsin has received the most press, but his push to alter tenure may have the biggest long-term implications. Until now, tenure for professors at the University of Wisconsin has been protected by statute (Wisconsin is the only state with such a law). Now, that protection has been eliminated, leaving it up to the school’s board of regents to decide whether professors have tenure.

Not only that, but tenure itself has been weakened so that it doesn’t offer the protections it once did. Previously, only “financial exigency” (an urgent budget shortfall) could justify the firing of a tenured professor. Now, tenured professors may also be laid off whenever it is “deemed necessary due to a budget or program decision regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.” (RELATED: Wisconsin Might Destroy Tenure For Professors)

Via: Daily Caller

D.C Metro Murder Undermines Liberal Talking Points

The brutal killing of Kevin Sutherland in the Washington, D.C., subway on July 4, does much to undermine popular leftist tropes, in this case, race, crime, guns and drugs, just as the murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco challenges liberal immigration policies. Sutherland was beaten and stabbed to death on a Metro train by a drug addled African-American teenager in the middle of the day in front of about a dozen other stunned passengers.

Sutherland’s killer, 18 year old Jasper Spires, shares many characteristics with more famous and lionized Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, except that while the latter two were shot to death by armed men in the midst of physical assaults, Spires took full advantage of his unarmed victim (and other passengers) to complete his crime and survive, and is now in custody. The mainstream media and leftist politicians have mostly downplayed the incident, since Spires cannot be caricatured as a victim of white racism. Indeed, the problem for the media is that in almost every respect, this encounter shows the utter inanity and hypocrisy of many of their favored talking points and positions.

Of course, D.C.’s only major newspaper, the Washington Post, could hardly overlook the killing, but has done its level best to downplay things. The Post first reported the murder in its local Metro section, though such a brutal public killing on Independence Day would probably been front-page news had circumstances been more to the news editors’ liking. That article noted that Sutherland was a vibrant, well-liked recent transplant to the city, but did not include a picture or indicate that he was white and probably gay (it did suggest he was an LGBT activist), but it did show a photo of Spires. A follow-up article made the front page, but the tone of reportage has been of the “that’s too bad” variety, not outrage. The online version of that article shows photos of both the perp and victim.

The killing undercuts a half-dozen leftist talking points, and shows the hypocrisy redolent in the outrage expressed by politicians (like President Obama), race baiters like Al Sharpton, and countless media elites.

Two days before murdering Sutherland, Spires was arrested by D.C. cops for violently attempting to rob another man, and assaulted police as they tried to take him in. Had he been killed by police in that incident, the recent high school grad, who also briefly attended a private college in North Carolina, would no doubt been treated by the press and the President like Martin, Brown or Freddy Gray up the road in Baltimore, as a promising young man who became a tragic victim of the police war against young black men. But Spires appears to have been uninjured by police despite his combativeness and small (5’5”) stature. Local prosecutors then reduced charges and the police released him. Spires stopped by a D.C. police station and picked up his personal belongings from that arrest shortly before killing Sutherland. Not only does this demolish the idea that police are out to get guys like Spires, it demonstrates just how lax the justice system is about dealing with violent criminals, whatever their race.

Via: American Thinker

CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR-OWNED POLITICO PUBLISHES HIT PIECE ON DR. BEN CARSON

On Tuesday, Politico ran an article with this blaring headline: “Ben Carson’s Godly Riches: He reaped $2 million in fees from Christian groups in 2014 alone. Now he wants their votes.”

The headline, which implies some sort of hypocrisy on Dr. Carson’s part, is belied by the actual content of the article.

“Clearly if you were to read in great detail Politico’s article, they are clearly only admonishing Dr. Carson in their headline and not the true substance of their story,” Armstrong Williams, Dr. Carson’s business manager, tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview.

“The reason being they truly had nothing to report,” Williams notes.

Politico, which is owned by Clinton Foundation donor Robert Allbritton, failed to point out in the article that during that same time period Hillary Clinton charged speaking fees ranging from $200,000 to $325,000, and Bill Clinton charged $250,000 for his average speaking fee. In 2010, Bill Clinton was paid a $500,000 speaking fee by a Russian company. Even former first daughter Chelsea Clinton charged speaking fees of $65,000, well in excess of Dr. Carson’s fees.

In 2014, Dr. Carson’s speaking fees ranged from $12,320 to $48,500.

During roughly the same period of time that Dr. Ben Carson earned $2 million in speaking fees, Bill and Hillary Clinton together earned $25 million in speaking fees.

The actual facts of Dr. Carson’s 2014 speaking engagements reported by Politico do not match the article’s somewhat sensationalist headline.

One fundraiser at which Carson spoke “brought in a net profit of $150,000,” after Carson’s fee was paid, the article reports.

At another fundraiser, the host organization was very pleased with the outcome of Carson’s speaking engagement. “He did a really good job for us in bringing in people who may not have known about HopeWorks,” the group’s executive director Ron Wade toldPolitico.

“They couldn’t find anything negative or controversial about Dr. Carson’s speaking engagements,” Carson’s business manager Williams says.

When asked about Politico’s failure to report the vastly higher speaking fees charged by Hillary, Bill, and even Chelsea Clinton, Williams is quick to point out Politico’s bias.

“Without a doubt the good Dr. Carson is held to a different standard,” Williams says. “It’s nitpicking by Politico. There’s really nothing negative they can report.”

The Politico bias, Williams argues, is as apparent from the people the authors chose not to interview as it is of those they chose to interview.

“Politico could not find anyone who was not satisfied with Dr. Carson’s speaking engagement. Imagine the many individuals interviewed for the article that were not included, because they had high praise for the good doctor.”

Williams’ comments support the perception that Politico is often a “mouthpiece” for establishment Republicans as well as the Democrat elites. “A lot of these sources Politico used are coming from within the establishment,” he says.

