Category: Government

Washington is too big, too powerful and too intrusive in our lives. Led by out of control agencies like the NSA and IRS, which have literally persecuted Americans for political reasons, Washington has become a threat to opportunity, freedom.

Democratic Socialism: Who Knew That ‘Free’ Could Cost So Much?

From Investor’s Business Daily.

Socialism: Since the Democratic Party took a turn for the worse toward so-called democratic socialism, the party’s leading lights have laid the promises on pretty thick. Free Medicare for all! Guaranteed income! Guaranteed jobs! Subsidized housing! Free college! Universal pre-school! Wow, and all for free.

Well, not exactly. In a devastating piece that appeared on the left-of-center web site Vox (to its credit), Manhattan Institute fellow Brian Riedl went through the simple math of what free actually costs. It’s a lot.

It’s not just the free aspect, but the fact that the democratic socialists have made so many promises that must be paid for that will make it so tough to swallow for most voters.

Riedl looked at the 10-year costs of all the various promises made by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other self-described democratic socialists. He was as generous as could be in his estimates, often accepting the democratic socialists’ cost estimate even when it was patently and absurdly too low. It’s quite a laundry-list of promises with enormous costs: “Free college” ($807 billion); Social Security expansion ($188 billion); single-payer health care ($32 trillion); guaranteed jobs at $15 per hour plus benefits ($6.8 trillion); infrastructure ($1 trillion); student loan debt forgiveness ($1.4 trillion).

Net cost: about $42.5 trillion over 10 years, give or take a few hundred billion. To paraphrase the late, great Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen: “A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

As it is, current federal estimates expect about $44 trillion in tax revenues over that same period, with a deficit of roughly $12.4 trillion. Remember: All this democratic socialist spending comes on top of what we’re already spending.

Long-term, the fiscal picture grows progressively (forgive the term) worse.

“The 30-year projected tab for these programs is even more staggering,” wrote Riedl. “New proposals costing $218 trillion, on top of an $84 trillion baseline deficit driven by Social Security, Medicare and the resulting interest costs.”

Today, Riedl notes, total federal spending typically swings between 18% and 22% of GDP. But with the democratic socialist agenda in place, it “would immediately soar past 40% of GDP on its way to nearly 50% within three decades.” If you include state and local government, the total cost for this federal fantasia would equal 60% of GDP — more than any country in Europe.

Even after massive cuts in other programs, such as slashing defense by half, or adding in phantom savings from supposed cuts in state health spending and anti-poverty programs, you still come up $34 trillion short over 10 years.

To raise $34 trillion, Riedl calculates, would require “seizing roughly 100% of all corporate profits as well as 100% of all family  wage income and pass-though business income above the thresholds of $90,000 (single) or $150,000 (married), and absurdly assuming they all continue working.”

Or, he said, you could go to a VAT tax — a national sales tax on all goods and services. But it would have to be huge: a tax of 87% on everything you buy.  Oh, and by the way, that still doesn’t pay for the $12.4 trillion deficit that’s already estimated and that we discussed above. So you’d need even more taxes.

Those number are scary enough. But we’re not even raising the issues of: a.) massive cost overruns in these programs, which are  inevitable; or, b.), whether these programs will work as described or instead end up ruining our free-market economy.

Not surprisingly, in public socialists say they won’t ruin free-market capitalism. They’ll save it!

Wrong again. As Meagan Day, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, wrote (also in Vox): “Here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. And we want to do that by pursuing a reform agenda today in an effort to revive a politics focused on class hierarchy and inequality in the United States.”

Americans should know that these are the very ideas that have destroyed the economies of  the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, most of Africa, North Korea and, as we’re now seeing, Venezuela. And they’re not “democratic” at all. They’re just socialism.

Danger: Socialism Ahead

The bigger point is, these utopian ideas are not fiscally sane. And we mean that literally. They are a bizarre fantasy that should be discarded immediately by any reasonable person interested in an economically prosperous future.

That some believe that replacing capitalism with socialism makes you better off shows the profound failure of our nation’s education system. Because it’s something that has never happened in the history of mankind. And young people, who are among socialism’s most ardent fans, don’t seem to even know this.

