Had enough yet

[Lee Chowaniec]

Here's What Biden Has Accomplished That the Media Isn't Telling You

I came across this media report today and thought reading it would pickup my spirits, hearing the ‘good’ things Biden has accomplished. Nope, political propaganda to the max! Not the world I inhabit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...&ei=18#image=1

[Lee Chowaniec]

Finally, commonsense.

For months, the president’s ironclad position has been that the debt ceiling is not a bargaining chip. He is negotiating with Republicans over the debt ceiling, and that’s a good thing.

The Biden administration still claims to be haggling only over the budget, not the debt ceiling. “The president has been emphasizing for months that he’s eager to have budget negotiations,” a White House official, who requested anonymity to explain the administration’s somewhat tortured position, told me. “That’s of course different from avoiding default, which is nonnegotiable.”

An opinion piece worth the read:

David Brooks: The second phase of the Biden presidency

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...d-phase-biden/

Given the historical circumstances, President Joe Biden should absolutely negotiate with Republicans over a debt reduction deal. Yes, Republicans are being reckless. But the central truth remains: We need to bring down deficits so that we have the flexibility and resources to handle the storms that lie ahead.

Biden has to redefine his presidency to keep up with emerging realities. It’s not 2021 anymore. We’re entering an era of rapid technological transformation and unforeseeable tectonic shifts. In contrast to Donald Trump, who is all about himself, Biden can be the source of security in times of chaos. For that to happen, we need a government that is fiscally sound and ready for anything.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Was legalizing marijuana a big mistake?

A very insightful report by Ross Douthat, New York Times.

https://dnyuz.com/2023/05/17/legaliz...a-big-mistake/

Of all the ways to win a culture war, the smoothest is to just make the other side seem hopelessly uncool. So it’s been with the march of marijuana legalization: There have been moral arguments about the excesses of the drug war and medical arguments about the potential benefits of pot, but the vibe of the whole debate has pitted the chill against the uptight, the cool against the square, the relaxed future against the Principal Skinners of the past.

As support for legalization has climbed, commanding a two-thirds majority in recent polling, any contrary argument has come to feel a bit futile, and even modest cavils are couched in an apologetic and defensive style. Of course I don’t question the right to get high, but perhaps the pervasive smell of weed in our cities is a bit unfortunate …? I’m not a narc or anything, but maybe New York City doesn’t need quite so many unlicensed pot dealers

All of this means that it will take a long time for conventional wisdom to acknowledge the truth that seems readily apparent to squares like me: Marijuana legalization as we’ve done it so far has been a policy failure, a potential social disaster, a clear and evident mistake.

So legalization isn’t necessarily striking a great blow against mass incarceration or for racial justice. Nor is it doing great things for public health. There was hope, and some early evidence, that legal pot might substitute for opioid use, but some of the more recent data cuts the other way: A new paper published in the Journal of Health Economics finds that “legal medical marijuana, particularly when available through retail dispensaries, is associated with higher opioid mortality.” There are therapeutic benefits to cannabis that justify its availability for prescription, but the evidence for its risks keeps increasing: This month brought a new paper strengthening the link between heavy pot use and the onset of schizophrenia in young men.

And the broad downside risks of marijuana, beyond extreme dangers like schizophrenia, remain as evident as ever: A form of personal degradation, of lost attention and performance and motivation, that isn’t mortally dangerous in the way of heroin but that can damage or derail an awful lot of human lives. Most casual pot smokers won’t have this experience, but the legalization era has seen a dramatic increase in the number of non-casual users. Occasional use has risen substantially since 2008, but daily or near-daily use is up much more, with around 16 million Americans, out of more than 50 million users, now suffering from what is termed “marijuana use disorder.”

Continued…

[Lee Chowaniec]

Third party in 2024? No better time!

Bipartisan political group No Labels is stepping up a well-funded effort to field a "unity ticket" for the 2024 presidential race, prompting fierce resistance from even some of its closest allies who fear handing the White House back to Donald Trump.

Nancy Jacobson, the co-founder and leader of No Labels called the project "an insurance policy in the event both major parties put forth presidential candidates the vast majority of Americans don't support."

"We're well aware any independent ticket faces a steep climb, and if our rigorously gathered data and polling suggests an independent unity ticket can't win, we will not nominate a ticket," she said.

