A leading university. God help us as a nation!

When the parents of a California youth see the letter admitting their son or daughter to the University of California at Berkeley they swell with pride. Instead they should burn the letter to ash lest their offspring be exposed to the retrogressive opinions of progressive/statist/altruist thinking (and you should take the word “thinking” with a healthy grain of salt). Usually I don’t get angry at left-wing nonsense, but this is vile, nasty, horrid, abominable, atrocious, odious, disgusting loathsome… well, you get the point.

And thanks (I think) to PCoop for sending this to me. I’d have preferred not to see the implications of this video.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Equality

Equality is a state of being equal: rights, treatment, quantity, or value equal to all others in a specific group. Equality in all things is not achievable or, in many instances, desirable. Do Americans demand equality under the law? Yes. Do Americans demand that everyone have the same IQ? No. These truths are self evident. Jefferson did not mean that “all men were arithmetically equal” when he wrote his opening thoughts to the Declaration of Independence.

One of the most effective ways the Democrat Party pits one American against another is the issue of income inequality. This is a perfect wedge issue for progressive/statist/ altruists. Why is that, ask you? Because, answer I, there is no answer to the question “what is income equality?” No one expects the janitor and the CEO to have equal pay. But one can always make a wedge issue about the gap between these two individuals. Further, there are more janitors than CEOs. Therefore, if one is “altruistically” for the janitor and against the CEO, more votes can be garnered.

A common narrative among progressive/statist/altruists is the old saw, “the rich get richer while the poor become poorer.” But, the Democrat Party has created a number of fictions surrounding the inequality debate.

[Source: Michael D. Tanner, Inequality Myths, Cato Institute]

Myth 1: Inequality has never been worse.

  • The distribution of wealth in the U.S. has been relatively stable over the last several decades. In 1965, the top one percent of Americans held 34.4 percent of the country’s wealth; in 2010, that figure was at 35.4 percent.
  • Moreover, many statistics purporting to show inequality do not take into account welfare transfer payments, which have a serious impact on net income. Taking those into account, a Brookings Institution study reveals that income inequality actually decreased from 2000 to 2010.

Myth 2: The rich inherit their money.

  • Actually, 80 percent of American millionaires are the first in their families to become millionaires.
  • For the richest one percent of Americans, only 15 percent of their wealth is from an inheritance. Rather, wage income is responsible for the majority of wealthy Americans’ net worth.

Myth 3: The rich stay rich, while the poor remain poor.

  • While some families are wealthy for generations, research indicates that up to 70 percent of a successful entrepreneur’s wealth is lost by the end of the second generation in the family.
  • Moreover, close to 56 percent of Americans in the top income quintile will drop out of it within two decades, while half of Americans who begin in the bottom quintile move up to a higher quintile within just one decade.

Myth 4: An increase in inequality means an increase in poverty.

  • There is very little correlation between poverty rates and inequality. The economy is not a fixed pie, and a gain by one individual does not mean that another incurs losses.
  • While the link between inequality and poverty is tenuous, Tanner does note the link that exists between a person’s choices and resulting poverty. For example, high-school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely to end up in poverty than those with a high-school education. Similarly, less than 3 percent of full-time workers live in poverty.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Thoughts on immigration

L’etat, c’est moi (I am the State).

Louis XIV, King of France

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Douglas Adams

The presidency has made every man who occupied it, no matter how small, bigger than he was; and no matter how big, not big enough for its demands.

Lyndon B. Johnson

The United States brags about its political system, but the President says one thing during the election, something else when he takes office, something else at midterm and something else when he leaves.

Deng Xiaoping (Did we really need a Chinese Communist to tell us this nugget? – RF)

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Theodore Roosevelt 

A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. 

Ronald Reagan

Recognize yourself in he and she who are not like you and me.

Carlos Fuentes

AMNESTY, n. The state’s magnanimity to those offenders whom it would be too expensive to punish.

Ambrose Bierce

The happy and powerful do not go into exile, and there are no surer guarantees of equality among men than poverty and misfortune.

Alexis de Tocqueville

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.

