ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Lorra of Pantherville	)

Slow national suicide by immigration.  We can save our country if we control our borders and end immigration until a more detailed verification of values and history can be made of those who wish to come here. 

I have no problem with people wanting to come here for a better life, but they must do it legally, no criminal records, assimilate, and become productive Americans or we will surely reap the same 'rewards' that the EU are now seeing by unenforced policies that are now in place under this administration.

After the massive wave of immigrants came to America in the early 1900's the government paused all legal immigration from 1928 until 1965 in order for the new arrivals to assimilate. We can do it again.

Schmutzli • 13 hours ago

With 90+ million American citizens un or under-employed, the precise number of immigrants we need to take in is zero. Other than violence, crime, expense loaded with waste, financial fraud, and voter fraud, they serve no useful purpose.

We also need to emigrate the illegals already here, along with all muslim non-citizens.

Look to Germany. We are only slightly behind them in frequency, and with each event the severity also will increase. The world is too dangerous to play games with uncontrolled immigration, despite what liars and taqiyya muslims like Rspect "assure" us.

July 26, 2016

It's not just illegal immigration that's the problem. It's immigration in general.

By Cliff Spectre

A lot of big government and big business supporters say we have to take in more immigrants for various reasons including the economic benefits they bring.  Let's look at immigration and jobs for the last few years and see what the numbers look like.

First, a nation-state has a sovereign right to allow in immigrants as it sees fit and for the purpose of benefiting the host country, not primarily for the benefit of the immigrants.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 1990, the immigrant population of the United States was 19.8 million or 7.9 percent of the population.  By 2014 it had risen to 42.4 million or 13.3 percent.  This chart from the Center for Immigration Studies illustrates the magnitude of the surge, with a historical comparison starting in 1900. 

Meanwhile, from 1990 to 2014, the U.S. economy created a little over 31 million new jobs per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

By extrapolating from the Migration Policy Institute's numbers, we see that from 1990 to 2014, U.S. population growth increased over 68 million people, split between over 45 million citizens and over 22 million immigrants.  Therefore, 31 million new jobs were produced for 68 million new residents.

In the United States today, there are over 90 million people out of the labor force, who have given up looking for jobs.

The United States has added more people than jobs in the last 25 years.  Part of the reason for that is the extremely high immigration numbers.  If the immigration numbers were reduced, it would provide more opportunity for people who already live in America to work and produce.

Why wouldn't immigration be reduced by the federal government so as to allow the people already here, preferably citizens, to fill the jobs?  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports higher immigration and politicians who support higher immigration.  That is presumably because many of the Chamber's influential members can make more money hiring immigrants who will work for less than Americans.  Disney, as an example, has been accused of this.

That may be partly why some Republicans support higher immigration.  For them, it's follow the money.  The Democratic Party likely supports increased immigration also because the majority of immigrants who become citizens will become Democrats.  For them, it's follow the power.  Notice the percentage comparison between 1980 and 2012 of party registration changes in Table 4 ofthis article.  Immigrants who become citizens overwhelmingly vote Democrat.   

Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment.  But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work.

Even if a new administration faithfully enforces border security, the number of immigrants coming in will need to be drastically reduced.  That is one obvious way to provide jobs for Americans who currently can't find work.  Our elected representatives should be made aware of these facts.

========================================================================

Lar of Galen...

My ancestors -- the ones not already here -- came to become Americans. Today people come primarily to get free stuff.  Just remember, the people breaking into your home to rob and kill you "are just seeking a better life", too.  I fully believe that the whole business of tolerating/encouraging illegals from the south and importation of Muslims from the Middle East is designed to de-Americanize the country.  These people have no knowledge of or interesting in the Constitution or our founding principles. BO wrote 2 books about how white people are responsible for all the evil in the world, and how America needs to be drug down to a Third World level to see what it feels like -- which would help create a "just" society ruled by a one-world government. 

==============================================================

July 27, 2016

Little Green Lies: Why Electric Cars Won’t Save the Environment

By Larry Alton

Things don’t look good for electric cars these days -- but did they ever? Tesla experienced a series of recalls, even before the recent crash in Florida that put the company’s autopilot system in the spotlight. Apparently, watching a Harry Potter movie and letting your car drive isn’t exactly a safe practice.

But the real problem with electric cars is actually the problem they’re marketed to solve: pollution. While the left insists that electric cars are the only way to protect the environment, they’re actually damaging the oil industry while shifting money to liberal interests.

Meanwhile, electric cars have proven to be a greater source of pollution than traditional vehicles.

Charges against Car Charging

One reason why the polluting effects of electric cars are obfuscated is because their proponents point to charging stations as a sustainable alternative to gasoline. What these electric car cheerleaders don’t explain, however, is where the electricity for charging these cars comes from. When the answer is coal, environmentalists no longer have a leg to stand on when they advocate for electric vehicles.

Sourcing energy from coal results in nearly four times the number of pollution deaths than gas due to the soot and smog involved in burning coal. While it’s nice that liberals can separate themselves from this source of pollution, since they don’t see it firsthand when driving electric vehicles, its naïve and hypocritical to proclaim they’re taking care of the environment with these cars.

Furthermore, though the Obama administration rewards drivers of electric cars, the left is really playing both sides of the fence. Though many of these car charging systems rely on coal, Obama’s administration froze all coal mining on federal land earlier this year. Couple that with his Clean Power Plan and thousands of mining jobs, as well as a significant source of U.S. energy, have been decimated with a flick of Obama’s pen.

Production Pollutants

It’s not just charging electric cars that make them an enemy of the earth. These vehicles still come from traditional manufacturing facilities and are actually responsible for a greater per-vehicle quantity of emissions than traditional vehicles. Before they’ve even set tires to pavement, electric cars have already done more damage than their combustion engine counterparts, with the batteries in electric cars playing a big role in this.

Producing the batteries for electric cars means a lot of mining and environmental damage that you won’t hear admitted by electric vehicle proponents. And when those batteries die, do you think they’ll just disappear into thin air, leaving no impact behind? Of course not. Improper disposal of batteries can create lasting damage in the areas where they’re dumped.

Weight Repercussions

Among car owners, electric vehicles are often praised for needing less maintenance than their traditional counterparts, with owners and mechanics citing various fluid changes and part replacements in this figure. This argument, however, is blatantly false. The tires and brakes on electric vehicles in particular are prone to excess wear, more breakdown, and higher emissions than combustion engine vehicles. This is largely due to the fact that electric vehicles are heavier, putting more strain on tires and belts.

The reality is that in order to propel a non-combustion vehicle, there are a lot of heavy pieces needed, while improvements in the combustion engine in recent years have made traditional vehicles much more efficient than in the past. The breakdown in tires and other car parts also produces a variety of non-exhaust emissions that no one seems willing to admit are a result of choosing electric vehicles.

Exporting Their Pollutants

While liberals in major cities snap up electric vehicles -- which do perform better in cities than in rural areas, though still at a high cost -- they’re also exporting the polluting aspects of their choices to less wealthy areas, forgetting about the little guy who’s affected by their choices. Most of the coal used to fuel these vehicles comes from places where you won’t see many electric vehicles, such as West Virginia. These “environmental externalities” shift out of view, but they don’t go away.

Even if over 40 percent of U.S. drivers shifted to electric vehicles, studies have revealed that this would be an unrealistic approach to reducing pollution and improving air quality. Charging these vehicles would result in higher emissions and greater pollution, and that doesn’t even account for the waste involved in transitioning hundreds of thousands of combustion engine cars off the roads.

Where would all of these vehicles -- many of which now get excellent mileage -- go if they were replaced? Would they just be dumped? Manufacturing would also need to speed up to meet demand, causing massive quantities of emissions as electric vehicle plants enter high production mode. The costs, both fiscally and socially, would be astronomical.

It’s time to put an end to the specious argument for electric vehicles when the bulk of the evidence indicates that they aren’t holding up any part of the environmental savior promise. The reality is that electric vehicles are a pet project of the left with no real advantages for society, carrying with them only greater pollution and individual harm.

Keep your combustion engine vehicle. When everyone else catches on, you’ll know you were on the right side all along.