"I can think of nothing worse than another Trump presidency and no better way of helping him than running a third-party candidate," said Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill.

Jacobson, on the leaked conference call, said No Labels had been "Pearl Harbored" by a March memo from the Democratic centrist group Third Way. The memo was bluntly titled: "A Plan That Will Reelect Trump."

"It wasn't exactly a sneak attack," Third Way's longtime leader, Matt Bennett, countered in an interview. "We are enormously alarmed."

Comment

With the majority of American voters from both major political parties voicing they would rather not have Biden or Trump as their party’s endorsed candidate, if a third party comes along and finds a viable / qualified candidate, Democrat and Republican parties, Biden, and Trump have reason to be alarmed.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Climate change: campaign propaganda?

Why AOC and Biden may get the last laugh on oil and gas

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...1649b9db&ei=47

[Lee Chowaniec]

More Americans are struggling financially amid high inflation
By Ben Casselman - ASSOCIATED PRESS

Americans have jobs. They're getting raises. And none of it is enough to keep up with the rising cost of living.

The share of U.S. adults who said they were doing "at least OK financially" fell sharply last year, to 73% from78% in 2021, according to the latest Federal Reserve survey of Americans' financial well-being, released on Monday. Some 35% percent of Americans said they were worse off than a year earlier, up from 20% in 2021 and the highest share in the nine years the question has been asked. Just 19% of respondents said they were better off than a year earlier.

The erosion in financial health was broad based, cutting across racial and ethnic lines, educational categories, and income groups.
The data, from the Fed's Survey of Household Economics and Decision making, echoes other surveys showing that Americans feel glum about the economy and their own finances.

But it provides new details on how the economic crosscurrents of a strong job market and rising prices are affecting families.
The job market is by many measures the strongest in decades, with the unemployment rate hovering near a half-century low, job openings near record highs and workers feeling empowered to demand higher pay.

The benefits of that environment are clear in the Fed survey: Respondents said they were more likely to have demanded and received raises and promotions than in previous years, and less likely to have lost a job. About 33% of respondents said their incomes had risen in the past year, up from 30% in 2021.

But those gains were overwhelmed by rising prices. Only 49% of Americans said they spent less than they made each month, down from 55% in 2021.
Nearly two-thirds said they used less of a product or stopped using it entirely because of inflation. More than half said they saved less.


Comment

Real world economic data with an unresolved debt ceiling crisis and a pending recession.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Scammers: You can’t be too careful

We were involved in a similar scam, refused to provide information until we checked with the credit card company, and were informed the phone call was a scam.

A worthwhile read!

Scammers using text messages to drain bank accounts in new ploy

https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0mc2y...SvFwa&hl=en_US

Tips to remember: Do not share personal account information such as ATM PINs or passcodes. Keep in mind that the bank typically does not initiate phone calls, but if you want to ensure you are speaking with the bank, call the number on the back of your card. Lastly, avoid clicking on suspicious links in texts or emails.

JPMorgan Chase defended its commitment to combating fraud, saying in a statement: "Each year we invest hundreds of millions of dollars in authentication, risk models, technology and associate, client education to make it harder for scammers to trick customers."

David Weber, a certified fraud examiner and forensic accounting professor, believes that Chase Bank bears responsibility for failing Moss and neglecting to implement stronger security measures.

"Anyway you look at it, they failed. They failed her," Weber said. "The bank could have required her to come in and sign the wire form in person. They left everything for her to be at risk, and now they're saying they bear no responsibility."

[Lee Chowaniec]

Stupid is as stupid does!

Something very strange seems to have come over this country. Every day of the week we’re confronted with fresh evidence that the people who govern us are cataclysmically incompetent. And yet, at the same time, we clamor to give these risible duds even more control over our lives than they already have.

Control like:

• Policies that put migrants before American citizens

• God gave children to parents. With less than three weeks left in this legislative session in Albany, sixteen New York Democrat lawmakers are working hard to take away the right of a parent to know their child’s full medical history. A tweet on Friday made the rounds on Twitter with pictures of all sixteen Democrat lawmakers who voted to strip parents of their rights to know what is injected into their children. All eight Republicans, along with two Democrats, voted against A276b. Medical decisions should be made by parents, instead of behind our backs.


• The House GOP is hoping to remove new mortgage rule benefitting those with lower credit scores. The bill, titled the Middle-Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023, would "cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages."

Originally introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson, R-OH, an outspoken critic of the rule, he declared: "It really is just a socialist redistribution of wealth. It is that simple. It's an equity play by the administration. Why would you punish people by making it more expensive for people that have been most responsible? On the credit score piece, it's not even clear that it only helps people who are poor. I mean, there are wealthy people who don't manage their credit well," Davidson pointed out.

Surprisingly, the Biden administration's idea to increase mortgage fees for people with good credit scores in order to help those with poorer credit scores can count on a surprising level of support among Americans, as shown by a recent Newsweek poll. 47 percent of respondents supported the proposal to raise mortgage fees for those with good credit scores to help lower fees for those with poorer credit scores. On the other hand, 26 percent of respondents opposed the move.

• Biden wants a new ‘economic world order.’ It’s never looked more disordered.

Building a new world economy is proving more difficult than eulogizing the old one. While the pro-globalization consensus has shown cracks for years — from the financial crisis to the election of former President Donald Trump — Biden’s team has struggled to outline how it will shape new rules and institutions to replace those that governed the world for the last half-century.

Biden’s brain trust has yet to settle on a vision for how the next era of global economics will be constructed. Their initial ideas are abstract at best.

• In the midst of all this hullabaloo, a significant majority of Americans say they believe President Biden's mental fitness is a real concern they have about his ability to be president, according to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour /Marist poll . Respondents said so by a 62%-to-36% margin. Biden’s approval rating has slipped to the low 30’s, and a majority of Americans declare he should not be running for re-election.

[Lee Chowaniec]

If migrants are bussed to Erie County

An excellent report by the Buffalo News today regarding possible impacts to Erie County and its residents should New York City bus asylum-seekers elsewhere.

If busloads of asylum-seekers are coming to Erie County to be sheltered in hotels, dorms or other facilities, the looming question is: Who is covering the costs of their stay?

More specifically, what financial burden will Erie County – or any county in a similar position – have to bear because of actions taken by New York City to send asylum-seekers to other parts of the state for housing?

Conflicting information has been presented to the community, often through a political lens, and specifics have been hard to come by. Part of the reason is because some questions – like how many asylum-seekers are coming here – have yet to be answered.

Q: Who is paying for asylum seekers to live here?

A: The short answer is: mostly New York City, which is covering the transportation and housing costs for migrants bused upstate. That figure includes the types of costs typically associated with any shelter, like food and clothing. It should also include the costs of health care or other social services benefits.

New York State is often mentioned as also sharing the costs because Gov. Kathy Hochul allocated $1 billion to help relieve the asylum-seeker crisis. That included giving $700 million to New York City in the current budget to help the city cover its shelter costs. That money is being used by New York City to help fund all its sheltering costs for migrants, wherever they are housed. The state is also contributing money to help the city cover health care and social services costs for these individuals.

Q: Why is New York City responsible for paying for asylum-seekers being sent to upstate counties?

A: Because New York City is the only major city in the country that is legally required to provide a place to live for anyone who shows up and requests it. The right-to-shelter law has been in place for three decades, but that law is being tested to its limits now that tens of thousands of asylum-seekers have been bused to the city from states along the southern border since last year.

Q: If New York City is picking up the costs for everything, why is there such an uproar?

A: Many reasons.

First, ever since New York City announced its plans to house asylum-seekers in counties outside its own, communication between the city and other counties hasn't been great. Some county executives have publicly expressed anger and frustration that proper coordination and consideration wasn't extended to them prior to the city moving forward with its own direct deals with private hotels.

Second, there's a lack of faith that New York City will follow through on its commitments and financial obligations, leaving counties holding the financial bag. There's also skepticism that support from New York State will be unwavering, despite the governor's assurances and financial commitments for the current budget year.

Third, even if the financial costs associated with the migrants were picked up by New York City, some counties remain concerned about the impact on local health care providers and Social Services personnel and resources. Some health care and social services benefits should be provided at the shelter sites, but that doesn't guarantee counties will assume none of that burden.

Q: How long will the asylum-seekers be here, and is New York City on the hook to pick up their costs for as long as they remain?

A: That question is very difficult to answer without a crystal ball. Because of a giant backlog of cases, it can take many years for an asylum case to be resolved. County leaders are naturally skeptical that New York City will foot the bill to shelter people here for that long.