Pat Paulsen

One of the critical issues that we have to confront is illegal immigration, because this is a multi-headed Hydra that affects our economy, our health care, our education systems, our national security, and also our local criminality.

Allen West

I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy that destroys families that have been here a quarter century.

Newt Gingrich

Our President has pontificated on immigration. I am certain I do not need to inform my readers of the details. However, I do have some thoughts on the matter. According to our President law-breakers are good. The lawful are selfish. Is it selfish to want secure borders? Is it selfish to demand the rule of law? The Democrat Party has been playing one group against the other for decades. Rich against poor; legal immigrants against illegal immigrants; the insured against the uninsured; taxpayers against welfare recipients; unions against everyone else. When your mantra is to play one group against the other, soon everyone is against someone. That is not the way to lead. “Wedge issues” divide a nation, not unify it.

I must admit to some ambivalence when it comes to immigration. If you read the quotes above you will likely agree that it is a thorny issue. I favor legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. I believe in secure borders. I think US immigration policy is a mess and “immigration reform” is needed. I realize that we will never load 11 million people on buses and ship them back to whatever country they came from. Even the Nazis couldn’t manage that. I favor allowing those people some reasonable way to be “non-illegal” as it were, but do not have a clue as to what that way should be.

Every soul living within the borders of this great nation is an immigrant. Even Native Americans emigrated from northeastern Asia over land and ice bridges. As well, “Native” Americans didn’t all come from the same “tribe” or come at the same time. And they didn’t like “new” immigrants, often attacking them in vicious combat. So, if a country entirely composed of immigrants can’t come to grips with immigration, who can?

The immigration debate gives new meaning to the old quote from Otto Von Bismarck, “Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.” It would be good for our country to have a workable and logical immigration policy. Although both liberals and conservatives profess a deep and abiding desire to find solutions, I am saddened that much of the effort to derail the process is coming from Republican conservatives. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Senator Marco Rubio each have been vilified by the hard right when they proposed any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Is it any wonder that many Americans buy the Obama argument that Republicans are intransigent?

The Heritage Foundation has been saying that these immigrants will add a huge burden to our welfare rolls. The Cato Institute and many other reputable analysts disagree. [Source: Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens, by Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen] It turns out that “low-income immigrants use public benefits like Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) at a lower rate than low-income native-born citizens.

The data show that more than one-quarter of native citizens and naturalized citizens in poverty receive Medicaid, but only about one in five non-citizens do so. About two-thirds of low-income citizen children receive health insurance through Medicaid or CHIP, while about half of non-citizen children do so. Low-income non-citizen immigrants are the least likely to receive Medicaid or CHIP. Benefit use by poor immigrants was low even before the 1996 welfare reform, suggesting that eligibility factors are not the only reason for low levels of benefit use by non-citizen immigrants.

My friends, this is a complex issue. Its solution or failure cannot rest on a single word – “amnesty.” Like it or not – and I don’t – there must be a path to “citizenship/legal status/non-illegal status” – choose one from column A and one from column B.

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

What can versus what should Republicans do about ObamaCare?

I don’t like ObamaCare and it appears the majority of Americans agree with me. Support for ObamaCare continues to decline. There has never been a time since it’s passage that a majority of Americans approved of ObamaCare. The most recent Gallop Poll shows the law hitting a new low in approval, and a new high in disapproval. Just 37 percent approve of the Affordable Care Act. Hey, Mr. Obama. That sucks and is virtually unheard of for a “give-away” government program!

However, getting rid of gigantic government bureaucracies is not a trivial pursuit. We can wish it had never been enacted, but it was enacted. Although fewer Americans have signed up than predicted by the Obama administration (just saying the phrase “Obama administration” is an oxymoron, but I digress) millions have. Thus, the notion of “repeal” has essentially been taken off the table. Outright repeal throws millions out of the insurance pool. That will leave a sour taste in the mouths of the American public, even those that support ObamaCare’s dissolution. Therefore, Republicans are necessarily going to need to “repeal and REPLACE.” After all, that is concept on which all those new Republican senators ran. So, in essence, all Americans and thus, necessarily, all Republicans are stuck with certain elements of the ObamaCare debacle.

Sadly, when we look at the recent mutterings of the Republican leadership, we see that they have NO PLAN! They are all over the map. Therefore, the overarching issue is “the plan.” Frankly, I don’t have one either. Republicans need to be wary that their “changes” are simply codified under the appellation “Obamacare-lite,” a name that is already circulating in the liberal media. However, John C. Goodman has offered up some suggestions that sound quite rational to me. Below are his 5 rules. See if you agree.

[Source: What should the GOP do about ObamaCare, by John C. Goodman]

Rule 1: No deviation from a simple vision. The Republican objective for the voting public should be: Keep your job; keep your health insurance; and keep your doctor. The most direct way to get rid of all the anti-job of ObamaCare is to repeal the employer mandate. The most direct way to insure that people can keep insurance they like is to repeal the individual mandate. And the most direct way of insuring people can keep their doctor is to deregulate and denationalize the health insurance exchanges.

Rule 2: No backsliding. Negotiators rarely get everything they want. And whatever they get, Republican negotiators will be vulnerable to the charge that they are “helping ObamaCare work better.” So here is the answer to that. Anything that leads to more job losses, more loss of insurance people want and more loss of doctors is off the table before anyone even enters the negotiating room. That is the line Republicans must not cross. Making health reform “work better” is okay so long as it moves us in the direction of the vision in Rule 1.

Rule 3: No separate deals for special interests. The reason ObamaCare looks like a Rube Goldberg contraption is because it is almost purely the product of special interest bargaining. There are no principles like “justice or “fairness” that guide its content. Now that the impure deed has been done, however, we find that every single interest group wants to renege on its share of the burden.

Should we have a medical device tax? Probably not. Should labor union plans be taxed to subsidize health insurance for their non-union competitors? Absolutely not. Should hospitals have their charity care money restored? If we don’t we are going to be in serious trouble.

But remember why all those provisions are in the law. Special interests went behind closed doors and sold the rest of us out. Now they want to be relieved unilaterally from what they originally agreed to throw into the pot. That shouldn’t be allowed. They cooperated to give us mess that we are in, we need them now to cooperate to get us out of it.

So, nobody gets relief from ObamaCare without helping and supporting the overall effort to reform it.

Rule 4. No provisions that produce pain with no gain. It is tempting for Republicans to try to block the system in place that subsidizes health insurance companies that are participating in the exchanges. These are provisions that protect the insurance companies against unexpected losses for the next three years. Some of the subsidies come from redistribution among the insurers themselves. But there is also an (apparently unlimited) taxpayer liability. Do you know anyone who wants to pay taxes to subsidize insurance companies? I don’t.

The problem is, this very same system of transition was adopted for Medicate Part D drug program by a Republican administration. And when Republicans were doing it, other Republicans didn’t complain.

Rule 5. No taking of political advantage, no matter how tempting. Yes, I know. The other side deserves all the political backlash it is getting. Had Barack Obama endorsed John McCain’s health plan, we would have had a better reform, a more workable reform and a more progressive reform than we now have. But Democrats have already paid a heavy political price for that mistake. Voters elected Republicans this last time around because they want to move on.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Update on The Rugged Individualist

Yesterday’s post was my 800th contribution to the political blogosphere. I began just over 4 years ago (10/15/2010). There have been nearly 77,ooo views of my posts; not exactly the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report, but nonetheless, it is a statistic in which I take great pride. Even more dramatic from a personal perspective, people from 130 nations have found their way to my tiny website. The world-wide-web is a remarkable tool indeed.

I originally decided to write a blog at the suggestion of my son. I had developed an interest in politics during the run-up to the 2010 election. It is not that I ignored politics previously. There has hardly been an election in which I did not vote over the past 49 years. What changed?

I felt very strongly that our country was headed in the wrong direction. By that I mean it has been heading away from its founding principles. I haven’t changed my mind. This has been happening for a long time but the acceleration in the wrong direction under Barack Obama has been breathtaking. I believe that he is not only an incompetent leader, but a danger to our Republic. His use of presidential power is damaging the fabric of our constitution. He promised to be a uniter – “not red states or blue states, but the United States.” Instead he is the most divisive President in my recollection.

The year 2010 was the first time in my adult life that I attended a political rally. I was late to the game, but I have decided to play and I believe I have something to say. Once I began to play, I was determined not to quit. As Admiral Yamamoto declared following his country’s attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant.” In this instance, however,  Obama has awakened a Lilliputian. But watch out! Gulliver learned that Lilliputians can bring you down!

While I am proud that so many have read what I have written, it matters little to me whether anyone ever reads another word that I will write in the future. The need within me to write about my perceptions is profound. An argument needs to be made. Every individual needs to speak out, if only to say “I disagree.”

Thank you to my loyal readers. I greatly appreciate your comments – even when you disagree.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 6 Comments

How is it that liberals always seem to take the “moral high ground?”

Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.

William F. Buckley

Moral turpitude: an act of vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general…

From: Chadwick v State Bar

I usually do not publish email blasts or internet “trash talk.” I am also fully aware that moral turpitude is not unique to one political party or political philosophy. (Also, I am aware that this is not current news – although I was unaware of this conflagration of events.) What does gall me, and the reason for posting this, is the “holier-than-thou” attitude of liberals. One does not need to defend “altruism” or “kindness” with facts. When the alternative opinion is stated and backed with facts, the liberals simply opine that the counter argument is “mean-spirited,” “uncharitable,” or lacking in “social consciousness.” What follows is well-documented and, frankly, unbelievable.

Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to his Rainbow Coalition’s payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton’s last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

Is this the moral high ground? An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate… won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate… then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate!

The job he was appointed to was… youth counselor!

CONFIRMED BY:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

And thanks to PCoop for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The “rich” should pay their fair share? Are we there yet?

“… but what people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes.”

Barack Obama, 44th President, 2007

“All I’m saying is that those who have done well… should pay their fair share in taxes.”

Barack Obama, 44th President, 2011

“Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like… Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? Because we can’t afford to do both.” 

Barack Obama, 44th President, 2012

President Obama got his tax hikes on the rich. So, has he achieved the “fairness” he demanded. You decide.

[Source: New CBO study shows that ‘the rich’ don’t just pay their ‘fair share,’ they pay almost everybody’s share, by Mark J. Perry]

When many pundits said that the lower 50% of Americans didn’t pay taxes the progressive /statists said that was wrong. It was true that they paid little income tax but they paid payroll taxes – social security and medicare. OK. we need to consider those.

Below is a chart that will show you the tax distribution among American taxpayers by quintile.

Screen Shot 2014-11-16 at 8.36.24 PM

As you look at the chart you need some definitions. What, ask you, is “market income?” Well, answer I, “market income” is a comprehensive measure that includes labor income, business income, and income from capital gains – so pretty much all income at varying quintiles. But what about that income tax/payroll tax thing on which progressive/statist /altruists focus, ask you? Well, answer I, line 4 – federal taxes paid – includes income, payroll, corporate, and excise taxes. So it doesn’t calculate every tax, but then again, there are so damn many its probably not possible. But it definitely has the payroll tax.

But what’s up with the line entitled “government transfers.” As you might suspect, that is money given by the federal government to individual households. It includes things like payments and benefits from federal, state and local governments including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. So food stamps would mostly go to lower income earners and social security and medicare may go to even the highest earners. As the chart shows, even the highest quintile receives about $11,000 per year in transfers from the government.

It is lines 6 and 7 that we need to concentrate on now. Line 6 is the more important line. This is the “fairness” line. It shows that 60% of taxpayers actually get more from the government than they pay in taxes. Yes, that is correct. They pay negative taxes! This is easier to see in the graph below. Of some interest the second quintile actually comes out better than the the lowest quintile. What moron let that slip by? Oh, I guess we know the answer to that.

Screen Shot 2014-11-16 at 8.36.57 PM

So, I now ask you, Mr President, “Do the rich pay their fair share.” NO! They pay everyone’s share!

My friends, the federal government, our tax code, our entitlements are broken. Forget about asking whether or not the system is “fair.” Ask instead whether or not it is possible to restore sanity to our federal government.