The great economist, social thinker and professor Walter Williams recently summed up the struggle between capitalism and socialism: “Capitalism doesn’t do well in popularity polls, despite the fact that it has eliminated many of mankind’s worst problems, such as pestilence and gross hunger and poverty.”

To vote for socialism is to vote for national bankruptcy, a loss of freedom, a lower standard of living and an end to innovation. And be forewarned: As Venezuelans, Zimbabweans and Nicaraguans are now discovering, once socialists control things, they never give up power peacefully.

The ideas of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose “Accountable Capitalism Act” would impose Venezuela-style socialism on the U.S., are no less wrong for having “democratic” in front of the word “socialism.”

In socialism, all roads lead to disaster. Or, as Friedrich Hayek, the late Austrian economist, might say, to “serfdom.” All forms of socialism are the same: they replace consent and personal freedom with government power on behalf of the “people”.

Behind the entire idea of socialism is that government isn’t there to guarantee your rights or the rule of law; it’s there to exercise power on the part of the “people.” Anything can be justified.

We should be teaching it to our kids, and remind young people that free markets are vastly superior to any alternative for organizing a workable, growing economy. For free markets to work, you must have free speech. So political correctness must be abandoned.

The Democratic Party seems to be having more then a fling with socialism right now. Guided by far-left leading lights such as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and DNC Chairman Tom Perez, the party’s moving to the hard left.The latest example of this is Warren’s proposed “Accountable Capitalism Act,” a plan for what can be politely called a federal takeover of the U.S. economy. This is no joke.

This is sad, since it doesn’t have to be. It’s well known that countries that follow responsible free-market policies thrive and grow. In the latest report to show this, a comprehensive survey by the Libek think tank in Serbia of 92 economic research studies around the world, 86 of those studies found a positive relationship between economic freedom and economic growth.

I do think Millennials love capitalism too. Don’t take my word for it, just consider what companies are doing to win their services, plus consider what businesses are doing to win their future patronage. They wouldn’t be bending over backwards to hire and/or cater to the needs of individuals who truly prefer to live under socialism. Socialism is about shared misery, which is the opposite of what millennials want if their actions in the marketplace are to be taken seriously.

Maybe for right now Conservatives should relax. We shall see.

 

Please follow and like us:

Pelosi and Schumer Show Their Colors

By David Limbaugh

Contrary to liberal media reporting, the Oval Office meeting with President Trump, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was a win for Trump, both in substance and in tone.

The meeting gave people an opportunity to see who fears transparency, who’s misrepresenting his/her position and who is being the aggressor in the border debate, and it’s not Donald Trump.

Instead of listening to the media’s version, watch the video. President Trump set the tone of the meeting, and it was decidedly cordial, saying it was a great honor to have Pelosi and Schumer there and acknowledging that they’ve worked very hard on various bipartisan initiatives, such as criminal justice reform and the farm bill.

Trump then turned to “the wall,” saying Republicans support it and he would like to avoid a government shutdown over the issue while acknowledging that it is a very difficult issue because Republicans and Democrats are “on very opposite sides.”

When Trump surrendered the floor to Pelosi, she immediately invoked the subject of a government shutdown, saying the American people recognize that we must keep the government open — as if that, and not border security, were the overriding issue — and warning, “You should not have a Trump shutdown.”

Notice the blatantly calculating way she spun this as a “Trump shutdown” rather than a possible impasse that could lead to a government shutdown. Also note: Pelosi drew first blood, and it was deliberate.

After a minor skirmish over whether Trump should initiate a bill in the House that would be sure to fail in the Senate, Pelosi, playing to the camera, said, “We’re here to have a conversation in a prayerful way, so I don’t think we should have a debate in front of the press.” Pelosi knows that a House bill could not survive a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, yet she continued to press Trump to offer a bill.

Schumer began his remarks by insulting Trump, saying The Washington Post gave him “a whole lot of Pinocchios” on the wall and stressing that Democrats have “a disagreement … not on border security but on the wall.” He chided Trump for calling for a shutdown 20 times, ignoring that Trump had specifically said in this meeting that he does not want that.

Then a frustrated Pelosi said they needed to call a halt to the discussion because they had come in to the meeting in good faith to discuss with Trump how they could keep the government open. Again, Trump was not the one talking about a shutdown; he was talking about the wall and border security, the former being indispensable to the latter. Like Pelosi, Schumer said they should “debate in private,” while Pelosi was insultingly mumbling, “We have taken this conversation to a place that is devoid, frankly, of fact.” In other words, “You’re lying, President Trump, because you won’t agree to our partisan version of reality.”

Schumer insisted that border security is possible without a wall and that experts say a wall would be wasteful — implying, with a straight face, that the Democratic leadership can get exercised over the expenditure of government money. Pelosi lamented again that they were having the debate in public after having come in to the meeting in good faith, and Trump rightly noted, “It’s not bad, Nancy. It’s called transparency.” So it was Nancy’s “good-faith” expectation that Trump would just sit back and take their insults and not discuss the issue that could lead to the dreaded shutdown?

Pelosi responded, “It’s not transparency when we’re not stipulating to a set of facts.” Are you kidding me? Unless you agree with Democrats on the facts, the discussion can’t be transparent? This is the same logic by which leftists ban expression of opinions that don’t agree with theirs. I hope people are paying attention.

Just as the mood was beginning to soften, Schumer again turned to Trump and accused him of wanting to shut the government down, and again Trump denied it. It was only after repeated haranguing that Trump indicated he was tired of playing semantic games and said that if they want to put the shutdown on him, fine, he would be willing to shut down the government if he could not get the wall.

How can anyone believe that the Democrats support border security — wall or no wall — when they have repeatedly broken their promises to work with Republicans on it, when they demonize all opponents of illegal immigration and amnesty as racists, when they oppose all reasonable measures to guard the border, and when many of them actually advocate the elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

After the meeting, Pelosi and Schumer continued vilifying Trump, with Schumer describing Trump’s behavior in the meeting as a “temper tantrum” and Pelosi telling colleagues, “It goes to show you: You get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you. … It’s like a manhood thing for him — as if manhood could ever be associated with him.”

It’s undeniable that Pelosi and Schumer initiated the aggressive exchanges, that they personally insulted Trump and were rude and condescending to him, that they openly objected to transparency, and that they misrepresented their own position on border security.

Say what you want about Trump, but he very honestly said that he was determined to get a border wall, that he preferred to have this discussion in front of the entire world and that he would be willing for the government to shut down over it. Pelosi and Schumer are just as willing to shut down the government over it but unwilling to be honest about it.

I applaud President Trump for bringing this issue front and center and exposing the fraudulent and reckless position of the Democratic leadership on border security.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.

Please follow and like us:

Trump Kicked the Sluggish Economy Into High Gear

A look at Obama wants credit for faster growth, but compare Obama’s last 21 months to Trump’s first 21.

By Andy Puzder  November 26, 2018

Official portrait of Governor Jerome H. Powell. Mr. Powell took office on May 25, 2012, to fill an unexpired term ending January 31, 2014.
For more information, visit http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/powell.htm

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last month that the U.S. is experiencing “a remarkably positive set of economic circumstances.” The superb numbers speak for themselves, but who gets the credit?

For eight years under President Obama, the growing burden of government suppressed the economic recovery that should have followed the recession of 2008-09. Mr. Obama nonetheless has claimed responsibility for today’s boom, asking Americans in September to “remember when this recovery started.” Yet it wasn’t until President Trump took office that the economy surged. His administration’s pro-business policies—cutting taxes, slashing regulations and encouraging energy production—released the pent-up dynamism of American capitalism. The result is a rising tide that is lifting boats across every class and region of the country.

The last recession officially ended in June 2009. During a typical recovery, the economy grows at a rate between 3% and 4%, and the Obama administration predicted such a surge in its 2010 midsession review. It never came. The “recovery” of those years often felt much like a recession. In the postrecession period under Mr. Obama, gross domestic product grew an average of 2.2%.

GDP growth staggered along at 1.5% in Mr. Obama’s final six full quarters in office. In contrast, growth doubled to 3% during Mr. Trump’s first six full quarters. And through three quarters of 2018, the economy has grown at a 3.3% clip and is on track to hit at least 3% for the full calendar year. That would make this year the first with 3% growth since 2005.

To get an even clearer picture, compare the contiguous periods of the Trump and Obama years. Accelerating growth is having an impact on the job market. By August of this year, Mr. Trump’s pro-business policies had driven job openings to their highest level since 2000, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking the number. With business optimism on a two year streak of record highs, the increase in job openings over Mr. Trump’s first 21 months has averaged an impressive 75,000 a month. Over Mr. Obama’s last 21 months in office, the number of job openings increased an average of 900 a month. That’s less than 1/80th of Mr. Trump’s average.

Even more impressively, the current surge in job openings has occurred while a record number of people are already employed. During Mr. Obama’s last 21 months, the number of employed Americans increased an average of 157,000 a month. Under Mr. Trump, the increase has accelerated to 214,000 a month, a 36% improvement. The number of employed people in October hit 157 million—the highest ever.

This increase in job openings and people employed has created increased demand for workers. In March the number of job openings exceeded the number of people the BLS considers unemployed for the first time since the bureau began reporting the data. There have been more openings than job seekers every month since. By September, there were one million more job openings than unemployed people.

Today’s jobs also offer more hours than in the recent past. In Mr. Obama’s last 21 months the economy added an average of 148,000 full-time workers a month. Under Mr. Trump that number has risen to 218,000, a 47% improvement.

The combination of more full-time workers with higher wages and more overtime opportunities has pushed up weekly earnings. In Mr. Obama’s final 21 months, weekly earnings rose an average of $1.31 a month. Under Mr. Trump, weekly earnings have increased an average of $1.84 cents a month: a 40% improvement that’s come mostly since tax reform took effect in January. Over that period, weekly earnings have grown an average of $2.31 a month, a 76% increase over Mr. Obama’s last 21 months. Maybe those tax cuts weren’t Armageddon after all.

A broad cross section of the country has benefited from the strengthening economy. The unemployment rate declined 13% during Mr. Obama’s last 21 months, but from there it has dropped another 23% during Mr. Trump’s tenure. Today unemployment rests at 3.7%, near a 50-year low. Since the government began reporting the data, unemployment has never been as low as it is today for African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and people with only a high-school education. The rate for women is at a 65-year low, and for teenagers, a 50-year low.

Despite Mr. Obama’s attempts to take credit, this is a Trump economic boom. Unleashed by Mr. Trump’s policies and powered by the initiative of American workers, the U.S. economy is creating prosperity for every class and color of people. Sorry, Mr. Obama, but you didn’t build that.

Mr. Puzder is a former CEO of CKE Restaurants and author of “The Capitalist Comeback: The Trump Boom and the Left’s Plot to Stop It.”

Please follow and like us:

America Needs A History Lesson

This history lesson happened in Argentina, it could happen in the U.S.

The Democrat Party leaders of today are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be dead and as cold as Juan Perón when the piper ultimately must be paid.

Growing up in 1940s , ’50s, and  ’60s, on Saturdays we always went to the movies matinee. I remember like it was yesterday, the news was  a big deal for me, it was always shown right after the cartoons and  before the main attraction. I can remember it always had a lot of news about what was going on in Argentina, the good and bad. I always thought  it was a beautiful country and it was so sad what was going on there. I would think about whether or not that could happen to America. Yes, it can. I see and read about the crap here  just as I saw in the news  clips at the movies about Argentina.

In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain’s maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world’s industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world’s second-most powerful economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Argentine Republic was established after independence from Spain in 1816. Democratic rule was often interrupted by military coups. The end of Juan Peron’s authoritarian rule in 1955 led to a series of right-wing military dictatorships, and left-wing and nationalist violence. Argentina returned to elected civilian rule in 1983 after seven years of vicious repression of suspected leftist guerrillas and other dissidents.

Like the United States, Argentina was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers, and an accessible port system.  Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries; railroads, automobiles, and telephones were commonplace.

Known as “the father of the poor,” Hipolito Irigoyen was Argentina’s first president elected by its citizenry. He held the office twice, from 1916 to 1922, and from 1928 to 1930.He was active in social reforms for the poor and working class, including improving factory conditions, regulating work hours, and pushing for pensions. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of “fundamental change” with an appeal to the middle class.He was driven out of office during his second term by military coup.

Among Irigoyen’s changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy.  Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country’s operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.

Democrats Were Anti-Civil Rights

With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government’s payouts soon became overly generous.  Before long, its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers’ contributions.  Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States’ Social Security and Medicare programs.

The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón.  Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife, Eva, aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation’s rich.

 

 

Juan Domingo Peron (1895-1974) was an Argentine General and diplomat who was elected to serve as President of Argentina on three occasions (1946, 1951, and 1973). An extraordinarily skilled politician, he had millions of supporters even during his years of exile (1955-1973).

His policies were mostly populist and tended to favor the working classes, who embraced him and made him without question the most influential Argentine politician of the 20th Century. Eva “Evita” Duarte de Peron, his second wife, was an important factor in his success and influence. This targeted group “swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated.”

First Term, 1946-1951

Perón proved to be an able administrator during his first term. His goals were increased employment and economic growth, international sovereignty and social justice. He nationalized banks and railways, centralized the grain industry and raised worker wages. He put a time limit on daily hours worked and instituted a mandatory Sundays-off policy for most jobs. He paid off foreign debts and built many public works such as schools and hospitals. Internationally, he declared a “third way” between the Cold War powers and managed to have good diplomatic relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union.

Second Term, 1951-1955

Peron’s problems began in his second term. Evita passed away in 1952. The economy stagnated, and the working class began to lose faith in Peron. His opposition, mostly conservatives who disapproved of his economic and social policies, began to get bolder.

High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office.  However, his populist rhetoric and “contempt for economic realities” lived on.  Argentina’s federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.

After attempting to legalize prostitution and divorce, he was excommunicated. When he held a rally in protest, opponents in the military launched a coup which included the Argentine Air Force and Navy bombing the Plaza de Mayo during the protest, killing almost 400. On September 16, 1955, military leaders seized power in Cordoba and were able to drive Peron out on the 19th.

Socialism Spends What Capitalism Earns

 

 

Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by “industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy.

 

The Argentinian government’s practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy.  Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic.  Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.

 

By 1994, Argentina’s public pensions — the equivalent of Social Security — had imploded.  The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it was not enough.  In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises.  These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.

 

A government-controlled “privatization” effort to rescue seniors’ pensions was attempted.  However, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina’s defaulted government bonds.

 

By 2001 – Economic crisis. Argentina makes history with the largest ever sovereign debt default of more than $80bn (£42bn). Peronist government of President Nestor Kirchner restores stability.

The 2001 Argentine economic and financial crisis has many parallels with the problems that some European countries are facing to-day.
Prior to the crisis, Argentina was suffering a deep recession, large levels of debt, twin deficits in the fiscal and current accounts, and the country had an overvalued currency but devaluation was not an option .

By 2002 -Government fiscal irresponsibility… induced a national economic crisis as severe as America’s Great Depression.”

In 1902, Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries.  Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.

Venezuela proves just how bad things can get when socialism is embraced.

How’s Socialism Doing in Venezuela? …

How Socialism Ruined My Country

The Democrat Party’s populist plans for the U.S. cannot possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches.  History teaches us that Obama Care and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.

The Socialist Democrat Party leaders of today are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery.  And they will be long gone when it all implodes.  They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.

Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism

Today the Democratic Party are saying  we need to overhaul the DNC. The leaders are saying we are now in a populist era. The entire organization has to be reinvented from the ground up. The Democratic Party has become irrelevant to the lives of most people. It’s nothing but a giant fundraising machine. …The real struggle and the real question is: Will progressive populism prevail over authoritarian right-wing populism? One of the strongest and most powerful forces out there is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the power structure of America. A new Democratic Party needs to lead on progressive populism.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth.

Looking at a speech from Ted Cruz

The idea that — the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty. And that the purpose of the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government.

The incredible opportunity of the American dream, what has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to America with nothing and to achieve anything. And then the American exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world, a shining city on a hill.

The American dream doesn’t come from what government does, it comes from what its government can’t do. What’s great about America is what its people do, its government often just gets in the way.

Today, I think, we have not forgotten our beginnings. Instead of Americans having a shared vision for America, we now have become a divided nation. A nation full of individuals and of groups, each of which has their own vision for their own individual futures,  you bet your  ass it has not a thing to do with this nation, it’s all about them..

 Socialists Democrats in the House have already called for at least 50 inquiries, said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the House’s chief government watchdog panel.

 Socialist Democrats Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other politicians have called for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods, including the use of violence and revolution.

I have great faith in America and its people. This is a great country. If we live and work so as to enjoy the approval of a Divine Providence, we will endure as a nation. Without God’s help, we cannot long endure.

 

Please follow and like us:

San Francisco Treats Illegals, Tricks Citizens

California’s “motor voter” scheme may be sending one million illegals to the polls.

On Tuesday, San Francisco will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens to vote, and the city has spent $310,000 on a “new registration system” specifically aimed at illegals. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the plan is the first in the state and follows Proposition N, a 2016 ballot measure allowing votes by noncitizens over the age of 18, reside in the city, and have children under age 19.

By the count of the Chronicle, only 49 noncitizens have signed up to vote on Tuesday, which works out to $6,326 for every illegal voter, but there’s more to the story. City officials are worried that voting could expose illegals to ICE, who might come looking and possibly deport somebody. So supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer, a backer of Proposition N, urged the city to spend $500,000 to warn the illegals.

Whatever San Francisco spends, their effort pales in comparison with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV’s 2015, “motor voter” law allowed the DMV automatically to register as voters those who get driver’s licenses. Secretary of State Alex Padilla claimed that protocols and “firewalls” would keep ineligibles from voting, but there was room for reasonable doubt.

After the 2016 election, Padilla refused to release any information to a federal probe of voter fraud, which he called a “false and debunked” claim. In 2015, on the other hand, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “at the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California.” True to form, by March, 2018, the DMV had given licenses to more than one million illegals.

In September, the DMV announced 23,000 “erroneous” registrations, but it quickly emerged that from April to August, the DMV had registered 182,000 “new voters.” Some legislators pushed for an audit but that is being handled by the department of finance, under the control of governor Jerry Brown, who supports the state’s sanctuary legislation.

Californians could be forgiven for believing that the “erroneous” registrations are a dodge and that one million or more illegals will be going to the polls on Tuesday. That could tip the scales in several key races.

In June, Democrat Ammar Yasser Najjar changed his name to Ammar Joseph Campa-Najjar. He is the grandson of Palestinian terrorist Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, of the 1972 Munich massacre, and seeking to unseat Rep. Duncan Hunter in San Diego. The Democrat’s father, Yasser al-Najjar, has served as a de-facto ambassador for the Palestinian Authority. His son Ammar worked for the reelection of POTUS 44 in 2012 and at this writing the race with Hunter is tight. Illegal votes could make the difference.

In Orange County, Democrat Gil Cisneros vies with Republican Young Kim for the seat of retiring Ed Royce. Navy veteran Cisneros won $266 million in the California lottery in 2010 and decided to go into politics. The lucky guy supports DACA and opposes President Trump’s immigration policies. Kim holds a slight edge but “new voters,” code for illegals, could tip the race.

Back in 1996, 642 illegals voted for Democrat Loretta Sanchez, who defeated Republican Robert Dornan by fewer than 1,000 votes. As a State Department investigation discovered, false-documented illegals have been voting in local, state, and federal elections for decades. Now San Francisco is up front about it and funding the illegal voters.

The noncitizens will be allowed to vote only for school board members, but that limitation is  temporary. As school commissioner Shamann Walton told the Los Angeles Times, “Trump will not always be president,” and “hopefully we’ll have leaders who are inclusive and really believe that if you are a resident of this country, you should have the same rights as other people.”

Those “other people,” as it happens, are legitimate citizens and legal immigrants. As they might note, California gives illegals welfare, driver’s licenses, and in-state tuition. In college admissions California even prefers illegals over out-of-state American students, a violation of state law, the 1996 Proposition 209.

California’s sanctuary state law gives protection to violent criminal illegals such as racist Mexican Luis Bracamontes, who in 2014 gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis in Sacramento. In 2014 San Francisco released criminal illegal Garcia Zarate, or whatever his real name is, rather than hand him over to federal immigration authorities. In short order, the repeatedly deported Mexican national gunned down Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Governor Jerry Brown was rather quiet about that.

In Mendota, near Fresno, the criminal illegals of MS-13 have imposed a reign of terror, hacking people to death, as ruling Democrats look the other way. That’s the way it is in California, where Democrats have made false-documented illegals a privileged, protected class. Those “other people” should not be surprised if more than a million illegals return the favor by showing up at the polls on Tuesday.

Please follow and like us: