Visit Counter

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get





On a tip from Ed Kilbane


And remember according to Mitt and his cohorts Trump is going to be worse!!!



-------------------------------------



President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.

The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to "unaccompanied children," more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration's programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.




The report notes that the president's budget, facing congressional approval, includes another $2.1 billion for refugees, which can include the illegals from Central America, mostly Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

What's more, the administration is also spending heavily on a program with the United Nations to help the illegal minors avoid the dangerous trip by declaring them refugees and handing them a plane ticket to the U.S. where, once here, they get special legal status.

The report, titled "Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States," is a deep dive into the administration's evolving efforts to let hundreds of thousands of mostly 16- and 17-year-old males settle in the country.



It said that most of the undocumented minors do not qualify for refugee status or are even in any danger in their native countries. Instead, they are seeking to unify with their family members, commonly parents in the United States illegally.

The report cited Department of Health and Human Services data showing the trend. "New data," said CIS, "shows that 80 percent of the 71,000 Central American children placed between February 2014 and September 2015 were released to sponsors who are in the United States illegally."

Author Nayla Rush suggested that the administration's Central American Refugee/Parole Program with the United Nations that declares minors refugees could have the effect of giving legal status to their illegal parents once in the U.S.

"Children will be able to qualify for refugee status and then be flown to the United States. As a reminder, refugees receive automatic legal status and are required to apply for a green card within their first year following arrival. They can apply for citizenship five years from the date of entry.

"Since parents from Central America illegally present in the United States could not benefit from the CAM program and sponsor their children, perhaps the reverse can take place with children admitted under this new version of the refugee program. Children, acquiring legal status followed by naturalization by the time they reach adulthood, could indeed sponsor their parents," wrote Rush.







Share/Bookmark

Vincente Fox would make a damn good Democrat










Vicente Fox Stuns FBN Anchor: 'I'm Not Going To Pay For That F*cking Wall'



I thought he was going to blow a gasket!


Video 238



Now listen to him on Cavuto yesterday.
This is the reason I said he would make a damn good Democrat.

He's got a knack for the liberal rational.

Video 239

To deter illegal migration Neil asked FOX..."Isn't the burden on Mexico to improve its economy?"

Listen to his answer towards the end of the interview. This is classic liberal bullshit consistent with spinning terrorist attacks into workplace violence. He tries to equate Americans who move from one state to another to get a better job is precisely the same as his denizens illegally jumping the border wall to achieve the same thing! As I said... liberal logic.

And if you don't believe they're the same?














Share/Bookmark

Top allies break with Ryan over Trump





Sure as hell hope they can patch things up. Think how awkward it's going to be in Cleveland if the chairman who presides over the convention does not support the GOP candidate!

There are quite a few Republicans, mostly losers with an axe to grind, who should remember the old adage 'Don't cut off your nose to spite your face'.

Meaning... the alternative is Killary.

---------------------------------------





'I honestly don’t understand what Paul’s thinking — I don’t get it,' one says.



Two prominent House allies of Paul Ryan broke with the speaker Friday over his decision to withhold support from Donald Trump, comments that point to a growing split among congressional Republicans over how to deal with the presumptive nominee. 

Reps. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia and Dennis Ross of Florida — who, as House whips, help Republican leaders muster support to pass legislation — told POLITICO in interviews on Friday that they disagreed with Ryan’s decision to break with Trump in a bombshell interview a day earlier. Both lawmakers said they believe their leader is in denial about how Republican voters feel about the real-estate tycoon.

“I honestly don’t understand what Paul’s thinking — I don’t get it,” said Westmoreland, who is retiring after this year. “I try not to give advice to the speaker, but I think it just really brought about, in my opinion, even more confusion to this thing.”

“Trust me, I haven’t been on the Donald Trump bandwagon, but I will support him, and I disagree with Ryan’s comment,” Ross said. “I think it’s time we unite (and) … extend an olive branch and start working this out.”

The sharp rebuke from two senior, longtime GOP leadership allies is a rare sight in the House. It highlights a schism in the lower chamber that's expected to grow next week when Congress returns from recess and some House Republicans line up behind their leader and others rally around the GOP standard bearer-in-waiting.

Ryan and Trump will meet face-to-face Thursday at Republican headquarters in Washington to see if there’s any way to reconcile their differences in both style and substance. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus will play counselor, after Ryan said Thursday he could not support Trump and Trump’s camp fired back Friday morning Ryan has no business being speaker if he can't back the party's pick for president.

Lawmakers will be asked to take a side: the young, conservative budget wonk that his party establishment clamored for to run for president himself? Or the bombastic bomb-thrower whose rocked the party with his surprise voter-appeal.

Ryan's choice of words — that there are "lots of questions" about Trump that conservatives want answered, "myself included" — suggests that his stand might be partly or even mostly a calculated attempt to try to mold the unwieldy nominee into one who thinks and acts more like the speaker.

Trump, for instance, has pitched banning Muslims from the country — an idea Ryan says is the antithesis of America’s founding. Trump is anti-trade, while the speaker thinks free markets are simply good economics. And then there were those quips about Hispanics and his initial refusal to reject white supremacist David Duke’s support of his candidacy — which flew in the face of Ryan’s efforts to diversify the GOP base.

Pennsylvanian Republican Charlie Dent, who leads the moderate GOP Tuesday Group, said he's all in favor of doing anything to change Trump's positions. The speaker, Dent said, is trying to save the party — and as far as he’s concerned Trump still “has a great deal of work to do to convince the American people, myself included, that he’s able to lead this nation.”

“I thought that Paul Ryan struck the right tone and the right balance,” he said. “Paul had to step up and disassociate himself and distance himself from some of these comments. … We’re concerned [that] his comments are affecting our shot at the White House.”

Westmoreland, however, said Ryan’s remarks just make it hard for everyone to get on the same page. The Georgia lawmaker has been trying to convince his conservative friends that they have a choice: embrace Trump now, or roll out the red carpet for a President Hillary Clinton. Ryan’s comments essentially blessed a third option — hold out for now — that Westmoreland believes is poor politics.

Westmoreland wishes Ryan had been more subtle. “He could have come out and said, ‘Look, I’ll be 100 percent behind whoever comes out of our convention,’ and that would have been a simple way of saying: ‘I’m not endorsing Trump right now,’” he said.

Ross said it’s hard to take a stand like Ryan’s when 45 percent of Republicans in his district voted for Trump. That’s his predicament right now.

“I’m listening: They’re fed up with Washington politicians,” he said. “And unfortunately, I think there are some in my party who don’t get what is happening.”

Thus far, there doesn’t seem to be a distinct pattern as to whether members endorse and support Trump now, or hold out as Ryan has chosen to do. Many believed lawmakers in the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, for example, would line up behind Trump. But, in turns out, many of the group's members are repelled by the New Yorker over what they call his “disdain” for the Constitution.

Establishment types, one would think, would line up with Ryan. But Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) endorsed Trump late last month.

Meanwhile, vulnerable lawmakers facing tight reelection races are coming down on both sides: Broadly speaking, they take Ryan’s approach if they’re facing a threat from Democrats on the left, but stand with Trump if they’re facing a primary challenge from the right.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), for example, faces a tough reelection battle in Northern Virginia, an area where Republicans fear a Trump backlash could put their seats in jeopardy. Comstock, who blasted Trump’s proposed Muslim ban and will square off against former Rep. Jim Moran’s (D-Va.) ex-wife this fall, essentially echoed Ryan’s comments on Trump this week.

"I can't support Hillary Clinton. But I'm like any voter, a candidate has to earn my vote, and at this time Donald Trump has not done so," she said, according to The Winchester Star. “We're going to watch the process. I've expressed my concerns before."

Contrast that with another vulnerable Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose North Carolina seat is being challenged by a candidate to her right. She told POLITICO earlier this week that Donald Trumpmania has “opened my eyes.”

“I had spent a lot of time listening to the voters and their concerns and how they felt about Donald Trump, and it really opened my eyes and made me realize that Donald Trump is having a conversation with the American people that many of us, especially us Republicans, have absolutely missed for years and years,” Ellmers said. “We in the Republican Party have talked about how we need to bring more people into the party, do a better job increasing votes and connecting to the American people, and here’s Donald Trump doing it and yet there are many in Washington who are kind of rejecting that.”

Westmoreland believes that some of his fellow Republicans simply don't get it, Ryan included.

“I just don’t think any of them realize… the reason Trump is the nominee is because people are mad at Republicans in Congress for not getting anything done,” he said. “We brag about a lot of stuff we do, but most of the time members are sent home to defend their votes rather than going home and bragging about them. ... And they’re looking at Trump for a change.”

Ross predicted that many in the GOP conference will be dissatisfied with Ryan's stance, and he hopes that will pressure the party to coalesce.

“I think we all should humble ourselves to a degree and unite,” he said. “We can’t be angry and upset and say, ‘We’re just going to take our ball and go home.’ That is not why we were elected. We’re supposed to be leaders and play with the cards we’re dealt.”







Share/Bookmark

Panama Papers: US launches crackdown on international tax evasion






Meanwhile in the real world...


Good thing Al didn't go international!

---------------------------------------








© UPI / Barcroft Images Barack Obama: ‘There is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance generally is a huge problem.’


(Not if you're Al Sharpton)



Barack Obama is launching a crackdown on international tax evasion in response to recent disclosures in the Panama Papers revealing the scale of offshore financial activity.

In a series of initiatives announced by the White House on Thursday night, the president will take executive action to close loopholes used by foreigners in the US and call on Congress to pass legislation

Though the later steps may hit political obstacles in an election year, the package of measures are among the most comprehensive response yet to the Panama Papers revelations, disclosed by a consortium of international journalists including The Guardian. 


“In recent weeks, the disclosure of the so-called ‘Panama Papers’ – millions of leaked documents reportedly revealing the use of anonymous offshore shell companies – has brought the issues of illicit financial activity and tax evasion into the spotlight,” said the White House in a statement.

“The Panama Papers underscore the importance of the efforts the United States has taken domestically, and the efforts we have undertaken with our international partners, to address these shared challenges.”

Earlier Obama, who is also under pressure to limit the flow of corporate money out of the US, was one of the first world leaders to respond to the record-breaking leak last month.

“There is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance generally is a huge problem,” Obama told reporters in an unscheduled appearance last month. “The problem is that a lot of this stuff is legal, not illegal.”


The initial package of measures outlined by the White House this week may not go as far as some campaigners wish, but focus largely on increasing transparency regulations as a tool to flush further offshore tax abuses into the open. 

These include:

Immediate executive action to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion with tighter transparency rules.

New treasury rules closing a loophole allowing foreigners to hide financial activity behind anonymous entities in the US. 

Stricter “customer due diligence” rules for banks handling money of behalf of clients.


The White House and Treasury also called on Congress to pass a series of detailed measures they say would more directly tackle the problem of offshore tax avoidance in the longer run.

“The treasury department has long focused on countering money laundering and corruption, cracking down on tax evasion, and hindering those looking to circumvent our sanctions,” said treasury secretary Jack Lew in a statement.

“Building on years of important work with stakeholders, the actions we are finalizing today mark a significant step forward to increase transparency and to prevent abusive conduct within the financial system.”





Share/Bookmark

Reassessing my thoughts







As I stated before I'm not a big fan of Trump. I didn't like McCain either when he ran for president in 2008. I still don't like him now. But I voted for him as a friend of my put it… "because he was the lesser of two evils". Certainly when comparing Killary to Trump the same situation exists. I voted and gave money to Romney. Trump asked for his support and got it. Romney returned the favor by stabbing him in the back. I'm a firm believer in loyalty. Why was Trump's endoresment good then but he has no use for him now? If Romney feels the way he does so be it. But at the very least he could have kept his big mouth shut.


I'm starting to wonder if Republicans are playing for the other team?










Share/Bookmark