And thanks to PWC for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Pro-growth versus Obamaism

You hear Republicans advocate pro-growth policies. What exactly are pro-growth policies? Well the definition is “favoring or advocating the commercial development or exploitation of land and other natural resources, especially with minimal government restriction and regulation.” It also means lower marginal tax rates and lower tax rates on investments. As you have seen over the past six years, the Obama administration is the antithesis of pro-growth policies. Further to this point and as I have written many times, the US cannot ignore its growing national debt. Eventually it will eat up enormous portions of our federal revenues.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal has said many times that “the reality is that the fastest way to raise revenue is with faster economic growth.” Progressive/statist/ altruists think pro-growth policies are “unfair” and “hurt the poor.” Are they right?

[Source: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, The Growth Imperative: How Slow Growth Threatens Our Future and the American Dream]

Let’s look at what happens to American citizens with an increase in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of just one-tenth of one percent. If the US economy can achieve growth of just one-tenth of one percentage point higher than CBO projections it would reduce American deficits by $300 billion over the next 10 years.

With an increase in GDP of 1%:

  • One percentage point in growth above CBO projections would reduce the United States’ debt by $3 trillion.

Yes, say you. But how about the average American? They need better jobs. They need their pay to increase. Indeed, answer I. If that is one’s goal then the solution is to free up the American economy with pro-growth policies.

  • Were the United States to grow at an annual rate of 3 percent, it would create 1.2 million more jobs and boost average incomes by $4,200. Were it to grow at 3.5 percent, average incomes would grow by $9,000.
  • Gains from faster economic growth accrue to Americans at all levels of the income spectrum.

What to do? What to do? And which pro-growth policies does the Rugged Individualist espouse? Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s suggests the following… sounds good to me.

  • Tax reform: The American tax code is complicated and full of perverse incentives. By simplifying the individual income tax, Congress could improve work people’s work incentives. Similarly, corporate tax reform would improve the atmosphere for business, encouraging American investment and creating jobs. (This could be done with a ‘revenue neutral’ regimen – RF)
  • Regulation reform: Federal regulations cost businesses billions — from January to July 2014, over $116 billion in compliance costs were imposed on businesses and individuals by the federal government. That’s 23 million hours of paperwork. With regulatory reform, employment would rise; according to Holtz-Eakin, $1 billion in new regulations are linked to a 3.6 percent decline in employment within an industry.
  • Energy reform: More domestic energy production and increased trade would boost the American economy. Holtz-Eakin encourages policymakers to repeal the ban on crude oil exports, and he encourages faster processing of permits for natural gas export facilities.

While each of these measures would have a salutary effect on US economic growth we will still be in a deep hole unless we reform entitlements. The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees’ 2014 report shows that Medicare and Social Security, the most popular government programs in the U.S., have reached nearly $49 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities (and that is the low end of the unfunded liability predictions which some peg as high as $128 trillion). The $49 trillion estimate equates to a liability of more than $150,000 for every person in the United States.

If you like the Social Security and Medicare Programs and if you want to help average and poor Americans do better, then the way forward is a pro-growth policy agenda.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Demographics and Democrats

The Democrat Party seems to be pinning its hopes for the future on Hispanic voters. That is why the President is planning a massive amnesty for illegal immigrants, an implication well understood by readers of this blog. Mr. Obama would literally open the southern border because of his belief that Hispanics will be a Democrat voting block in perpetuity. There is nothing altruistic about his plans. If statistics showed that Hispanics voted Republican more often than for Democrats he would build a 200-foot-high electrified fence along the entire 1969 miles of our border with Mexico, put crocodiles in the Rio Grande River and instruct ICE to begin massive deportations. He also erroneously thinks that this “amnesty” will be his “legacy” – a term rapidly turning to dust in his presidency. It may indeed be his “legacy.” However, it won’t be the legacy he thinks it will be.

Let us first assume that he is correct – Hispanics will be a solid voting block for the Democrat Party. Brit Hume of the Fox Network has argued that Hispanics are not the fastest growing voter demographic. Senior citizens will be the fastest growing demographic by 2020. Furthermore, seniors are the most consistent group to show up at the polls. Republicans won this demographic handily last week and in the last few election cycles.