Under the right-to-shelter law, New York is required to pay for the sheltering of asylum-seekers indefinitely. However, county leaders have heard that those financial benefits will not continue if an asylum-seeker chooses to leave the shelter. In addition, Adams has been talking about wanting to alter, and effectively weaken, the right-to-shelter law, which could restrict the city's financial obligations to other counties down the road.

Q: Doesn't New York City have to reach some formal agreement with the counties to pay for the sheltering of incoming migrants?

A: No. New York City is contracting directly with hotel and transportation providers and other private businesses to provide services for asylum-seekers in whatever county the migrants are sent to. The city doesn't have to get county permission for anything – which is why some counties are issuing states of emergency to try and require businesses to get county permission before accepting any migrants.

Even larger, Democratic-led upstate counties, including Monroe, Onondaga and Albany counties, have issued emergency orders even though they have also expressed more openness to receiving asylum-seekers. Some of those orders don't forbid migrants from coming but still demand that private businesses seek permission from the county administration before contracting with New York City to receive asylum-seekers.

Q: Is that the only reason why counties are declaring states of emergency?

A: Different counties have different political and practical reasons for declaring states of emergency. Some have enacted a state of emergency to try and prevent any asylum-seekers from being sheltered in their counties, citing expectations and concerns about the potential burdens migrants could pose on limited county services.

County executives and legislators, who are up for re-election, may also feel political pressure to take a stand against what they feel is a federal immigration problem being unfairly pushed onto counties.

Q: Why hasn't Erie County followed suit in declaring a state of emergency?

Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said he considers it "illegal and immoral" to issue a state of emergency that attempts to ban migrants from coming into the county. He's been adamant that attempts to keep asylum-seekers out of Erie County go against American values and against the values of Erie County, which has had a long and successful track record as a refugee resettlement hub.

He also said he doesn't believe any type of emergency order that attempts to restrict private businesses from contracting with New York City is legally enforceable.

The Democratic-led Erie County Legislature similarly has not entertained a call by Republican legislators to issue a state of emergency.

Comment

Strong stance by County Executive Mark Poloncarz during an election year where 66% of Americans declare struggling / living paycheck-to-paycheck. Should the county bear any future program costs, where our own citizens are homeless, suffering mental issues, and experiencing difficulty in having proper medical coverage, Mr. Poloncarz could experience blowback.

[gorja]

If migrants are bussed to Erie County

An excellent report by the Buffalo News today regarding possible impacts to Erie County and its residents should New York City bus asylum-seekers elsewhere.

If busloads of asylum-seekers are coming to Erie County to be sheltered in hotels, dorms or other facilities, the looming question is: Who is covering the costs of their stay?

More specifically, what financial burden will Erie County – or any county in a similar position – have to bear because of actions taken by New York City to send asylum-seekers to other parts of the state for housing?

Conflicting information has been presented to the community, often through a political lens, and specifics have been hard to come by. Part of the reason is because some questions – like how many asylum-seekers are coming here – have yet to be answered.

Q: Who is paying for asylum seekers to live here?

A: The short answer is: mostly New York City, which is covering the transportation and housing costs for migrants bused upstate. That figure includes the types of costs typically associated with any shelter, like food and clothing. It should also include the costs of health care or other social services benefits.

New York State is often mentioned as also sharing the costs because Gov. Kathy Hochul allocated $1 billion to help relieve the asylum-seeker crisis. That included giving $700 million to New York City in the current budget to help the city cover its shelter costs. That money is being used by New York City to help fund all its sheltering costs for migrants, wherever they are housed. The state is also contributing money to help the city cover health care and social services costs for these individuals.

Q: Why is New York City responsible for paying for asylum-seekers being sent to upstate counties?

A: Because New York City is the only major city in the country that is legally required to provide a place to live for anyone who shows up and requests it. The right-to-shelter law has been in place for three decades, but that law is being tested to its limits now that tens of thousands of asylum-seekers have been bused to the city from states along the southern border since last year.

Q: If New York City is picking up the costs for everything, why is there such an uproar?

A: Many reasons.

First, ever since New York City announced its plans to house asylum-seekers in counties outside its own, communication between the city and other counties hasn't been great. Some county executives have publicly expressed anger and frustration that proper coordination and consideration wasn't extended to them prior to the city moving forward with its own direct deals with private hotels.

Second, there's a lack of faith that New York City will follow through on its commitments and financial obligations, leaving counties holding the financial bag. There's also skepticism that support from New York State will be unwavering, despite the governor's assurances and financial commitments for the current budget year.

Third, even if the financial costs associated with the migrants were picked up by New York City, some counties remain concerned about the impact on local health care providers and Social Services personnel and resources. Some health care and social services benefits should be provided at the shelter sites, but that doesn't guarantee counties will assume none of that burden.

Q: How long will the asylum-seekers be here, and is New York City on the hook to pick up their costs for as long as they remain?

A: That question is very difficult to answer without a crystal ball. Because of a giant backlog of cases, it can take many years for an asylum case to be resolved. County leaders are naturally skeptical that New York City will foot the bill to shelter people here for that long.

Under the right-to-shelter law, New York is required to pay for the sheltering of asylum-seekers indefinitely. However, county leaders have heard that those financial benefits will not continue if an asylum-seeker chooses to leave the shelter. In addition, Adams has been talking about wanting to alter, and effectively weaken, the right-to-shelter law, which could restrict the city's financial obligations to other counties down the road.

Q: Doesn't New York City have to reach some formal agreement with the counties to pay for the sheltering of incoming migrants?

A: No. New York City is contracting directly with hotel and transportation providers and other private businesses to provide services for asylum-seekers in whatever county the migrants are sent to. The city doesn't have to get county permission for anything – which is why some counties are issuing states of emergency to try and require businesses to get county permission before accepting any migrants.

Even larger, Democratic-led upstate counties, including Monroe, Onondaga and Albany counties, have issued emergency orders even though they have also expressed more openness to receiving asylum-seekers. Some of those orders don't forbid migrants from coming but still demand that private businesses seek permission from the county administration before contracting with New York City to receive asylum-seekers.

Q: Is that the only reason why counties are declaring states of emergency?

A: Different counties have different political and practical reasons for declaring states of emergency. Some have enacted a state of emergency to try and prevent any asylum-seekers from being sheltered in their counties, citing expectations and concerns about the potential burdens migrants could pose on limited county services.

County executives and legislators, who are up for re-election, may also feel political pressure to take a stand against what they feel is a federal immigration problem being unfairly pushed onto counties.

Q: Why hasn't Erie County followed suit in declaring a state of emergency?

Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said he considers it "illegal and immoral" to issue a state of emergency that attempts to ban migrants from coming into the county. He's been adamant that attempts to keep asylum-seekers out of Erie County go against American values and against the values of Erie County, which has had a long and successful track record as a refugee resettlement hub.

He also said he doesn't believe any type of emergency order that attempts to restrict private businesses from contracting with New York City is legally enforceable.

The Democratic-led Erie County Legislature similarly has not entertained a call by Republican legislators to issue a state of emergency.

Comment

Strong stance by County Executive Mark Poloncarz during an election year where 66% of Americans declare struggling / living paycheck-to-paycheck. Should the county bear any future program costs, where our own citizens are homeless, suffering mental issues, and experiencing difficulty in having proper medical coverage, Mr. Poloncarz could experience blowback.

In my humble opinion, I believe this latest decision of Poloncarz should put the last nail in his political coffin

[Lee Chowaniec]

VFW Organization seeking protest support

Sad times!

On June 2nd, 2023, Hamburg Town Supervisor Randy Hoak held a ceremony at the Hamburg, NY Town Hall during which he removed the long-established POW-MIA flag and replaced it with the Pride rainbow flag. He was confronted while doing this by a Past Commander of Hamburg VFW Post 1419. Hoak was told that the POW-MIA flag was flown as a nationwide observance of our veterans and their sacrifices, and that it was not proper to remove it.

Hoak became argumentative and confrontational, and engaged in a dispute with our Past Commander. Hoak then demanded that this combat veteran be arrested and summoned the Hamburg Police to arrest and charge him with Harassment under the NYS Penal Law. This 72-year-old combat veteran of the Vietnam War-- who has a lifetime clean record--- was charged with a criminal offense for objecting to removal of the flag.

We, as a VFW organization, are here to support, memorialize, and honor our veterans. We are here to support the Constitutional rights of ALL citizens. We harbor no hatred or prejudice against anyone for race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. We do not object to any rainbow flag being flown on Town property, but we strongly object to the disrespect of the POW-MIA flag by being lowered and removed by Supervisor Hoak, along with his attitude and actions during and after this act.

Due to the outrageous behavior of Supervisor Randy Hoak, members of our VFW Post are organizing a protest of the actions of Hoak at Hamburg Town Hall on Saturday June 10th at 10:00 am. We will exercise our 1st Amendment right to assemble peaceably for redress of our grievances--- the right for which our American armed forces, including members of our VFW Post, fought for and in honor of the many other members of the Armed Forces who died. We welcome all who back us to bring their American flags and POW-MIA flags to show support for our Past Commander and combat veteran who was arrested at the behest of Supervisor Hoak.

We demand that all charges against our member be dismissed and expunged from his record and that Supervisor Hoak issue an apology to this man and all veterans for his actions. We demand that the POW-MIA flag be replaced under the American flag in its rightful place of honor.

Please share this with other VFW and American Legion organizations and all patriotic Americans who support their veterans and invite them to come to Hamburg Town Hall on Saturday June 10th at 10:30 am. We will hold a peaceful gathering under the First Amendment to air our grievances and correct this wrong.

Thank you.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Democrats rejoice: Trump indicted on 37 counts. Biden on the way to finishing his legacy.

Mainstream media crow about all his accomplishments. Others not so much!

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Joe Biden, The Habitual Racialist Demagogue

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/18/v...ist-demagogue/

Biden’s low popularity is no mystery.

He inherited energy independence, affordable gas prices, historically low interest rates, low inflation, calm overseas, a low crime rate, and a largely closed border with legal-only immigration.

And then Biden destroyed that inheritance.

He has begged illiberal foreign governments to pump oil he refuses to drill domestically for.

He spiked inflation at the highest rate in over 40 years.

Home interest rates have skyrocketed from less than 3% to 7%.

He nearly doubled the price of gasoline.

His hare-brained retreat from Afghanistan marked the greatest humiliation of the American military in the last half-century.

Kabul is now selling billions of dollars’ worth of abandoned American equipment to terrorists and anti-American regimes.

After that fiasco, Biden foolhardily played down a possible “minor” Russia invasion of Ukraine. He implored Russia to exempt some American institutions from its cyber-attack target list.

No wonder an empowered Russian President Vladimir Putin went into Ukraine.

Biden’s family is corrupt from top to bottom.

Its influence peddling schemes increasingly are targets of congressional investigations. Biden himself is explicitly mentioned by his son Hunter as the recipient of a 10% commission on monies the family syndicate leveraged from foreign interests.

Biden promised “unity.” Instead, he habitually smears half the country as “semi-fascists” and “ultra-MAGA” extremists.

Biden is cognitively challenged and often incoherent. And he is now losing support in the polls from African Americans, once his most loyal constituency. In response, Biden does what he has always done for some 40 years: mouth wild racist demagoguery.

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding over a border Biden deliberately destroyed. Millions of incoming poor will vie for limited federal and state support with Americans who are in need. Since Biden was elected, there have been 7 million illegal entries.

Some 100,000 Americans now die each year from Mexican-produced fentanyl and other opioids shipped across a wide-open border. Biden did not mention that nearly 10,000 African Americans are murdered each year, over 90% of them killed by other African Americans. Biden first should heal his own racism before he fabricates it in others.

Continued…

[Lee Chowaniec]

Democrats Unveil Massive New Amnesty Bill for 75% Of Illegal Aliens
The Daily Caller

Rewarding illegal immigration by granting mass amnesty has traditionally been a tough sell with the American public. So, the marketing strategy for amnesty advocates is to sell the American people on the idea that millions of illegal aliens are actually doing us a favor by being here, and that granting them legal permanent residence is the least we can do to thank them.

New legislation in Congress aims to fulfill our “debt” to illegal aliens who are defined as essential to our economy. “Every day, over five million essential workers without permanent legal status kept Americans healthy, fed, and safe during the COVID pandemic—all while risking their own health and the health of their families,” declared Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who is sponsoring the Citizenship for Essential Workers Act.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another sponsor of the bill, was even more explicit in defining the amnesty measure as the fulfillment of an obligation. “The Citizenship for Essential Workers Act recognizes all that essential workers have given and will create a fair and accessible pathway to citizenship,” she said.

Given the rhetoric employed by the bill’s sponsors and advocates, one might get the impression that the people who stand to benefit from this “pathway to citizenship” are rare heroes who rendered extraordinary services at a time of great national need.

The House version of the Citizenship for Essential Workers Act, H.R. 3043, lists 21 different categories (not including numerous subcategories) of essential workers who should be rewarded with green cards and eventual citizenship. We’re not just talking about an ER doctor who might have saved the lives of COVID victims in respiratory failure. Under this bill, essential workers, to name just a few, include the Grubhub guy who delivered take-out meals; commercial and residential landscapers; house cleaners; warehouse workers; janitors; and “laundromat and dry-cleaning operators.” (Where would we have been without the illegal workers who fluffed and folded through the COVID crisis?) It’s even harder to imagine what “nonessential” services the 25 percent of illegal workers not covered under this amnesty were performing.

Even more indicative of the fact that the legislation is just a transparently repackaged amnesty for just about everyone who is here illegally is that even people who did not perform “essential” work or did so for just a very brief period while the public health emergency was in effect, are eligible to benefit.

Illegal alien workers who lost their jobs in the designated sectors of the labor market due to COVID (much like a lot of American workers did) would still qualify for amnesty under the bill. So too would illegal aliens who quit their jobs in these industries during the pandemic because they feared for their own health and safety.

Every job in America is essential to someone – to the workers who get paid to do them, the business owners who employ them, and the customers and clients who avail themselves of the products and services provided. And while illegal aliens performed jobs in the 21 categories defined as “essential,” so too did countless millions of Americans with no expectation that doing so entitled them to anything more than the agreed upon compensation for their labor.

Illegal immigration is not an act of altruism and does not need to be rewarded as such. Every person who violates our immigration laws does so because it serves a personal interest, not out of a burning desire to provide a service – essential or otherwise – to the American people. The American public has consistently opposed mass illegal alien amnesties because they reject the idea of rewarding lawbreaking in principle. Labeling three-quarters of the people working in this country illegally as “essential” and selling amnesty as a debt that we owe to them is unlikely to change any minds and would only encourage more illegal immigrants to come.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Get Trump! Biden, maybe not!

“No one is above the law,” says Special Counsel Jack Smith as he hands out a 37-count indictment against former president Donald Trump in classified document investigation. “There is "one set of laws" in the country and they "apply to everyone."

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in DOJ's case

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-d...dence-doj-case

[Lee Chowaniec]

A double hater looking for a third-party choice.

New York Times columnist David Brooks reported today that now is not the time for a third presidential candidate. Writing all along that: “There's clearly an opening for a third option”, he writes, but not now. “Voters are repelled by the thought of a Joe Biden-Donald Trump rematch. Large majorities don't want either man to run. The double-haters.”

Yep, that’s me. I equally detest Trump and Biden and will not be voting for either should they be their party’s nominee. It is disturbing to see Brooks opine: In my view, our sole focus should be to defeat Trump. This is not the time to be running risky experiments, the outcomes of which none of us can foresee.

To openly attempt to influence independent-minded voters to favor one inept, extreme, malevolent being over another is disconcerting. Biden’s policies and mandates have not been a threat to our democracy and freedoms? Seriosly?

This is not the time for a third presidential candidate
David Brooks – New York Times

https://dnyuz.com/2023/06/08/this-is...ial-candidate/

Democrats need moderates more than Republicans do. Because there are more conservatives than progressives in America, Democrats need to get 60% of the self-identified moderate votes to win nationally, they say, while Republicans need to get only 40%. You suck those voters away to a third party and you've just handed the keys to the Oval Office to Trump.

Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the No Labels effort. I've longed for a party that would revive the moderate strain in American politics exemplified by Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, John McCain and contemporaries like Michael Bloomberg.

If the 2024 election was Bernie Sanders versus Ron DeSantis, I'd support the No Labels effort 1,000%.

Donald Trump changes the equation. A second Trump presidency represents an unprecedented threat to our democracy. In my view, our sole focus should be to defeat Trump. This is not the time to be running risky experiments, the outcomes of which none of us can foresee.

Furthermore, I'm persuaded that a third candidate would indeed hurt Biden more. Trump voters are solidly behind him, while Biden voters are wobbly. Then there's the group of voters called the "double-haters." They dislike both candidates.