Carson’s strong showing in the polls has had an impact on his rivals for the Republican Presidential nomination, Williams argues. “Republican establishment candidates are very threatened by Dr. Carson,” he tells Breitbart News. “The establishment media consistently are searching for phony reasons to negate his immense popularity,” he adds.

From a strategic perspective, Carson offers something establishment Republicans can’t provide—appeal to disaffected conservative voters.

“Dr. Carson is popular among many conservative Christians and Millennials who did not vote in the last presidential election,” Armstrong says.

Currently, “outsiders” like Dr. Carson, Donald Trump ,

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

96%

, and Carly Fiorina appear to be gaining traction, while more establishment- oriented candidates appear to be languishing.

“That article is trying to negate the progress and phenomenal gains Dr. Carson is making as an outsider,” Williams says.

The popularity of “outsider” candidates in the Republican Presidential primary field is likely to continue its upward movement in spite of Politico’s transparent and unsuccessful attempts to discredit them.

Via: Breitbart

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?

For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.

Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons[5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.

Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.

As a rule of thumb, poor households tend to obtain modern conveniences about a dozen years after the middle class. Today, most poor families have conveniences that were unaffordable to the middle class not too long ago.

Poverty: A Range of Living Conditions

However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.

Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession.[6]Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.

Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.

In discussions about poverty, however, misunderstanding and exaggeration are commonplace. Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.

Living Conditions of the Poor

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases its annual report on income and poverty.[7] This report, though widely publicized by the press, provides only a bare count of the number of Americans who are allegedly poor. It provides no data on or description of their actual living conditions.

This does not mean that such information is not available. The federal government conducts several other surveys that provide detailed information on the living conditions of the poor. These surveys provide a very different sense of American poverty.[8] They reveal that the actual standard of living among America’s poor is far higher than the public imagines and that, in fact, most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. Regrettably, these detailed surveys are almost never reported in the mainstream press.

One of the most interesting surveys that measures actual living conditions is the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),[9] which the Department of Energy has conducted regularly since 1980.[10]The RECS survey measures energy consumption and ownership of various conveniences by U.S. households. It also provides information on households at different income levels, including poor households.

The first half of this paper uses RECS data to analyze and describe one aspect of the living standards of the poor: ownership and availability of household amenities.[11] The second half provides a broader description of the living standards of America’s poor.

Availability of Amenities in Poor Households

This section uses RECS data from 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, to analyze the amenities typically found in poor households.[12] The 2005 RECS data represent the living conditions of the poor before the current recession. Conditions are likely quite similar today.

Because the current recession has increased the number of poor persons in the U.S. since 2005, it might seem likely that poor households would have fewer amenities and conveniences today than in 2005. However, the increase in poverty during the recession is, to a considerable degree, the result of working-class families losing employment. One would not expect these families to dispose of their normal household conveniences in those circumstances. Thus, paradoxically, the increase in the number of working- and middle-class families who have become temporarily poor is likely to increase slightly the share of poor households that own various items. When the present recession ends, the living conditions of the poor are likely to continue to improve as they have in the past.

Chart 1 shows the percentage of all U.S. households that owned or had available various household amenities and conveniences in 2005. For example, it shows that 84 percent of all U.S. households had air conditioning, 79 percent had cable or satellite television, and 68 percent had a personal computer.[13]

Chart 2 shows the same information for 2005 for poor U.S. households (those with cash incomes below the official poverty thresholds). While poor households were slightly less likely to have conveniences than the general population, most poor households had a wide range of amenities. As Chart 2 shows, 78 percent of poor households had air conditioning, 64 percent had cable or satellite TV, and 38 percent had a personal computer.[14]

Via: Heritage Foundation

Continue Reading.....

Trump in Vegas, Phoenix: Illegals 'Wreaking Havoc on Our Population'

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump criticized U.S. immigration and trade policies on Saturday in speeches that veered from accusing Mexico of deliberately sending criminals across the border to professing respect for the Mexican government and love for its people.

Speaking to a gathering of Libertarians in Las Vegas before headlining an event in Phoenix, Trump repeated his charge that Mexico was sending violent offenders to the U.S. to harm Americans and that U.S. officials were being "dumb" in dealing with immigrants in the country illegally.

"These people wreak havoc on our population," he told a few thousand people attending the Libertarian gathering FreedomFest inside a Planet Hollywood ballroom on the Las Vegas Strip.

In the 4,200-capacity Phoenix convention center packed with flag-waving supporters, Trump took a different view — for a moment — and said: "I love the Mexican people. I love 'em. Many, many people from Mexico are legal. They came in the old-fashioned way. Legally."

He quickly returned to the sharp tone that has brought him scorn as well as praise. "I respect Mexico greatly as a country. But the problem we have is their leaders are much sharper than ours, and they're killing us at the border and they're killing us on trade."

His speeches in both venues were long on insults aimed at critics and short on solutions to the problems he cited. When he called for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the audience in Las Vegas groaned.

In a break from the immigration rhetoric that has garnered him condemnation and praise, Trump asserted that he would have more positive results in dealing with China and Russia if he were president and said he could be pals with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Asked by an audience member in Las Vegas about U.S.-Russia relations, Trump said the problem is that Putin doesn't respect Obama.

"I think we would get along very, very well," he said.

Trump has turned to victims of crime to bolster his argument that immigrants in the U.S. illegally have killed and raped. In Las Vegas and Phoenix, he brought on stage Jamiel Shaw Sr., a Southern California man whose 17-year-old son was shot and killed in 2008 by a man in the country illegally. Shaw vividly described how his son was shot — in the head, stomach and hands while trying to block his face — and how he heard the gunshots as he talked to his son on the phone.