Hume backed up this argument by saying Hispanics may be the fastest-growing ethnic group (another possibly somewhat incorrect statistic), but their size and percentage of the electorate is still dwarfed by the 55-and-over crowd. “It is senior citizens, not Hispanics, who are the fastest-growing demographic in this country,” Hume said. However, as I noted above, Hispanics may grow a bit faster for the next few years. Hume continued. “If the GOP continues to make gains (with seniors), it may more than offset any advantage Democrats have with this ethnic group.”

Census Bureau data supports Hume’s contention after 2020. Between 2020 and 2030 the senior population is estimated to grow by 30 percent while the Hispanic population would increase by only 26 percent. However, as you look at the data below it is the sheer number of seniors that are important. In this decade there are 16 million more seniors eligible to vote than Hispanics. Further, these estimates look only at population, not voter turnout. And here, seniors clearly go to the polls more than any other demographic. Hispanics voted 59.4% of the time while Americans 55 and older appear at polling booths more than 75% of the time. Hispanic voters made up just 8 percent of 2014 voters, according to the national exit poll.

(Note:  The numbers shown here are in thousands.)

Group 2010 2020 2030 Growth 2020-30
Hispanic 18+ 21,285 43,407 54,827 26.3%
65+ 37,745 55,969 72,774 30.0%

Furthermore, Hispanics aren’t a ‘Cheap Date’ for Democrats anymore. This last election showed an increase in Latino support for Republicans – 36 percent of Hispanic votes went Republican, up from 27 percent in 2012. In Texas, Governor-elect Greg Abbott won 44 percent of the state’s Hispanic vote, according to exit polls. Texas is heavily populated by Hispanics that are most interested in a fair immigration bill.

The Democrat Party wants to think this is a blip, not a trend line. I think the Democrats are wrong. While many Hispanics are currently receiving federal aid, every hispanic I have met is hardworking and trying to support themselves and their families, whether their family lives here or south of the border. We have all heard the stories of Hispanics living 18 people to a house. Most shudder at that thought, but I say that only dedicated rugged individualists would solve their housing problems in such a way. Also, Hispanics are mainly Christians and heavily Catholic. The Democrat Party assaults on these religious groups cannot have gone unnoticed by this deeply religious community.

Further, Asians, as an ethnic minority, are growing at least as fast percentage-wise as Hispanics. Their allegiance to the Democrat Party is not so ingrained.

Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed the Democrat vision of the Hispanic voting block. He told a Hispanic audience in Miami before the 2014 midterm election that, “This is your election…This will be the election, if the community stands up, where we start to say, ‘The outcome of every future election in America will be fundamentally impacted upon by the Hispanic community.’” Hmmm. The “foot-in-mouth” Democrat may actually have gotten it right for once! Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, Hispanics may be the thorn in the side of Democrat candidates as time moves forward.

Republicans need to address immigration in a unified and dignified way. It is true, they cannot trust our current President to abide by a newly minted immigration pact when he flagrantly treads on current laws surrounding immigration. Perhaps Republicans should show the Hispanic community the law they will pass unanimously in both Houses of Congress if the Hispanics help them to elect a Republican president in 2016.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Surprise, surprise.

It turns out that we were all wrong. President Obama can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time. He proved it in China. He didn’t just chew gum once by accident in the presence of President Xi (footnote). He did it several times much to the chagrin of the Chinese. Charles Krauthammer takes Mr. Obama to task on the Bill O’Reilly Show.

Roy Filly

Footnote: The President isn’t chewing Trident. He is chewing Nicorette Gum in his efforts to quit smoking. I applaud anyone who can quit smoking. It was quite possibly the hardest thing I ever did. Thirty years ago, Nicorette Gum was first introduced and was the key to my efforts (some 500 attempts) to finally quit smoking. I had to smuggle it in from Canada as it had not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But today there are patches. He should have elected the patch while on a major diplomatic foray to the world’s second largest economy and one that is very touchy about protocol.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments